UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1895
REI-JEU CHANG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES S. MAXWELL; DANIEL S. WILLARD; YUE TIAN;
FLOYD WILLIS, Temporary Trustee,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 00-1900
RICHARD CHANG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES S. MAXWELL; YUE TIAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
00-740-PJM, CA-00-495-PJM)
Submitted: August 28, 2001 Decided: October 1, 2001
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ning Ye, HEMENWAY & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C.; John D. Hemenway,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Brian M. Barke, MAXWELL & CO.,
L.L.C., Rockville, Maryland; Edward J. Hutchins, Jr., Stacey A.
Moffet, ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In appeal No. 00-1895, Rei-Jeu Chang appeals from the district
court’s order abstaining from exercising jurisdiction under the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (1994), to address
Rei-Jeu’s claim of ownership of the stock of Erie Trade Inc. In
appeal No. 00-1900, Richard Chang appeals from the district court’s
orders (1) dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) his complaint
alleging that Yue Tian and James Maxwell engaged in conduct in-
tended to inflict emotional distress upon him, and (2) denying his
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint
appendices, and the district court’s opinions and find no abuse of
discretion and no reversible error. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.,
515 U.S. 277, 286-87 (1995) (holding that district court has broad
discretion to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under §
2201(a)); Harris v. Jones, 380 A.2d 611, 613 (Md. 1977) (setting
forth elements of cause of action for intentional infliction of
emotional distress).
Accordingly, we affirm in both of these appeals on the rea-
soning of the district court. Chang v. Maxwell, No. CA-00-740-PJM
(D. Md. filed June 22, 2000; entered June 23, 2000), and Chang v.
Maxwell, No. CA-00-495-PJM (D. Md. filed Apr. 25, 2000; entered
Apr. 26, 2000 & filed June 1, 2000; entered June 2, 2000). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4