Patel v. Patel

• Decision Date: 07 December 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-UP-428,Appellate Case 2020-001385
• Parties: Anjay Patel, Appellant, v. Bhavesh Patel and John Doe, Respondents.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Anjay Patel, Appellant,
v.
Bhavesh Patel and John Doe, Respondents.

No. 2022-UP-428

Appellate Case No. 2020-001385

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

December 7, 2022

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted November 1, 2022

Appeal From Spartanburg County R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge

John Clifford Strickland, of Strickland Law Firm, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Robert Jamison Tinsley, Jr., of Tinsley & Tinsley, P.C., of Greenwood, for Respondent Bhavesh Patel.

PER CURIAM:

Anjay Patel appeals the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Bhavesh Patel on Anjay's claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the duty of care to a limited liability company and its member, breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, and quantum meruit arising from Bhavesh allegedly expelling him from SIA Investments, LLC

1

(SIA). The circuit court held Anjay lacked standing to assert these claims because he forfeited his interest in SIA to the United States of America. On appeal, Anjay argues the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because (1) it failed to properly interpret the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia to find that he lacked standing, (2) genuine issues of material fact existed, and (3) discovery was ongoing and Anjay had not been afforded the opportunity to fully conduct discovery. We affirm.

As to questions one and two, we hold the circuit court did not err in granting Bhavesh summary judgment because Anjay did not have standing to bring his claims. See Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 122, 708 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2011) ("Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and discovery on file show there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party must prevail as a matter of law."); id. ("When determining if any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." (quoting Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493-94, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002))); Hancock v. Mid-South Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 330, 673 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2009) ("[I]n cases applying the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof, the non-moving party is only required to submit a mere scintilla of evidence in order...