Memory Film Productions v. Schindley

356 F. App'x 556

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: December 16, 2009
• Docket: 08-4607-cv
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant Wanda Schind-ley (“Schindley”), pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order of September 5, 2008 denying her motion for summary judgment and partially granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-Counter-Claimants-Defendants-Appellees Memory Film Productions, Aleksandar Mosic, Jase-novac Research Institute, Inc. (“JRI”), and Antun Miletic (together, “plaintiffs”) in plaintiffs’ action seeking injunctive relief against Schindley for her alleged unlawful taking of JRI’s corporate opportunity to publish a book covering a conference held at Kingsborough Community College on the Jasenovac Concentration Camps. Schindley also opposes a February 8, 2009 order denying her motions for reconsideration and for Rule 11(b) sanctions, as well as the District Court’s entry of a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment and, in the course of that review, we resolve ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See, e.g., Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2008); Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999). We will affirm the grant of summary judgment by the District Court if the record indicates “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Pilgrim v. Luther, 571 F.3d 201, 204 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Schindley’s central contention on appeal is that the District Court erred in concluding that Schindley owed and breached a fiduciary duty to JRI and, accordingly, in entering a permanent injunction as a remedy. Substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough, well-reasoned order of September 5, 2008, Appellee’s App’x at 186-191, we agree with the District Court that Schindley owed a fiduciary duty to JRI and breached that duty by writing and attempting to publish a book covering the material from the Kingsborough Community College conference. Accordingly, we also conclude that the District Court did not err in ordering a permanent injunction as a remedy for Schindley’s breach of duty.

We have considered Schindley’s other arguments and find them to be either moot or without merit. For these reasons we agree with the conclusions set forth in the District Court’s orders of September 5, 2008 and an February 3, 2009. See Appel-lee’s App’x at 186-191.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.