Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40822/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40822-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lisa Jones
Appellee
LGD Properties, Incorporated
Appellant
Rolando Ramon
Appellee
Seis Lagos Community Services Association, Incorporated
Appellee
Seis Lagos Utility District
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40822

LGD PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

SEIS LAGOS UTILITY DISTRICT; 

SEIS LAGOS COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED;

ROLANDO RAMON; LISA JONES,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In a dispute that began with a disagreement over the elevation of a 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40822 Document: 00513585862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2016
No. 15-40822

2

culvert, a contractor sued a utility district, a homeowners’ association, and two 

private persons in state court. When federal constitutional claims were added, 

the matter was removed to federal court. Sixteen months later, after ample 

discovery and numerous pleadings, the district court issued a sufficiently comprehensive order, addressing the pertinent issues, that granted summary judgment for the defendants on all the federal claims and remanded to state court 

on any remaining claims under state law.

We have examined the briefs and pertinent portions of the record, have 

reviewed the applicable law, and have heard the arguments of counsel. The 

plaintiff has not shown any federal constitutional violation or any other actionable wrong. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons ably 

stated by the district court. The appellant’s motion to strike is DENIED.

 Case: 15-40822 Document: 00513585862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2016