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)
09-1220•Instant Tax Service 10060, LLC; Charita Douglas v. TCA FINANCIAL, LLC, a/k/a ITS Financial, LLC, d/b/a Instant Tax Service
09-1220Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 1, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1220
INSTANT TAX SERVICE 10060, LLC; CHARITA DOUGLAS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
TCA FINANCIAL, LLC, a/k/a ITS Financial, LLC, d/b/a Instant
Tax Service,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
FESUM OGBAZION,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:08-cv-02364-PJM)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: June 1, 2010
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald M. Temple, TEMPLE LAW GROUP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellants. Norman M. Leon, DLA PIPER LLP, Chicago, Illinois,
for Appellee.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Instant Tax Service 10060, LLC and Charita Douglas
appeal the district court’s order granting TCA Financial, LLC’s
motion for summary judgment and dismissing Douglas’ claims under
the doctrine of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and
Douglas’ arguments and affirm on the reasoning of the district
court as stated during the hearing on the motion. Douglas v.
TCA Financial, LLC, No. 8:08-cv-02364-PJM (D. Md. filed Jan. 26,
2009; entered Jan. 27, 2009). Furthermore, we find Douglas
waived review of her claims regarding RICO and wrongful
termination because she failed to claim in the district court
that the claims were not barred by res judicata. Holly Hill
Farm Corp. v. United States, 447 F.3d 258, 267 (4th Cir. 2006);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 687 (4th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.