Yang v. Lee

Fourth Circuit

Yang v. Lee

32 F. App'x 112

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 2002

Docket01-2169

StatusUnpublished

This text of 32 F. App'x 112 (Yang v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yang v. Lee, 32 F. App'x 112 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Edward and Helen Bao Hong Yang (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint against Holden Lee in their action for intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, defamation, extortion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm.

We review a district court’s Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to *113 state a claim upon which relief may be granted de novo. Flood v. New Hanover County, 125 F.3d 249,.251 (4th Cir.1997). In considering a motion to dismiss, we accept the complainant’s well-pleaded allegations as true and view the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130,1134 (4th Cir.1993).

With these standards in mind, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint based upon the reasoning of its memorandum opinion. See Yang v. Lee, 163 F.Supp.2d 554 (D.Md.2001). We also deny Lee’s motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Edward and Helen Bao Hong Yang (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint against Holden Lee in their action for intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, defamation, extortion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm.

We review a district court’s Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to *113 state a claim upon which relief may be granted de novo. Flood v. New Hanover County, 125 F.3d 249,.251 (4th Cir.1997). In considering a motion to dismiss, we accept the complainant’s well-pleaded allegations as true and view the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130,1134 (4th Cir.1993).

With these standards in mind, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint based upon the reasoning of its memorandum opinion. See Yang v. Lee, 163 F.Supp.2d 554 (D.Md.2001). We also deny Lee’s motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. App'x 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yang-v-lee-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack