IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50795
HARLAN D. VANDER ZEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STONE OAK BANKSHARES, INC., ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(93-CV-184)
May 19, 1997
Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harlan D. Vander Zee (“Vander Zee”) filed suit against Stone Oak Bankshares, Inc. and
Stone Oak National Bank (“Stone Oak”), and their liability carrier, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland (“F & D”), for various claims including breach of contract, conspiracy and intentional
infliction of emotional distress related to Vander Zee’s indictment on money laundering charges while
he was employed as an executive vice-president of Stone Oak National Bank in San Antonio, Texas.
Among the claims Vander Zee asserted, were claims that Stone Oak breached an oral contract by not
rehiring him after the money laundering litigation was over, and that Stone Oak breached a contract
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
to pay his criminal attorney’s fees incurred defending the money laundering charges. Before the case
was submitted to the jury, the district court granted Stone Oak’s and F & D’s motion for summary
judgment and motion for directed verdict, dismissing the conspiracy claims and intentional infliction
of emotional distress claims. The breach of contract claims were submitted to a jury, which found that
Stone Oak had breached contractual promises to Vander Zee and proximately caused him $293,750
in damages. Stone Oak moved for a judgment N.O.V.1 The court granted the motion in part, entering
a take-nothing verdict on Vander Zee’s re-employment claim and his claim for attorney’s fees in
bringing this action. The court awarded Vander Zee $43,750 in breach of contract damages on his
criminal attorney’s fees claim, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
On appeal, Vander Zee makes several arguments, some of which are not relevant to this
appeal. The issues pertinent to this appeal are Vander Zee’s claims that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment and a directed verdict on the conspiracy and intentional infliction of
emotional distress claims, and erred in entering a judgment N.O.V. on the contract claims. After
carefully reviewing the briefs and the record, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in
its memorandum order. See Vander Zee v. Stone Oak National Bank, et al., No. A-94-CA-020-SS
(W.D.Tex. Oct. 5, 1995).
AFFIRMED.
1
The Court is aware that pursuant to a 1991 amendment, a judgment N.O.V. is now renamed as
a judgment as a matter of law, but for purposes of consistency we utilize the terms used by the
parties. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50.
2