Pugh v. CB&I AREVA MOX

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Edward Pugh, Appellant,

v.

CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC and Globalpundits
Technology Consultancy, LLC, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002321

Appeal From Aiken County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-260
Submitted June 1, 2019 – Filed July 17, 2019

AFFIRMED

Edward Pugh, of Seneca, pro se.

Michael D. Carrouth and Benjamin Patrick James Dudek,
both of Fisher & Phillips, LLP, of Columbia, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Kinghorn as ex rel. Mildred Ann Kinghorn Tr., dated 28 April 2004 v.
Sakakini, 426 S.C. 147, 152, 825 S.E.2d 748, 750 (Ct. App. 2019) ("It has long
been the policy of the court to encourage settlement in lieu of litigation, and courts
have usually enforced settlement agreements." (quoting Rock Smith Chevrolet, Inc.
v. Smith, 309 S.C. 91, 93, 419 S.E.2d 841, 842 (Ct. App. 1992))); Rule 43(k),
SCRCP ("No agreement between counsel affecting the proceedings in an action
shall be binding unless . . . reduced to writing and signed by the parties and their
counsel.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.