Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Schmidt v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order confirming an arbitration award and awarding attorneys' fees and expenses in favor of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. in a dispute with Harald Schmidt. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its April 10, 2009 opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Schmidt v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order confirming an arbitration award and awarding attorneys' fees and expenses in favor of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. in a dispute with Harald Schmidt. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its April 10, 2009 opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-03-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-1607

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order confirming an arbitration award and awarding attorneys' fees and expenses in favor of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. in a dispute with Harald Schmidt. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its April 10, 2009 opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    13 views2 pages

    Schmidt v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order confirming an arbitration award and awarding attorneys' fees and expenses in favor of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. in a dispute with Harald Schmidt. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its April 10, 2009 opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-1607

    HARALD SCHMIDT,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A.,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (1:08-cv-00165-JCC-JFA)

    Submitted:

    February 8, 2010

    Decided:

    March 9, 2010

    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Harald Schmidt, Appellant Pro Se.


    Laura Metcoff
    GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

    Klaus,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Harald
    inter

    alia,

    attorneys

    error.

    confirming

    fees

    Dakota) N.A.

    Schmidt

    and

    appeals
    an

    the

    district

    arbitration

    expenses

    in

    favor

    courts

    award
    of

    and

    Citibank

    order,

    awarding
    (South

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    Schmidt v. Citibank, No. 1:08-cv-00165-JCC-JFA

    (E.D.

    10,

    Va.

    Apr.

    2009).

    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

    You might also like