AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. v. Thomas Tanase

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 1, 2025
• Docket: 25-1546
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1546 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1546

AMF BOWLING CENTERS, INC.; BOWLERO CORP.,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

THOMAS TANASE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:23-cv-00448-HEH-MRC)

Submitted: June 27, 2025 Decided: August 1, 2025

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Tanase, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Talegaonkar, KAUFMAN & CONOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1546 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Tanase appeals the district court’s judgment entered in favor of AMF

Bowling Centers, Inc., and Bowlero Corp. (together, “Bowlero”), which awarded Bowlero

permanent injunctive relief and $1,161,723.52 in damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Tanase’s informal brief, we discern

no reversible error. * See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir.

2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our

review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Tanase’s

motion to stay the district court’s judgment and affirm. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc. v. Tanase,

No. 3:23-cv-00448-HEH-MRC (E.D. Va., Apr. 16, 2025). 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

* Tanase’s arguments in his informal brief challenge only the district court’s June 13, 2024, order granting Bowlero’s motion for summary judgment and amended motion for sanctions. As to that order, we conclude that the district court properly awarded summary judgment to Bowlero on all its claims and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a default judgment and other sanctions against Tanase based on his misconduct in this case, which the district court found included committing perjury and doctoring evidence. See Smith v. Devine, 126 F.4th 331, 342 (4th Cir. 2025) (specifying factors district court should consider before awarding default judgment as sanction); Harvey v. Cable News Network, Inc., 48 F.4th 257, 276 (4th Cir. 2022) (describing standard of review for district court’s exercise of its inherent authority to sanction litigant); Gordon v. Schilling, 937 F.3d 348, 356 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining standard of review for summary judgment order). Because Tanase’s arguments in his informal brief do not contest the correctness of the district court’s other orders entered in this case, including its April 16, 2025, order awarding damages, he has forfeited appellate review of those orders.