Stephen Wayne Carlson v. Gittleman Management Corp., et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Lavenski R. Smith and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4101522] [13-1551, 13-1553, 13-1555, 13-1557]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-1551
___________________________
Stephen Wayne Carlson
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Gittleman Management Corp.; Strobel & Hanson PA; Each director on the
putative board of directors of Gallery Tower Condominium Association since
August 1, 2009; Gary Edwards, purported GTCA board chair
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
___________________________
No. 13-1553
___________________________
Stephen W. Carlson
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Gittleman Management Corp.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
Strobel & Hanson PA
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Appellate Case: 13-1551

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Entry ID: 4101522

Each director on the putative board of directors of Gallery Tower Condominium
Association since August 1, 2009; Gary Edwards, purported GTCA board chair
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants
___________________________
No. 13-1555
___________________________
Stephen W. Carlson
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
U.S. Bank Home Mortgage; Gittleman Management; Andrew Gittleman; Strobel
& Hanson PA; Each director on the putative board of directors of Gallery Tower
Condominium Association since August 1, 2009
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
___________________________
No. 13-1557
___________________________
Stephen W. Carlson
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
U.S. Bank Home Mortgage
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

-2-

Appellate Case: 13-1551

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Entry ID: 4101522

Gittleman Management; Andrew Gittleman
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants
Strobel & Hanson PA
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
Each director on the putative board of directors of Gallery Tower Condominium
Association since August 1, 2009
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
____________
Submitted: November 27, 2013
Filed: December 3, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Wayne Carlson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment and dismissal of his civil complaints, in which he asserted a variety of
federal and state-law claims based on events that occurred in connection with his

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeffrey J.
Keyes, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-3-

Appellate Case: 13-1551

Page: 3

Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Entry ID: 4101522

ownership of a condominium unit and related foreclosure proceedings. The district
court also imposed certain pre-filing restrictions on Carlson, which he challenges in
this appeal as well. Several appellees have filed cross-appeals arguing that the
majority of Carlson’s claims should have been dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman2
doctrine.
Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in
dismissing Carlson’s complaints for the reasons that the court expressed, and also did
not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state-law claims, although we modify the dismissal of those claims to be
without prejudice, see Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 1998). As to the
cross-appeals, we conclude that defendants were not aggrieved by the district court’s
judgment, and thus lack standing to appeal. We therefore dismiss those appeals for
lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Northshore Min. Co., 576 F.3d 840, 846
(8th Cir. 2009). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing filing restrictions, also for the reasons explained by the court.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we dismiss the
cross-appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

2

D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fid.
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).
-4-

Appellate Case: 13-1551

Page: 4

Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Entry ID: 4101522