Verandah Salon Inc, et al v. Crow-Brighton No 18,

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________
No. 03-11338
____________
VERANDAH SALON, INC; FAROUK SIDHOM,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,
versus
CROW-BRIGHTON NO 18 LTD; WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL
INC; ANATOLE PARTNERS II LP; ANATOLE PARTNERS
INDEPENDENT CORP; WYNDHAM MANAGEMENT CORP;
ANATOLE PARTNERS,
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:02-CV-1549-K
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs Verandah Salon, Inc. and Farouk Sidhom (“Sidhom”) appeal the district court’s order
granting summary judgment. Crow-Brighton No. 18, Ltd., Wyndham International, Inc., Anatole

-- 1 of 2 --

Part ners II, LP, Anatole Partners Independent Corp., Wyndham Management Corp., and Anatole
Partners (collectively, “Defendants”) cross appeal, claiming that the district court erred by denying
attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs. Verandah Salon, Inc. and Sidhom claim that the Defendants
terminated a lease with Verandah Salon and otherwise discriminated against Verandah Salon because
Sidhom is Egyptian. They claim three trial court errors: (1) the granting of summary judgment as to
discrimination and retaliation claims; (2) the granting of summary judgment as to tortious interference
with contract claim; and (3) the granting summary judgment as to breach of contract claim. Having
fully considered the arguments of counsel as advanced in briefs and oral argument, and having
carefully reviewed the record on appeal, we find that there was no fact issue supporting (1) a
discrimination or retaliation claim; (2) a tortious interference with contract or with prospective
business relationship claim; or (3) a breach of contract claim. We also find that the district court
properly denied the Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs.
The judgment, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --