Nuevos Destinos, LLC v. Peck, No. 20-1748 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of appellants' motion to amend their complaint and dismissal of their state law claims against various U.S. and Peruvian defendants. Appellants' claims stemmed from business arrangements with defendants for the purchase and export of Peruvian agricultural products.
Looking to the totality of the circumstances, the court declined to exercise its discretion to permit appellants to amend their complaint on appeal. The court explained that this case presents the unusual circumstance in which appellants not only failed to plead diversity jurisdiction in their complaint but also made no attempt to amend their complaint to do so—in spite of defendants' jurisdictional challenges and the district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Therefore, this case does not involve merely a technical pleading error. Rather, appellants seek to amend entirely the jurisdictional basis for their remaining state law claims—in addition to dropping their two civil RICO claims and 15 of 21 defendants—for the first time on appeal. The court concluded that permitting appellants to amend their defective pleadings this late in the game would be unfair to defendants.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - RICO. In action alleging a civil RICO violation and related state-law fraud and contract claims concerning the purchase of Peruvian agricultural products for import to the U.S., appellants seek to amend their complaint on appeal to delete their civil RICO claims and assert the remaining state law claims for fraud, breach of contract and conspiracy based on diversity jurisdiction; looking to the totality of the circumstances, the court declines to exercise its discretion to permit appellants to amend their complaint on appeal; the case does not involve a mere technical pleading error; rather, the plaintiffs/ appellants not only failed to plead diversity jurisdiction in their complaint but also made no attempt to amend their complaint to do so - in spite of defendants' jurisdictional challenges and the district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims; plaintiffs had years to amend their defective pleadings and to permit such an amendment this late in the case would be unfair to defendants; the district court's judgment is affirmed.
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.