Case Name: Tanya SPICER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE RYLAND GROUP, INC. d.b.a. Ryland Homes, Ryland Mortgage Co., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-16
Citations: 294 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 07-15426
Parties: Tanya SPICER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE RYLAND GROUP, INC. d.b.a. Ryland Homes, Ryland Mortgage Co., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 434–434

Head Matter:
Tanya SPICER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE RYLAND GROUP, INC. d.b.a. Ryland Homes, Ryland Mortgage Co., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-15426.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 16, 2008.
Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Ltd., New Castle, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David D. Christensen, R. Bruce Allens-worth, Andrew C. Glass, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, Boston, MA, Roger A. Chalmers, Robert Leonard Rothman, Arnall, Golden & Gregory, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and MIDDLE BROOKS, District Judge.
Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Tanya Spicer, on behalf of herself and a putative nationwide class of individuals, appeals the district court's order, granting a motion to dismiss in favor of Appellees, Ryland Group, Inc., that was based on the district court's determination that defendants' offering a discount on settlement services, conditioned upon the use of an affiliated business arrangement in this case was not a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a) and (b). See Spicer v. Ryland Group. Inc., 523 F.Supp.2d 1356 (N.D.Ga.2007). We have considered the briefs, the relevant parts of the record, and the well-reasoned opinion by the district court and conclude that the district court did not err, and properly granted Defendant-Appellees' motion to dismiss against Plaintiff-Appellant.
AFFIRMED.