Anton v. General Electric

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 16, 2000
• Docket: 00-1341
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1341

LOUISE D. ANTON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard J. Anton,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-768-3-17)

Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 16, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael W. Tighe, Demetri K. Koutrakos, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William C. Wood, Jr., NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Louise D. Anton* appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of General Electric and dismissing this

civil action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations,

S.C. Code Ann. § 10-143 (Law Co-op. 1952), and by the equitable

doctrine of laches. Hallums v. Hallums, 371 S.E.2d 525, 528 (S.C.

1988). Anton sued General Electric alleging that the company had

failed to issue him eighty-eight shares of stock as a result of a

three-for-one stock split in 1954. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. The

district court properly concluded that a reasonable person would

have known or should have known of the effect of the 1954 stock

split on her shares long before 1999. See Republic Contracting

Corp. v. South Carolina Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 503

S.E.2d 761, 766 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998). Accordingly, the district

court’s order is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

* Richard J. Anton died during the pendency of this litigation. His personal representative, Louise D. Anton, was substituted as the plaintiff in the action.