Unpublished Dispositionpinehurst Enterprises, Inc.; Pinehurst Water Company;pinehurst Sanitary Company, North Carolinacorporations, Plaintiffs-appellants. v. the Town of Southern Pines, a North Carolina Municipalcorporation; the Council of the Town of Southern Pines,north Carolina, the Governing Body of the Town of Southernpines, Including All Members of the Council of the Town Ofsouthern Pines in Their Official Capacities; Jane Clark, Inher Capacity As Mayor of the Town of Southern Pines;william Coleman, in His Capacity As Town Manager of the Townof Southern Pines, Defendants-appellees, 887 F.2d 1080 (4th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 887 F.2d 1080 (4th Cir. 1989) Argued: Feb. 8, 1989. Decided: Sept. 28, 1989

Edward Smoot Finley, David Frankman Peters (Alaine Y. Miller, Sondra J. Tomlinson, Hunton & Williams, on brief), for appellants.

Gusti W. Frankel (Roddey M. Ligon, Jr., Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice; W. Lamont Brown, Brown, Robbins, May, Pate, Rich, Scarborough & Burke, on brief), for appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge, and N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:


This matter involves a dispute between public utilities regarding who is to provide water and sewer services to an area annexed within the boundaries of the town of Southern Pines. Plaintiff-Appellant Pinehurst Enterprises, Inc.'s complaint alleged claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and Sec. 2, as well as under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 7 U.S.C. § 1926, and a variety of pendent state claims. The district court, in an opinion reported at 690 F. Supp. 444 (M.D.N.C. 1988), dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, granted summary judgement against Pinehurst Enterprises, Inc. on the remaining federal claims and dismissed the state claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction.

We agree with the district court's treatment of the issues and affirm for the reasons set out in its opinion.

AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.