DocketNumber: 98-4113
Filed Date: 12/3/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-4113 ___________ Lisa Akinseye; Marietta Neu; * Delia Lane, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Ted Bigos, an individual; The * District Court for the Observatory Limited Partnership, * District of Minnesota. a Minnesota Limited Partnership; * Bigos-Observatory LLC, a * [UNPUBLISHED] Minnesota Limited Liability * Corporation, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: November 18, 1999 Filed: December 3, 1999 ___________ Before BOWMAN, LAY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Lisa Akinseye, Marietta Neu, and Delia Lane, residents or former residents of apartments that are subject to the rent-limitation provisions of the Affordable Housing Disposition Program ("AHDP"), 12 U.S.C. § 1441a (1994), sued the former and present owners of the apartments, Ted Bigos, The Observatory Limited Partnership, and Bigos Observatory LLC, for rent overcharges. The federal claim alleges a violation of the AHDP. The complaint also alleges several state-law claims. The District Court,1 concluding that the AHDP creates no private right of action, either express or implied, to enforce the rent-limitation provisions of the Act, dismissed the federal claim. In addition, the court declined to exercise its powers of supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs appeal, contending the District Court erred in ruling that the AHDP contains neither an express nor an implied private right of action to enforce the AHDP's rent-limitation provisions. Having conducted de novo review, we are thoroughly persuaded that the AHDP contains no express or implied private right of action to enforce the rent-limitation provisions of the Act. The District Court thus did not err in dismissing the federal rent- limitation claim. Plaintiffs do not contend that the court abused its discretion by then dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice. Because a detailed opinion issued by this Court could add nothing of precedential value to the carefully and correctly reasoned memorandum opinion and order of the District Court, we affirm the judgment of that court without further discussion. AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-