Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2007-UP-531 - Franklin Ventures, LLC v. Jaber

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(D)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Franklin Ventures, LLC, Respondent,

v.

Shalash Abdel Jaber, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County

 R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2007-UP-531

Submitted November 1, 2007 – Filed November 14, 2007


AFFIRMED


Steven L. Smith of Charleston, for Appellant.

Thomas L. Harper, Jr., Brendon P. Langendorfer and Helen Ann Harper, all of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:     Shalash Abdel Jaber appeals from a circuit order order granting summary judgment against him in a breach of contract action instituted by Franklin Ventures, LLC.  Jaber  asserts the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing him to present oral testimony at the summary judgment hearing. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Humana Hospital-Bayside v. Lightle, 305 S.C. 214, 216-217, 407 S.E2d 637, 638 (1991) (finding where the non-moving party relies solely upon the pleadings, files no affidavits, and make no factual showing to oppose summary judgment, the lower court is required to grant summary judgment, if entitled to it as a matter of law);  Zabinski v. Bright Acres Assocs., 346 S.C. 580, 601 (2001) (finding that an abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court is controlled by an error of law or where the trial court’s order is based on factual conclusions without evidentiary support); Rule 56 SCRCP, (judgment sought in a motion for summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show there is there is no genuine issue as to any material fact).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and KITTREDGE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


[1]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.