Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

LGD Properties, Incorporated v. Seis Lagos Utility, 15-40822 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 15-40822 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 15-40822 Document: 00513585862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-40822 FILED July 11, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LGD PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus SEIS LAGOS UTILITY DISTRICT; SEIS LAGOS COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; ROLANDO RAMON; LISA JONES, Defendants–Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas US
More
Case: 15-40822 Document: 00513585862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-40822 FILED July 11, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LGD PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus SEIS LAGOS UTILITY DISTRICT; SEIS LAGOS COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; ROLANDO RAMON; LISA JONES, Defendants–Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CV-4 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In a dispute that began with a disagreement over the elevation of a * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 15-40822 Document: 00513585862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 No. 15-40822 culvert, a contractor sued a utility district, a homeowners’ association, and two private persons in state court. When federal constitutional claims were added, the matter was removed to federal court. Sixteen months later, after ample discovery and numerous pleadings, the district court issued a sufficiently com- prehensive order, addressing the pertinent issues, that granted summary judg- ment for the defendants on all the federal claims and remanded to state court on any remaining claims under state law. We have examined the briefs and pertinent portions of the record, have reviewed the applicable law, and have heard the arguments of counsel. The plaintiff has not shown any federal constitutional violation or any other action- able wrong. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons ably stated by the district court. The appellant’s motion to strike is DENIED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer