PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1617

REMY HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00021-EKD-JCH)

Argued: October 25, 2023 Decided: January 3, 2024

Before AGEE, WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the opinion in which Judge Wynn and Judge Richardson joined.

ARGUED: David Wayne Hearn, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Matthew D. Green, Karissa T. Kaseorg, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Ryan D. Frei, Lyle D. Kossis, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1617 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 32

AGEE, Circuit Judge:

This appeal centers on the relationship between a manufacturer and a distributor of

rotating electrical parts—specifically, starters and alternators—and their disagreement as

to who owned the “core value” of thousands of finished parts when their relationship ended.

For years, USA Industries (“USA”) harmoniously sold automotive parts to Fisher

Auto Parts, Inc. (“Fisher”) pursuant to numerous agreements. Remy Holdings

International, LLC (“Remy”) then bought USA and continued the relationship with Fisher

under USA’s existing agreements as well as a few additional ones. In time, Remy began to

struggle to meet its contractual obligations. Fisher complained and invoked certain

contractually available penalties but continued the parties’ relationship for over a year.

Eventually, however, Fisher terminated the relationship and began working with a different

manufacturer. As part of the new arrangement, Fisher sold all of Fisher’s core inventory to

that manufacturer. Contending that Fisher wrongfully terminated their agreement and

Fisher’s core inventory belonged to it, Remy brought this action, claiming breaches of

contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Fisher filed a counterclaim for breach of

contract due to Remy’s poor performance.

Although the claims were disposed of at different procedural postures, all claims

were resolved in Fisher’s favor. The district court granted summary judgment to Fisher on

Remy’s breach of contract claims and unjust enrichment claim. It also granted summary

judgment to Fisher, concluding that Remy was liable on Fisher’s breach of contract claim.

Remy’s conversion claim and the damages determination for Fisher’s breach of contract

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1617 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 3 of 32

claim then proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Fisher on the

conversion claim and awarded Fisher $1,816,277 in damages for its claim.

Remy timely appeals, challenging aspects of the district court’s evidentiary,

summary judgment, and trial decisions. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I.

A.

To understand the parties’ disagreement, some general knowledge about the

relevant industry is necessary.

Although a dea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document