James Lang v. Aurora Loan Services, No. 13-3052 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Mortgage law. District court's orders affirmed without comment. [ June 17, 2014
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3052 ___________________________ Kevin M. Murphy; Kathleen K. Murphy lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs James L. Lang; Charlene Ann Brady; Erika R. Hogenson; Harold J. Thompson, III; Julianne Thompson; Miriam E. Stone; May K. Vang; Jeffrey A. Kirschbaum; Tou A. Vang lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC; Aurora Bank FSB; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees Wilford & Geske, P.A. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant MERSCORP, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ___________________________ No. 13-3204 ___________________________ Kevin M. Murphy; Kathleen K. Murphy lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants James L. Lang; Charlene Ann Brady; Erika R. Hogenson; Harold J. Thompson, III; Julianne Thompson; Miriam E. Stone; May K. Vang; Jeffrey A. Kirschbaum; Tou A. Vang lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC; Aurora Bank FSB; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees Wilford & Geske, P.A. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant MERSCORP, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: June 18, 2014 Filed: June 19, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. -2- In these consolidated appeals following earlier remands and a subsequent adverse judgment in the district court,1 plaintiffs challenge several rulings. After careful review, we find no basis to reverse any of the following: the dismissal of plaintiffs remaining claims, see Karnatcheva v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 704 F.3d 545, 548 (8th Cir.) (affirming dismissal of claims because pleadings offered only labels and conclusions based on speculation that transfers affecting payees and assignments of notes were invalid), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 72 (2013); the denial of plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, see Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748, 755 (8th Cir. 2006) (denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal conclusion that amendment would be futile is reviewed de novo); the denial of a motion to sever, in which some of the plaintiffs essentially sought permission to proceed separately from the other plaintiffs, see United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870, 880 (8th Cir. 1996) (no reversal for denial of motion to sever absent showing of real prejudice indicating abuse of discretion); or the reassessment of sanctions against attorney William Butler, see Clark v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 460 F.3d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court s determinations concerning Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 are reviewed for abuse of discretion). We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -3-
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.
