Prod-Xdistributors, Incorporated v. Capitol Resource Funding, Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1034
PROD-X DISTRIBUTORS, INCORPORATED; NASIR M.
KHAN, a/k/a David Khan,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CAPITOL RESOURCE FUNDING, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-03-1065-1)
Submitted: September 1, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and Glen E.
CONRAD, United States District Judge for the Western District of
Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed in part and stayed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Scott M. Behren, Shawn L. Michaelson, WALDMAN, FELUREN, HILDEBRANDT
& TRIGOBOFF, P.A., Weston, Florida, for Appellants. Stephen M.
Seeger, Julie Quagliano, QUAGLIANO & SEEGER, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* Because Plaintiffs’ breach of paragraph three of the
repayment agreement was a material breach of the contract that
excused Defendant’s performance under the contract, we need not
consider the alternative grounds provided by the district court for
excusing Defendant’s performance.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs Prod-X Distributors, Inc. (“Prod-X”) and Nasir
M. Khan appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their
breach of contract claim and entering judgment in favor of
Defendant Capitol Resource Funding, Inc. on its counterclaim for
breach of contract. With respect to the district court’s dismissal
of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim and the district court’s
judgment in favor of Defendant on its counterclaims against Khan,
we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Prod-X Distribs., Inc. v. Capitol Res. Funding, Inc., No. CA-03-
1065-1 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 26, 2003 & entered Dec. 4, 2003).
However, because Prod-X has filed a bankruptcy petition, we stay
the appeal of the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendant
on its counterclaim against Prod-X. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2000).
We deny Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and Khan’s emergency
motion to stay enforcement of the contract and to stay the
bankruptcy proceeding. We deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss but
grant Defendant’s motion to submit the case on briefs. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND STAYED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --