The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-2091•Moog, Incorporated v. Stepan V. Lunin
07-2091Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 25, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2091
MOOG, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPAN V. LUNIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00238-RBS)
Submitted: June 25, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stepan V. Lunin, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin M. Kearney, HODGSON,
RUSS, ANDREWS, WOODS & GOODYEAR, Buffalo, New York; Robert W.
McFarland, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Stepan V. Lunin appeals the district court’s order
granting Moog, Inc.’s (“Moog”) motion for summary judgment and
converting the preliminary injunction previously entered against
Lunin into a permanent injunction. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and find the district court did not err in granting Moog
summary judgment, or abuse its discretion in ordering the permanent
injunction. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Moog, Inc. v. Lunin, No. 2:06-cv-00238-RBS
(E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2007).
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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.