Stephen Wayne Carlson v. Gittleman Management Corp. , 545 F. App'x 594 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •               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
    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-
    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    [Unpublished]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-
    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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1551, 13-1553, 13-1555, 13-1557

Citation Numbers: 545 F. App'x 594

Judges: Murphy, Smith, Shepherd

Filed Date: 12/3/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024