Streambend Props. II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC, No. 14-1929 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2004, Streambend signed agreements to purchase two units in a Minneapolis residential condominium development, Ivy Hotel + Residences. Completion of the units was delayed, two additional floors were added without proper disclosure, and earnest moneys were removed from the trust account to pay construction costs without Streambend’s permission. Mechanics liens were filed in 2008 and not removed. Streambend requested return of its earnest moneys in 2009, but, defendants claimed the deposits were non-refundable. Streambend sued, alleging state law contract, fraud, and statutory claims and violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA), 15 U.S.C. 1703(a)(2). The initial defendants were the developers, their real estate agent, and the title company, as escrow and disbursing agent. The district court dismissed ILSA claims against the developers for failure to plead fraud with the required specificity; granted summary judgment dismissing the ILSA claims against the title company on the merits; and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding refusals to permit Streambed to re-add a party whose prior dismissal on the merits was not challenged in an earlier appeal and to permit further amendment of the complaint.
Court Description: Civil case - Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. For the court's prior opinion in the case see Streambend Props. II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Mpls., LLC, 451 F. App'x 627 (8th Cir. 2012). District court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit plaintiff to re-add a party whose prior dismissal on the merits was not challenged in the earlier appeal; plaintiff's Count alleging violation of Section 1703(a)(2)(A)&(C) did not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) because it failed to plead intentional wrongdoing (scienter) and the district court did not err in dismissing the Count; Rule 8 governed the Section 1703(a)(2)(B) allegations in Count I of the complaint, and it was error to dismiss them for failure to satisfy Rule 9; however, the Count failed to state a plausible claim and the dismissal is affirmed; no error in refusing to permit further amendment of the complaint; no error in granting defendant Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment as there was no evidence it made any representations or was involved in the sale of property to plaintiff; the district court did not err in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.
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.