Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

GRADILLAS COURT REPORTERS, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHERRY BEKAERT, LLP, Defendant - Appellee, Does 1 through 50; Sara Crabtree, Defendants.

No. 19-1098

Decided: March 31, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Don Howarth, Suzelle Moss Smith, HOWARTH & SMITH, Los Angeles, California, for Appellant. Kevin M. Murphy, J. Peter Glaws, IV, CARR MALONEY P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Gradillas Court Reporters, Inc., appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Cherry Bekaert, LLP on Gradillas’ claims of breach of contract and professional negligence. We ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of whether complete diversity existed between the parties such that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2018), and this briefing has now been completed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (2018), jurisdictional pleading defects may be cured in the district court or on appeal. In accordance with this statute, Cherry Bekaert has moved to supplement the record with affidavits attesting to the citizenship of its partners and to amend the notice of removal to reflect this information. After reviewing the parties’ submissions relative to this motion, we grant Cherry Bekaert's motion to supplement the record and motion to amend the notice of removal.

We have reviewed the record as supplemented and find neither a jurisdictional defect in the record nor any reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gradillas Court Reporters, Inc. v. Cherry Bekaert, LLP, No. 2:17-cv-00597-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va. Dec. 17, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard