Quenton Shelby v. Oak River Insurance Company, No. 18-2115 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Shepherd, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil procedure. The court would not decide whether the district court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court as any error in denying the motion would not be reversible because the case had proceeded to summary judgment and timeliness of removal is a non-jurisdictional, procedural defect.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2115 ___________________________ Quenton Shelby lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Oak River Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: April 4, 2019 Filed: April 15, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. This action was originally brought in state court by Missouri resident Quenton Shelby, who sought to recover from Oak River Insurance Company (Oak River) on a judgment entered in a prior class action that Shelby had brought against a business insured by Oak River. Oak River removed the state-court action to federal court, under the Class Action Fairness Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Shelby then moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the removal was untimely. The district court1 denied his motion to remand, and thereafter, granted summary judgment in favor of Oak River. Shelby now appeals the denial of his motion to remand and the adverse grant of summary judgment. To begin, we decline to decide whether the district court erred in denying Shelby’s motion to remand. Cf. Quintero Cmty. Ass’n Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 792 F.3d 1002, 1007-08 (8th Cir. 2015) (declining to decide whether district court erred in denying motion to remand based on timeliness of removal because any such error would not be reversible, as case had proceeded to summary judgment and timeliness of removal is non-jurisdictional, procedural defect). Furthermore, upon careful de novo review of the district court’s summary judgment decision, we agree with the court’s reasoning and conclusion. See Sims v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 894 F.3d 941, 944 (8th Cir. 2018) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo). We therefore affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, 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.
