Tynisha Reinerio v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. 16-1181 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Removal to federal court was proper and the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim; dismissal affirmed without further comment. [ August 25, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1181 ___________________________ Tynisha Latrice Reinerio lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. The Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York; Bank of America, N.A.; Southlaw P.C. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: August 23, 2016 Filed: August 26, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Tynisha Reinerio appeals after the district court1 dismissed her complaint. On appeal, she argues that the district court erred by denying her motion for remand because it lacked jurisdiction, by dismissing her claims, and by denying motions to compel discovery. Reinerio also files motions to exclude certain evidence from the appellate record. First, upon de novo review, we conclude that removal was proper. See Block v. Toyota Motor Corp., 665 F.3d 944, 947-48 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review; describing fraudulent joinder standard). Second, we find no reason to reverse the dismissal order, as Reinerio failed to allege sufficient facts in her amended complaint to state a claim. See Anderson-Tully Co. v. McDaniel, 571 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (pleading that offers labels and conclusions, formulaic recitation of elements of cause of action, or tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice). Third, we conclude that the district court did not grossly abuse its discretion by denying Reinerio’s discovery motions. See Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc. 352 F.3d 358, 360 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). In conclusion, we deny Reinerio’s motions, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (listing items that constitute record on appeal, including original papers and exhibits filed in district court), and we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
