BRIKS v. YEAGER (2020)

[Unpublished]

Minnesota brothers James and Jerome Briks appeal the district court's ¹ order dismissing their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon de novo review, we agree that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the action, as the operative complaint did not allege a federal question or diversity among the parties. See Jones v. United States, 727 F.3d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Junk v. Terminix Int'l Co., 628 F.3d 439, 445 (8th Cir. 2010) (federal court has diversity jurisdiction only where no defendant is citizen of same state as any plaintiff); Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 407 F.3d 905, 906 (8th Cir. 2005) (federal question jurisdiction exists when plaintiff's right to relief depends upon resolution of substantial question of federal law). We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint, as amendment was futile. See Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (pleading failed to state constitutional claim because private counsel's conduct in representing clients was not action under color of state law). As no default was entered below, appellants’ argument about allowing default to stand is meritless.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

PER CURIAM.