Case ID: f-appx_560/html/0645-01.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

Kevin M. MURPHY; Kathleen K. Murphy, Plaintiffs James L. Lang; Charlene Ann Brady; Erika R. Hogenson; Harold J. Thompson, III; Julianne Thompson; Miriam E. Stone; May K. Vang; Jeffrey A. Kirschbaum; Tou A. Vang, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC; Aurora Bank FSB; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees Wilford & Geske, P.A., Defendant MERSCORP, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Kevin M. Murphy; Kathleen K. Murphy, Plaintiffs-Appellants James L. Lang; Charlene Ann Brady; Erika R. Hogenson; Harold J. Thompson, III; Julianne Thompson; Miriam E. Stone; May K. Yang; Jeffrey A. Kirschbaum; Tou A. Vang, Plaintiffs v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC; Aurora Bank FSB; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees Wilford & Geske, P.A., Defendant MERSCORP, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 13-3052, 13-3204.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 18, 2014.
    Filed: June 19, 2014.
    William Bernard Butler, Butler Liberty Law, Minneapolis, MN, Jeffrey Vesel, Stillwater, MN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Eric D. Cook, Michael R. Sauer, Wilford & Geske, Woodbury, MN, J. Matthew Goo-din, Julia C. Webb, Locke & Lord, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before RILEY, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals following earlier remands and a subsequent adverse judgment in the district court, plaintiffs challenge several rulings. After careful review, we find no basis to reverse any of the following: the dismissal of plaintiffs’ remaining claims, see Karnatcheva v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 704 F.3d 545, 548 (8th Cir.) (affirming dismissal of claims because pleadings offered only labels and conclusions based on speculation that transfers affecting payees and assignments of notes were invalid), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 72, 187 L.Ed.2d 254 (2013); the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, see Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748, 755 (8th Cir.2006) (denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal conclusion that amendment would be futile is reviewed de novo); the denial of a motion to sever, in which some of the plaintiffs essentially sought permission to proceed separately from the other plaintiffs, see United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870, 880 (8th Cir.1996) (no reversal for denial of motion to sever absent showing of real prejudice indicating abuse of discretion); or the reassessment of sanctions against attorney William Butler, see Clark v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 460 F.3d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir.2006) (district court’s determinations concerning Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.