Nadezhda V. Wood v. Sergey Kapustin, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Pasco M. Bowman and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED) [4354998] [14-2996]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2996 ___________________________ Nadezhda V. Wood lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Sergey Kapustin; Irina Kapustina; Mikhail Goloverya; Global Auto, Inc.; G Auto Sales, Inc.; Effect Auto Sales, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: December 24, 2015 Filed: January 12, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 14-2996 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2016 Entry ID: 4354998 Nadezhda Wood appeals after the District Court1 dismissed her action because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and then denied her motion to alter or amend the judgment. After careful de novo review, we conclude that dismissal was proper. See Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121–23 (2014) (discussing personal jurisdiction). Additionally, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wood’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (reviewing the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion and noting that such a motion cannot be used to introduce new evidence which could have been offered prior to the entry of judgment). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- Appellate Case: 14-2996 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2016 Entry ID: 4354998

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?