Filed: Jun. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-3010MN _ William Hoffman; John Prueter; * Winifred Kaercher; Ernest Hendrickson; * Dorothy Hendrickson; Greg Boster; * David Carlson; Karl Kloster; John Does; * Mary Roes, * * Appeal from the United States Appellants, * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] National Association of Securities * Dealers, Inc., * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 8, 1998 Filed: June 15, 1998 _ Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and BEAM,
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-3010MN _ William Hoffman; John Prueter; * Winifred Kaercher; Ernest Hendrickson; * Dorothy Hendrickson; Greg Boster; * David Carlson; Karl Kloster; John Does; * Mary Roes, * * Appeal from the United States Appellants, * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] National Association of Securities * Dealers, Inc., * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 8, 1998 Filed: June 15, 1998 _ Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and BEAM, C..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 97-3010MN
_____________
William Hoffman; John Prueter; *
Winifred Kaercher; Ernest Hendrickson; *
Dorothy Hendrickson; Greg Boster; *
David Carlson; Karl Kloster; John Does; *
Mary Roes, *
* Appeal from the United States
Appellants, * District Court for the District
* of Minnesota.
v. *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
National Association of Securities *
Dealers, Inc., *
*
Appellee. *
_____________
Submitted: June 8, 1998
Filed: June 15, 1998
_____________
Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
_____________
PER CURIAM.
Appellants appeal the district court's order denying appellants' motion for
preliminary injunction and dismissing their complaint. Having considered the record
and the materials submitted by the parties, we are satisfied the district court committed
no error in applying the standards for preliminary injunctive relief set forth in
Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.,
640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en
banc). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
appellants' complaint after it disposed of the single issue in the case. We decline to
consider the arguments the appellants raise for the first time on appeal. Finally, our
review shows that appellants' remaining arguments are without legal merit. Because
appellants' appeal presents no novel issues to justify an extended opinion, we affirm the
district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-