Fidelity v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1599
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland
corporation; SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC, d/b/a Peachtree Settlement
Funding,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
RAPID SETTLEMENTS, LTD.,
Defendant – Appellant,
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY ASSIGNMENT CORPORATION,
Claimant – Appellee,
and
LUCILLE HARROD; BROOKE SCHUMM, III,
Defendants.
No. 08-2303
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland
corporation; SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC, d/b/a Peachtree Settlement
Funding,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
RAPID SETTLEMENTS, LTD.,
Defendant – Appellant,

-- 1 of 3 --

FIDELITY AND GUARANTY ASSIGNMENT CORPORATION,
Claimant – Appellee,
and
LUCILLE HARROD; BROOKE SCHUMM, III,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:05-cv-02732-CCB)
Submitted: July 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stewart A. Feldman, THE FELDMAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P., Houston,
Texas, for Appellant. Elyse L. Strickland, SELZER, GURVITCH,
RABIN & OBECNY, CHTD., Bethesda, Maryland; H. Mark Stichel,
GOHN, HANKEY & STICHEL, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Stephen H.
Kaufman, OFFIT KURMAN, P.A., Owings Mills, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Rapid Settlements, Ltd., appeals from the district
court’s orders enjoining an arbitration proceeding filed by
Rapid Settlements, granting summary judgment against Rapid
Settlements in this interpleader action, imposing sanctions
against Rapid Settlements and its counsel, and denying
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the briefs
filed by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rapid
Settlements, Ltd. v. Settlement Funding, LLC, No. 1:05-cv-02732-
CCB (D. Md. Mar. 6, 2007, Sept. 27, 2007, Apr. 15, 2008, and
filed Oct. 15, 2008; entered Oct. 16, 2008). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --