County Commissioners of Charles County, Maryland v. Panda-Brandywine, L.p.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2238
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PANDA-BRANDYWINE, L.P.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:08-cv-03369-AW)
Argued: October 28, 2010 Decided: November 17, 2010
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: William James Murphy, MURPHY & SHAFFER, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Kurt James Fischer, DLA PIPER US LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert T. Shaffer,
III, Daniel P. Moylan, MURPHY & SHAFFER, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Roger Lee Fink, County Attorney,
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY, La Plata, Maryland;
Melissa L. Mackiewicz, DLA PIPER US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
On November 10, 2008, the County Commissioners of Charles
County, Maryland (the County) filed a petition for declaratory
judgment in the Circuit Court for Charles County, Maryland. In
its petition, the County sought a judicial declaration of the
rights of Panda-Brandywine, L.P. (Panda Energy) under a “Treated
Effluent Water Purchase Agreement” (the Agreement) entered into
by the parties. Following removal to the district court, Panda
Energy filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, which the district court denied.
On August 21, 2009, the parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. Following a hearing, the district court
granted the County’s motion for summary judgment and denied
Panda Energy’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Panda Energy
noted a timely appeal.
Having reviewed and considered the record, briefs, oral
arguments, and applicable law, we are persuaded that the
district court reached the correct result on both the
jurisdictional issue and on the merits. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment based substantially on the
reasoning set forth in the district court’s careful and thorough
opinions. See County Comm’rs of Charles County v. Panda-
Brandywine, L.P., No. 8:08-cv-03369-AW (D. Md. May 26, 2009);

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
County Comm’rs of Charles County, Md. v. Panda-Brandywine, L.P.,
663 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D. Md. 2009).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --