668 Fed.Appx. 193 (8th Cir. 2016), 16-1193, Vylasek v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc.

Docket Nº:16-1193
Citation:668 Fed.Appx. 193
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:Patricia Vylasek; John J. Vylasek, 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, Defendants - Appellees
Attorney:Patricia Vylasek, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Champlin, MN. John J. Vylasek, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Champlin, MN. For Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Residential Funding Company, LLC, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Amer...
Judge Panel:Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:August 17, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 193

668 Fed.Appx. 193 (8th Cir. 2016)

Patricia Vylasek; John J. Vylasek, 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, Defendants - Appellees

No. 16-1193

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

August 17, 2016

Submitted August 12, 2016.

Editorial Note:

UNPUBLISHED. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

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

Patricia Vylasek, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Champlin, MN.

John J. Vylasek, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Champlin, MN.

For Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Residential Funding Company, LLC, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Defendants - Appellees: Jared Kemper, Dykema & Gossett, Minneapolis, MN.

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

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. § 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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP