Stephen Wayne Carlson v. Gittleman Management Corp., No. 13-1555 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Civil Rights. Dismissal affirmed without comment; however, the dismissal of plaintiff's state-law claims is modified to a dismissal without prejudice; with respect to defendants' cross-appeals, the defendants were not aggrieved by the order and lacked standing to appeal the order.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1551 ___________________________ Stephen Wayne Carlson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Gittleman Management Corp.; Strobel & Hanson PA; Each director on the putative board of directors of Gallery Tower Condominium Association since August 1, 2009; Gary Edwards, purported GTCA board chair lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ___________________________ No. 13-1553 ___________________________ Stephen W. Carlson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Gittleman Management Corp. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant Strobel & Hanson PA lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Each director on the putative board of directors of Gallery Tower Condominium Association since August 1, 2009; Gary Edwards, purported GTCA board chair lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants ___________________________ No. 13-1555 ___________________________ Stephen W. Carlson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. U.S. Bank Home Mortgage; Gittleman Management; Andrew Gittleman; Strobel & Hanson PA; Each director on the putative board of directors of Gallery Tower Condominium Association since August 1, 2009 lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ___________________________ No. 13-1557 ___________________________ Stephen W. Carlson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. U.S. Bank Home Mortgage lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant -2- Gittleman Management; Andrew Gittleman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants Strobel & Hanson PA lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Each director on the putative board of directors of Gallery Tower Condominium Association since August 1, 2009 lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: November 27, 2013 Filed: December 3, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Stephen Wayne Carlson appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his civil complaints, in which he asserted a variety of federal and state-law claims based on events that occurred in connection with his 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeffrey J. Keyes, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -3- ownership of a condominium unit and related foreclosure proceedings. The district court also imposed certain pre-filing restrictions on Carlson, which he challenges in this appeal as well. Several appellees have filed cross-appeals arguing that the majority of Carlson s claims should have been dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Carlson s complaints for the reasons that the court expressed, and also did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, although we modify the dismissal of those claims to be without prejudice, see Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 1998). As to the cross-appeals, we conclude that defendants were not aggrieved by the district court s judgment, and thus lack standing to appeal. We therefore dismiss those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Northshore Min. Co., 576 F.3d 840, 846 (8th Cir. 2009). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing filing restrictions, also for the reasons explained by the court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we dismiss the cross-appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
