USCA4 Appeal: 20-1927 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/10/2022 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1927

WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS; SAM’S REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

QUARTERFIELD PARTNERS LLC; BL QUARTERFIELD ASSOCIATES LLC; Q.O.P. PROPERTIES LLC; QUARTERFIELD OFFICE PARK LLC,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03664-DLB)

Argued: October 25, 2022 Decided: November 10, 2022

Before KING, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Appeal dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Rignal Woodward Baldwin V, BALDWIN SERAINA, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Tillman J. Breckenridge, BRECKENRIDGE PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Rignal W. Baldwin, Sr., Douglas B. Riley, BALDWIN SERAINA, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Donald A. Rea, Leila F. Parker, SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-1927 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/10/2022 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In this contract dispute, plaintiffs Walmart Real Estate Business Trust (“Walmart”)

and Sam’s Real Estate Business Trust (“Sam’s”) allege that they are entitled to options to

purchase two parcels of real property in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, that they lease

from defendants Quarterfield Partners LLC, BL Quarterfield Associates LLC, Q.O.P.

Properties LLC, and Quarterfield Office Park LLC (collectively, “Quarterfield”). The

action was brought in the District of Maryland, pursuant to the district court’s diversity

jurisdiction. See

(a). By their operative Amended Complaint of February

2019, Walmart and Sam’s seek the following relief under the controlling state law of

Maryland: a declaratory judgment that they are entitled to options to purchase the parcels

and that they timely sought to exercise those options (Count I); an order directing

Quarterfield to sell them the parcels (Count II); and an award of monetary damages of at

least $75,000 (Count III).

After the parties consented to having the district court proceedings conducted by a

magistrate judge, see

(c), Quarterfield moved for summary judgment, and

Walmart and Sam’s moved for partial summary judgment on Counts I and II. By its

Memorandum Opinion and Order of July 2020, the district court denied Quarterfield’s

summary judgment motion and granted the partial summary judgment motion filed by

Walmart and Sam’s. See Walmart Real Est. Bus. Trust v. Quarterfield Partners LLC, No.

1:18-cv-03664 (D. Md. July 10, 2020), ECF Nos. 67 & 68. In so doing, the court applied

settled principles of Maryland law to interpret the particular terms of the leases at issue.

At Quarterfield’s unopposed request, the court subsequently entered an Amended Order

2 USCA4 Appeal: 20-1927 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/10/2022 Pg: 3 of 4

that certified this interlocutory appeal pursuant to

(b) from the summary

judgment award on Counts I and II, and that stayed further proceedings on the still-pending

Count III. See Walmart Real Est. Bus. Trust v. Quarterfield Partners LLC, No. 1:18-cv-

03664 (D. Md. July 23, 2020), ECF No. 71.

Again without opposition from Walmart and Sam’s, Quarterfield subsequently

sought our Court’s permission to pursue this interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b). We

granted such permission in August 2020. As explained herein, however, we now recognize

upon further consideration that the permission to appeal was improvidently granted.

In order to satisfy the demands of § 1292(b), the order being reviewed must

“involve[] a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for

difference of opinion,” and “an immediate appeal from the order [must promise to]

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” See

(b).

We have cautioned that Ҥ 1292(b) should be used sparingly and thus its requirements must

be strictly construed.” See United States ex rel. Michaels v. Agape Senior Cmty., Inc.,

(4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Myles v. Laffitte,

(4th Cir. 1989)).

Although “it may be proper to conduct an interlocutory review of an order presenting a

pure question of law” that can be decided “quickly and cleanly,” there is no authorization

for such a review if the court of appeals would have “to delve beyond the surface of the

record in order to determine the facts.” Id. at 340-41 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Consequently, Ҥ 1292(b) review is not appropriate where . . . the question presented turns

on whether there is a genuine issue of fact or whether the district court properly applied

3 USCA4 Appeal: 20-1927 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/10/2022 Pg: 4 of 4

settled law to the facts or evidence of a particular case.” Id. at 341 (internal quotation

marks omitted).

As stated above, in granting partial summary judgment to Walmart and Sam’s, the

district court simply applied settled principles of Maryland law to interpret the particular

terms of the leases at issue. Moreover, the court’s Amended Order certifying this

interlocutory appeal merely recites the § 1292(b) standard without specifying any

“controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of

opinion.” Meanwhile, as argued by Quarterfield, the appeal concerns whether the court

misinterpreted the leases, and not whether the court misconstrued Maryland law. In these

circumstances, we recognize that the permission to appeal under § 1292(b) was

improvidently granted, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED

4