Case ID: f-appx_451/html/0627-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STREAMBEND PROPERTIES II, LLC; Streambend Properties VIII, LLC, Appellants, v. IVY TOWER MINNEAPOLIS, LLC; Jeffrey Laux; Gary Benson, Appellees, Burnet Realty, LLC, Defendant, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company; John Doe; Mary Rowe; XYZ Corp., Defendants.
    No. 11-2114.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 23, 2011.
    Filed: Jan. 11, 2012.
    Jonathan Lester Robert Drewes, Drewes Law, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellants.
    Aaron M. Ninnemann, Thomas William Pahl, John W. Tackett, Foley & Mansfield, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellees.
    Maret R. Olson, Brian M. Sund, Morrison & Fenske, Minnetonka, MN, for Defendants.
    Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Streambend Properties II, LLC and Streambend Properties VIII, LLC appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil action for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead the interstate-commerce element of the claims brought under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. After careful de novo review, see Owen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 533 F.3d 913, 918 (8th Cir.2008), we find that paragraphs 46 and 47 of the complaint sufficiently pleaded this element. See Fed.R.CivJP. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The complaint alleges that the defendants “made use ... of the mails” and made false representations “by ... letters.” Given that Rule 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim,” and that “[s]pecifie facts are not necessary,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam), these statements were sufficient to allege “use ... of the mails” as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1703(a). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act claims in Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint, and we remand to the district court for further proceedings.