Albert Ray Steward, III v. Royal Bank of Canada, et al, No. 07-2893 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Dismissal affirmed without comment as the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2893 ___________ Albert Ray Steward III, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Royal Bank of Canada, a Canadian * Appeal from the United States company; RBC Centura Banks, Inc., a * District Court for the subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada; * District of Minnesota. RBC Dain Rauscher, a subsidiary of * Royal Bank of Canada; RBC Builder * [UNPUBLISHED] Finance, a subsidiary of Royal Bank * of Canada; RBC Insurance Holding, * Inc., a subsidiary of Royal Bank of * Canada; RBC Liberty Life Insurance * Company, a subsidiary of Royal Bank * of Canada; RBC Capital Markets * Corporation, a subsidiary of Royal * Bank of Canada; Doe, Defendants 1 * through 24, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: September 30, 2008 Filed: October 8, 2008 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Albert Ray Steward appeals the district court s1 dismissal of his complaint. After careful review, we conclude that dismissal was proper because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (threshold requirement in every federal case is jurisdiction); see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n.10 (2006) (noting that claim invoking federal-question jurisdiction may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is immaterial and made solely for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous); 4:20 Commc ns, Ins. v. Paradigm Co., 336 F.3d 775, 779 (8th Cir. 2003) (party invoking federal jurisdiction has burden to establish jurisdictional requirements). We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Steward leave to file a second amended complaint. See Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, 318 F.3d 832, 844 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review; leave to amend should be denied for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies with earlier amendments, undue prejudice to non-movant, or futility of amendment). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
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.
