Frank John Stangel v. Johnson & Madigan ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2508
    ___________
    Frank John Stangel,                     *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                                * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Johnson & Madigan, P.L.L.P.,            * District of Minnesota.
    formerly known as Johnson &             *
    Madigan, Michael J. Minenko,            *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 7, 2001
    Filed: December 17, 2001
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Frank John Stangel appeals the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary
    judgment in his diversity legal-malpractice action, in which the District Court agreed
    with defendants that the action was time-barred. Having carefully reviewed the
    record, see Larsen v. Mayo Med. Ctr., 
    218 F.3d 863
    , 866 (8th Cir.) (standard of
    review), cert. denied, 
    531 U.S. 1036
     (2000), and the District Court’s application of
    1
    The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    Minnesota law, see Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 
    260 F.3d 837
    ,
    841 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review), we agree that the action is time-barred, and
    we affirm, addressing seriatim Stangel’s various arguments on appeal.
    Specifically, (1) Stangel’s conclusory assertion that he established issues of
    material fact is not properly before us, see 8th Cir. R. 28A(j) (party may not
    incorporate by reference contents of brief filed elsewhere), and neither is his
    continuous-representation argument, see Schafer v. Moore, 
    46 F.3d 43
    , 45 (8th Cir.
    1995) (per curiam) (declining to address argument first raised on appeal); (2) Stangel
    does not develop his equitable-tolling argument, see Primary Care Investors Seven,
    Inc. v. PHP Healthcare Corp., 
    986 F.2d 1208
    , 1212 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that an
    unargued assertion of error is no more helpful to appellate court than unsupported
    allegation of fact is to trial court); (3) even if Stangel had been permitted to amend
    his complaint to add a fraudulent-concealment claim, the alleged concealed
    information was not knowledge that he had to have before “asserting his right,” see
    Cohen v. Appert, 
    463 N.W.2d 787
    , 790-91 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (discussing and
    applying fraudulent-concealment doctrine in context of legal-malpractice action); (4)
    the District Court’s notation of Stangel’s prior lawsuits was not an indication of any
    bias against him, cf. Bannister v. Delo, 
    100 F.3d 610
    , 614 (8th Cir. 1996) (indicating
    that bias can be shown if judge’s remarks or opinions reveal such high degree of
    antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible), cert. denied, Bannister v.
    Bowersox, 
    521 U.S. 1126
     (1997); and (5) the District Court properly declined to rule
    on Stangel’s mediation motion while it considered defendants’ earlier motion for
    summary judgment, which had asserted the time-bar defense.
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    -2-
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-