Tynisha Reineiro v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Duane Benton and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); [4397859-2] Denying motion to exclude from evidence loan history statement filed by Appellant Ms. Tynisha Latrice Reinerio., [4397862-2] Denying motion to exclude from evidence pooling & servicing agreement filed by Appellant Ms. Tynisha Latrice Reinerio. [4441804] [16-1181]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1181 ___________________________ Tynisha Latrice Reinerio lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. The Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York; Bank of America, N.A.; Southlaw P.C. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: August 23, 2016 Filed: August 26, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 16-1181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Entry ID: 4441804 Tynisha Reinerio appeals after the district court1 dismissed her complaint. On appeal, she argues that the district court erred by denying her motion for remand because it lacked jurisdiction, by dismissing her claims, and by denying motions to compel discovery. Reinerio also files motions to exclude certain evidence from the appellate record. First, upon de novo review, we conclude that removal was proper. See Block v. Toyota Motor Corp., 665 F.3d 944, 947-48 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review; describing fraudulent joinder standard). Second, we find no reason to reverse the dismissal order, as Reinerio failed to allege sufficient facts in her amended complaint to state a claim. See Anderson-Tully Co. v. McDaniel, 571 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (pleading that offers labels and conclusions, formulaic recitation of elements of cause of action, or tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice). Third, we conclude that the district court did not grossly abuse its discretion by denying Reinerio’s discovery motions. See Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc. 352 F.3d 358, 360 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). In conclusion, we deny Reinerio’s motions, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (listing items that constitute record on appeal, including original papers and exhibits filed in district court), and we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Appellate Case: 16-1181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Entry ID: 4441804

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?