Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Patricia Vylasek v. Mortgage Electronic, 16-1193 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 16-1193 Visitors: 30
Filed: Aug. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1193 _ Patricia Vylasek; John J. Vylasek lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc.; Aurora Loan Services, LLC; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Residential Funding Company, LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; Does I-X lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis _ Submitted: August 12, 2016 Fil
More
               United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 16-1193
                      ___________________________

                      Patricia Vylasek; John J. Vylasek

                    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

                                         v.

 Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc.; Aurora Loan Services, LLC;
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Residential Funding Company, LLC; Deutsche Bank
                     Trust Company Americas; Does I-X

                   lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                                    ____________

                  Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
                                ____________

                         Submitted: August 12, 2016
                          Filed: August 17, 2016
                               [Unpublished]
                              ____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.
       John and Patricia Vylasek appeal after the district court1 dismissed their
complaint with prejudice. They also move for this court to take judicial notice of
certain facts.

      After careful de novo review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper. See
Anderson-Tully Co. v. McDaniel, 
571 F.3d 760
, 762 (8th Cir. 2009) (grant of motion
to dismiss is reviewed de novo); see also 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 (diversity jurisdiction);
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 
808 N.W.2d 828
, 833 (Minn. 2011) (elements of
breach-of-contract claim); Paidar v. Hughes, 
615 N.W.2d 276
, 279-80 (Minn. 2000)
(elements of slander-of-title claim).

     Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending
motion.
                   ______________________________




      1
      The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin
L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

                                         -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer