Avalonbay Communities, Incorporated v. San Jose Water Conservation Corporation; Michael P. Schroll

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1504
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAN JOSE WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION; MICHAEL P. SCHROLL,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:07-cv-00306-GBL-TRJ)
Submitted: April 28, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2009
Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and Malcolm J. HOWARD,
Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter D. Greenspun, Christie A. Leary, GREENSPUN, DAVIS & LEARY,
P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Cynthia E. Rodgers-
Waire, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
San Jose Water Conservation Corporation and Michael P.
Schroll (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal a judgment in favor
of AvalonBay Communities, Inc., in AvalonBay’s action arising
out of a fraudulent scheme executed by Schroll and San Jose.
Appellants argue that the district court erred in denying
their motion to stay the case during the criminal investigation
of the case’s underlying facts and in not joining alleged co-
tortfeasor James Willden as a defendant. We disagree for the
reasons stated by the district court. See AvalonBay Comtys.,
Inc. v. San Jose Water Conservation Corp., 2007 WL 2481291 (E.D.
Va. 2007) (denial of motion to stay); J.A. 663-64 (denial of
Schroll’s motion for reconsideration). Appellants also argue
that the district court erred in drawing adverse inferences from
Schroll’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights and in
piercing San Jose’s corporate veil. However, as the district
court explained, it took neither of those actions.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --