Streambend Properties II, LLC, et al v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC, et al, No. 11-2114 (8th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Civil case - Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. Plaintiffs' complaint was sufficient to state a claim under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, and the district court erred in dismissing the counts for failure to state a claim. [ January 10, 2012
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2114 ___________ Streambend Properties II, LLC; Streambend Properties VIII, LLC, * * * Appellants, * * v. * * Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC; Jeffrey * Appeal from the United States Laux; Gary Benson, * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Appellees, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Burnet Realty, LLC, * * Defendant, * * Commonwealth Land Title Insurance * Company; John Doe; Mary Rowe; * XYZ Corp., * * Defendants. * ___________ Submitted: December 23, 2011 Filed: January 11, 2012 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Streambend Properties II, LLC and Streambend Properties VIII, LLC appeal the district court s order dismissing their civil action for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead the interstate-commerce element of the claims brought under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. After careful de novo review, see Owen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 533 F.3d 913, 918 (8th Cir. 2008), we find that paragraphs 46 and 47 of the complaint sufficiently pleaded this element. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). The complaint alleges that the defendants made use . . . of the mails and made false representations by . . . letters. Given that Rule 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim, and that [s]pecific facts are not necessary, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam), these statements were sufficient to allege use . . . of the mails as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1703(a). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act claims in Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint, and we remand to the district court for further proceedings. ______________________________ -2-