United States Eighth Circuit

Denial of plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint involving a loan obligation is affirmed where the district court did not err in applying Missouri law to plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary duty and gross-negligence claims or in denying motion for leave to file an amended complaint as the amendment was futile.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/03/2006
• Published 02/03/2006

Judges

• BOWMAN, Circuit Judge., Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Richard M. Paul, III, argued, Kansas City, MO (R. Lawrence Ward, Kansas City, on the brief), for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Joel L. Wohlgemuth, argued, Tulsa, OK (Jon E. Beetem, Jefferson City, MO, on the brief), for appellee.