The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-2490•Romeril Appraisal Group, Incorporated v. STEVENS REAL ESTATE, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Cold- well Banker Stevens Realtors
00-2490Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 10, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2490
ROMERIL APPRAISAL GROUP, INCORPORATED; JEAN
ROMERIL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
STEVENS REAL ESTATE, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Cold-
well Banker Stevens Realtors; ANTHONY GIGLIO;
DANIEL BOWES; LISA YARNELL-KRAUSS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PRINCE WILLIAM ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INCOR-
PORATED; THOMAS MORCOM; WILLARD GALBRAITH,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-00-627-A)
Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: September 10, 2001
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and Irene M. KEELEY,
Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of
West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Thomas O. Mason, Rachel L. Smith, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK &
DOBBINS, McLean, Virginia; James S. DelSordo, Manassas, Virginia,
for Appellants. Douglas M. Coleman, David S. Panzer, CARTER &
COLEMAN, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Romeril Appraisal Group Inc. and Jean Romeril appeal the dis-
trict court’s orders dismissing their civil action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), denying their Motion to Reconsider filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and denying their Motion for
Leave to Amend filed in conjunction with the Motion to Reconsider.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. See Romeril Appraisal Group, Inc. v. Stevens
Real Estate, Inc., No. CA-00-627-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 12, 2000). We
dispense with 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.