Desiree Kolbek v. Jeanne Estates Apts., Inc., No. 14-1359 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. District court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims after her federal claims had been dismissed. [ August 20, 2014
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1359 ___________________________ Desiree Kolbek; Amy Eddy; Jeannette Orlando; Nicole Farr; Summer Hagan; Jamie Rodriguez; Pebbles Rodriguez lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Jeanne Estates Apartments Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant Sharon Alamo; Tony Alamo, also known as Bernard Hoffman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants -----------------------------Jeanne Estates Apartments Inc. lllllllllllllllllllllThird Party Plaintiff v. Jennifer Kolbek; Lamont Eddy; Susan Davis; Joseph Orlando; Elenora Orlando; Terry Farr; Lisa Penman; James Rodriguez; Nicole Rodriguez; Dennis Hagan; Robin Hagan; Lee King; Alaina King; Ann Nicholas, Special Administratrix of the Estate of John Kolbek, deceased lllllllllllllllllllllThird Party Defendants ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana ____________ Submitted: August 19, 2014 Filed: August 21, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this civil action, brought by several individuals who asserted both federal and state-law claims against, inter alia, Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc. (JEA), JEA appeals the district court s1 order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, after the federal claims had been dismissed. For reversal, JEA argues that it was improper for the district court to dismiss certain state-law claims without prejudice after the court had previously granted summary judgment for JEA on those claims. JEA also appeals the district court s denial of its motion for reconsideration. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the statelaw claims without prejudice, notwithstanding its previous decision granting partial summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 1367(c) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, inter alia, claim raises novel or complex issue of state 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- law, or court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); see also Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 581 F.3d 737, 743 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-ofdiscretion review standard applies to district court s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction); Auto Servs. Co., Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, 537 F.3d 853, 856-57 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has general discretionary authority to review and revise its interlocutory rulings prior to entry of final judgment). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying JEA s motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review standard). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
