Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Quenton SHELBY Plaintiff - Appellant v. OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant - Appellee
[Unpublished]
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 court 1 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.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-2115
Decided: April 15, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)