Elisabeth Lenes v. Loral Langemeier, No. 11-1012 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1012 ELISABETH LENES; STEVEN LENES, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. LORAL LANGEMEIER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cv-00316-CWH) Submitted: July 25, 2011 Before KING and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 29, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Mark Phillips, William C. Wood, Jr., Erin R. Stuckey, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH. LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; J. Mitchell Little, SCHEEF & STONE, LLP, Frisco, Texas, for Appellant. Guy M. Burns, Jonathan S. Coleman, JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP, Tampa, Florida; James C. Bradley, Nina H. Fields, RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Loral denying her diversity Langemeier motion action. appeals to compel We have the district arbitration reviewed the in court s the record order underlying included on appeal, as well as the parties briefs, and find no error in the district court s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm. See Am. Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, 96 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that whether a party has agreed to arbitrate an issue is a matter of contract interpretation: [A] party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. ) (citations omitted). We deny the Appellees motion to file a sur-reply brief and to schedule oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.