James Lang, et al v. Aurora Loan Services, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: William Jay Riley, Raymond W. Gruender and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4166693] [13-3052, 13-3204]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-3052
___________________________
Kevin M. Murphy; Kathleen K. Murphy
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs
James L. Lang; Charlene Ann Brady; Erika R. Hogenson; Harold J. Thompson,
III; Julianne Thompson; Miriam E. Stone; May K. Vang; Jeffrey A. Kirschbaum;
Tou A. Vang
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Aurora Loan Services, LLC; Aurora Bank FSB; Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
Wilford & Geske, P.A.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
MERSCORP, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
___________________________
No. 13-3204
___________________________
Kevin M. Murphy; Kathleen K. Murphy
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

Appellate Case: 13-3052

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Entry ID: 4166693

James L. Lang; Charlene Ann Brady; Erika R. Hogenson; Harold J. Thompson,
III; Julianne Thompson; Miriam E. Stone; May K. Vang; Jeffrey A. Kirschbaum;
Tou A. Vang
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs
v.
Aurora Loan Services, LLC; Aurora Bank FSB; Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
Wilford & Geske, P.A.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
MERSCORP, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
____________
Submitted: June 18, 2014
Filed: June 19, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-2-

Appellate Case: 13-3052

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Entry ID: 4166693

In these consolidated appeals following earlier remands and a subsequent
adverse judgment in the district court,1 plaintiffs challenge several rulings. After
careful review, we find no basis to reverse any of the following: the dismissal of
plaintiffs’ remaining claims, see Karnatcheva v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 704
F.3d 545, 548 (8th Cir.) (affirming dismissal of claims because pleadings offered only
labels and conclusions based on speculation that transfers affecting payees and
assignments of notes were invalid), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 72 (2013); the denial of
plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, see Marmo v. Tyson
Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748, 755 (8th Cir. 2006) (denial of leave to amend is
reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal conclusion that amendment would be futile
is reviewed de novo); the denial of a motion to sever, in which some of the plaintiffs
essentially sought permission to proceed separately from the other plaintiffs, see
United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870, 880 (8th Cir. 1996) (no reversal for denial of
motion to sever absent showing of real prejudice indicating abuse of discretion); or
the reassessment of sanctions against attorney William Butler, see Clark v. United
Parcel Serv., Inc., 460 F.3d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court’s
determinations concerning Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
-3-

Appellate Case: 13-3052

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Entry ID: 4166693