UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1904
SHEE ATIKA LANGUAGES, LLC, a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Alaska with its
principal place of business in Sitka, Alaska; THE SHEE
ATIKA LANGUAGES, LLC, LIQUIDATING TRUST, a trust organized
under the laws of the State of Alaska with its principal
place of business in Sitka, Alaska,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
GLOBAL LINGUIST SOLUTIONS, LLC, a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Falls Church, Virginia,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00850-LMB-TRJ)
Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: May 5, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Lockerby, Brian J. Kapatkin, Erik F. Benny, FOLEY &
LARDNER LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellants. John S. Pachter,
Jennifer A. Mahar, Edmund M. Amorosi, Todd M. Garland, Zachary
D. Prince, SMITH PACHTER MCWHORTER PLC, Tysons Corner, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Shee Atika Languages, LLC, and The Shee Atika
Languages, LLC, Liquidating Trust, appeal the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to Appellee in their civil
action. On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court
erred by improperly interpreting various provisions of their
contract with Appellee and by ignoring the contract’s plain
language and instead relying on extrinsic evidence. We affirm.
We review whether a district court erred in granting
summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as
the district court and viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes,
LLC, 775 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2014). The district court must
enter summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will
bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there
is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.,
LTD. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “The nonmoving party cannot create a
genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the
3
building of one inference upon another.” Othentec Ltd. v.
Phelan, 526 F.3d 135, 140 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we
conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment to Appellee. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Shee Atika Languages, LLC v.
Global Linguist Solutions, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-00850-LMB-TRJ (E.D.
Va. Aug. 4, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4