LOP Capital, LLC v. COSIMO, LLC ( 2013 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
LOP Capital, LLC, Appellant,
v.
COSIMO, LLC; Capital Investment Funding, LLC, and
CIF Property Holdings, LLC, Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2012-207046
Appeal From Spartanburg County
Gordon G. Cooper, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-274
Heard February 13, 2013 – Filed June 19, 2013
APPEAL DISMISSED
Nelson S. Chase, of Mount Pleasant, for Appellant.
George Brandt, III, of Henderson, Brandt, & Vieth, PA,
of Spartanburg, for Respondent COSIMO, LLC, and
Stanley T. Case, of Butler, Means, Evins, & Brown, PA,
of Spartanburg, for Respondents Capital Investment
Funding, LLC, and CIF Property Holdings, LLC.
PER CURIAM: LOP Capital, LLC, (LOP) appeals the trial court's dismissal of
its action against COSIMO, LLC, Capital Investment Funding, LLC, and CIF
Property Holdings, LLC (Respondents). It asserts the trial court erred in
dismissing the action due to LOP's failure to answer Respondents' purported
counterclaims, arguing no counterclaim was asserted. LOP also argues the court
erred in dismissing the action due to LOP's failure to name Strategic Lending
Solutions, LLC, as a real party in interest under Rule 17(A), SCRCP.
After the trial court dismissed LOP's present action, LOP and Strategic Lending
Solutions, LLC, filed a new action (Second Action) against Respondents similar to
LOP's amended complaint in the present action. Respondents acknowledged the
present action was dismissed without prejudice and the trial court's dismissal will
have no preclusive effect in the Second Action. A decision by this court would
have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy. Accordingly, we find
LOP's appeal is moot. See Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 431, 468 S.E.2d
861, 864 (1996) (noting an issue becomes moot when a decision, if rendered, will
have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.