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)
17-1347•Del Webb Communities, Inc.; Pultegroup, Incorporated v. Roger F. Carlson; Mary Jo Carlson
17-1347Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 13, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1347
DEL WEBB COMMUNITIES, INC.; PULTEGROUP, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ROGER F. CARLSON; MARY JO CARLSON,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (9:14-cv-01877-PMD)
Submitted: September 26, 2017 Decided: October 13, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Jefferson Leath, Jr., Michael S. Seekings, LEATH BOUCH & SEEKINGS, LLP,
Charleston, South Carolina; Phillip Ward Segui, Jr., SEGUI LAW FIRM, PC, Mt. Pleasant,
South Carolina, for Appellants. Robert L. Widener, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A.,
Columbia, South Carolina; A. Victor Rawl, Jr., Henry W. Frampton, IV, MCNAIR LAW
FIRM, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Roger and Mary Jo Carlson (“Carlsons”) appeal the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Del Webb Communities, Inc., and its parent company, PulteGroup
(together “Pulte”). We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Pulte de
novo. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Shiv Hosp., LLC, 491 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2007). We
have considered the record and the Carlsons’ appellate arguments and affirm for the
reasons cited by the district court. Del Webb v. Carlson, No. 9:14-cv-01877-PMD (D.S.C.
Feb. 1, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.