Bradley R. Hartke v. WIPT, Inc. ( 2019 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-3702
___________________________
Bradley R. Hartke; Douglas P. Hartke; Joan L. Hartke, individually and as
Trustees of the Joan L. Hartke QTIP Marital Trust dated 7/12/1996 and as
Trustees of the Robert Eugene Hartke Family Trust dated 7/12/1996; The Joan L.
Hartke QTIP Marital Trust dated 7/12/1996; The Robert Eugene Hartke Family
Trust dated 7/12/1996
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees
v.
WIPT, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
Roger Dean Waldner
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
The One Stop, Inc.; RDW-KILT, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants
Community Bank
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
____________
Submitted: October 17, 2018
Filed: January 17, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Bradley R. Hartke, Douglas P. Hartke, and Joan L. Hartke, individually and as
trustees of Hartke-related trusts (collectively, Hartkes) filed an action in the United
States District Court seeking a declaration that promissory notes they executed to
entities owned by Roger Dean Waldner were unenforceable. The Women’s
Investment Property Trust, Inc. (WIPT), The One Stop, Inc., and RDW-KILT, Inc.
(collectively, Appellants)—counterclaimed, seeking recovery on the notes. All
parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court1 denied Appellants’
motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Hartkes’ motion for judgment
on the pleadings. This appeal followed.2 We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and review de novo the district court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings, Schnuck
Markets, Inc. v. First Data Merchant Services Corp., 852 F.3d 732, 737 (8th Cir.
2017), and its interpretation and application of state law, Nolles v. State Committee
for Reorganization of School Districts, 524 F.3d 892, 901 (8th Cir. 2008). Having
carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable legal principles,
we find no reversible error in the district court’s disposition of this matter.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
2
Waldner filed a separate, pro se appeal in No. 17-3685.
-2-