Jack J. GRYNBERG, Grynberg Production Corporation (Texas), Inc., Grynberg Production Corporation (Colorado), Inc., and Pricaspian Development Corporation (Texas), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BP, P.L.C., d/b/a BP Corporation North America, Inc., a foreign corporation, individually and as the successor in interest to ARCO International Oil and Gas Company, Defendant-Appellee, 469 F. App'x 5

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff Jack J. Grynberg and the corporate plaintiffs have sued defendant BP, P.L.C., an oil company whose predecessor in interest is ARCO International Oil and Gas Company (“ARCO”), for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs maintain that Grynberg, an oil and gas expert, shared secret Russian and Kazakh oil data with ARCO in 1990, and that ARCO later used that data to its own benefit despite a fiduciary obligation not to. The district court granted defendant’s motion for

summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that the factual record failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether ARCO used Grynb'erg’s allegedly confidential information or whether the use of such information caused ARCO to benefit unjustly. “We review de novo the district court’s grant of

summary judgment, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” E.g., Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.2008). “Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). Upon an independent review of the record and the arguments of counsel, we affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and careful opinion, the grant of

summary judgment to the defendant. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.