From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vey v. Williams

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 19, 2002
38 F. App'x 465 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion


38 Fed.Appx. 465 (9th Cir. 2002) David VEY; Vey Development, Inc.; Richard T. Hartley; Hartley-Vey West LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald WILLIAMS; Palo Alto Town and Country Village, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 01-55702. D.C. No. CV-00-01145-BTM. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 19, 2002

Argued and Submitted June 5, 2002.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

David Vey, Vey Development, Inc., Richard T. Hartley and Hartley-Vey West LLC (collectively Vey) appeal the district court's decision, which affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court that a breach of contract by Ronald Williams and Palo Alto Town and Country Village, Inc., (collectively Williams), was not the cause of any damages to Vey. We affirm.

The parties do not dispute that there was a contract and that it was breached by Williams.

In its cogent "Order Affirming Bankruptcy Court's Order Denying Claim of David Vey, Vey Development, Inc., Richard T. Hartley, and Hartley-Vey West LLC," dated March 21, 2001, the district court determined that the bankruptcy court did not err when it decided that the breach of contract was not the cause of any damages to Vey. We agree and adopt that order as our own.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Vey v. Williams

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 19, 2002
38 F. App'x 465 (9th Cir. 2002)
Case details for

Vey v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:David VEY; Vey Development, Inc.; Richard T. Hartley; Hartley-Vey West…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 19, 2002

Citations

38 F. App'x 465 (9th Cir. 2002)