Lisa Saparoff v. Old Waterloo Equine Clinic, Incorporated; Helen M. Poland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1864
LISA SAPAROFF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OLD WATERLOO EQUINE CLINIC, INCORPORATED; HELEN M. POLAND,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
HATTON HILLS FARM, LLC,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00668-AJT-JFA)
Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Lisa Saparoff, Appellant Pro Se. John D. McGavin, BANCROFT,
MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellees.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Lisa Saparoff appeals the district court’s orders
denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) motion for partial summary
judgment and granting Old Waterloo Equine Clinic, Inc.’s, Fed.
R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law. Having
reviewed the record, we affirm the district court’s order
denying Saparoff’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss the
appeal of the district court’s entry of judgment.
We review de novo a district court’s denial of a
motion for summary judgment, “viewing the facts and the
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.” Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d
291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment shall be granted “if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). If the moving party
sufficiently supports its motion for summary judgment, the
nonmoving party must demonstrate “that there are genuine issues
of material fact.” Emmett, 532 F.3d at 297.
To establish her claim of fraud under Virginia law,
Saparoff was required to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that: (1) Old Waterloo intentionally and knowingly made
a false representation of material fact with the intent to
mislead her; (2) she relied on the misrepresentation; and (3)

-- 3 of 5 --

4
she suffered damage as a result. Bank of Montreal v. Signet
Bank, 193 F.3d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1999); Cohn v. Knowledge
Connections, Inc., 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (Va. 2003). To prevail
on her claim of constructive fraud, Saparoff was required to
produce clear and convincing evidence that Old Waterloo
negligently made a false representation of a material fact, and
that she suffered damage as a result of her reasonable reliance
on the misrepresentation. Bank of Montreal, 193 F.3d at 826-27;
Richmond Metro. Auth. v. McDevitt St. Bovis, Inc., 507 S.E.2d
344, 347 (Va. 1998).
Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the
evidence before the district court on Saparoff’s Rule 56(a)
motion was insufficient to establish her claims as a matter of
law. Although we agree with Saparoff that certain facts were
not in dispute, numerous conflicting allegations of material
fact remained. Accordingly, and considering that determinations
of intent, reasonableness, and reliance are often inappropriate
for resolution by summary judgment, we find that the district
court did not err in declining to grant summary judgment on
either of Saparoff’s fraud claims. See Gen. Analytics Corp. v.
CNA Ins. Cos., 86 F.3d 51, 54 (4th Cir. 1996); Miller v. Premier
Corp., 608 F.2d 973, 982 (4th Cir. 1979).
Furthermore, we find that Saparoff has waived review
of the district court’s order granting Old Waterloo’s Rule 50

-- 4 of 5 --

5
motion. Under Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2), where an appellant
intends to urge on appeal that “a finding or conclusion is
unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence,” it
is the appellant’s responsibility to include in the record a
transcript of “all evidence relevant to that finding or
conclusion.” An appellant’s failure to file the necessary
transcripts is grounds for dismissal of the appeal. Powell v.
Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam),
abrogation on other grounds recognized by Diaz v. Collins, 114
F.3d 69, 72 (5th Cir. 1997); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty.,
827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). Because Saparoff has
failed to provide the necessary transcript of the trial
proceedings before the district court, we dismiss Saparoff’s
appeal of the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of Old
Waterloo.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 5 of 5 --