Lenes v. Langemeier

Fourth Circuit

Lenes v. Langemeier

441 F. App'x 208

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 2011

DocketNo. 11-1012

StatusPublished

This text of 441 F. App'x 208 (Lenes v. Langemeier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lenes v. Langemeier, 441 F. App'x 208 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Loral Langemeier appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to compel arbitration in the underlying diversity action. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no error in the district court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm. See Am. Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, 96 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir.1996) (noting that “whether a party has agreed to arbitrate an issue is a matter of contract interpretation: ‘[A] party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.’ ”) (citations omitted). We deny the Appellees’ motion to file a sur-reply brief and to schedule 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Loral Langemeier appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to compel arbitration in the underlying diversity action. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no error in the district court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm. See Am. Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, 96 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir.1996) (noting that “whether a party has agreed to arbitrate an issue is a matter of contract interpretation: ‘[A] party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.’ ”) (citations omitted). We deny the Appellees’ motion to file a sur-reply brief and to schedule 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F. App'x 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenes-v-langemeier-ca4-2011.