Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02545/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02545-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2545

___________

City of Kansas City, Missouri, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Housing & Economic Development *

Financial Corporation, *

*

Appellee, *

*

Rosehill Gardens, *

*

Defendant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

David Bahner, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Lawrence Goldblatt, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 26, 2008

Filed: June 9, 2008

___________

Appellate Case: 07-2545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2008 Entry ID: 3441451
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John

T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence Goldblatt challenges the district court’s1

order denying his claim for

payment under an architectural services contract. We affirm.

 After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Goldblatt’s claim in this

receivership action brought by the City of Kansas City, Missouri (City), against

Housing & Economic Development Financial Corporation (HEDFC). On appeal,

Goldblatt challenges the district court’s factual findings, credibility determinations,

and application of Missouri law to his allegations that HEDFC tortiously interfered

with his contractual relationship with a third party mortgagee of HEDFC. 

Without a transcript of the hearing, we cannot review the district court’s factual

findings or any issues involving witness credibility or evidentiary rulings. See Van

Treese v. Blome, 7 F.3d 729, 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Schmid v. United Bhd.

of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

Accepting as true the district court’s factual findings, we conclude the court did not

err in determining that Goldblatt failed to establish a tortious-interference claim under

Missouri law. See Bockelman v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 403 F.3d 528, 531 (8th Cir.

2005) (de novo review of district court’s interpretation of state law); Healthcare Servs.

of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604, 614 (Mo. 2006) (elements of

tortious interference under Missouri law). 

Accordingly, we affirm the final order of the district court denying Goldblatt’s

claim, and we decline to address Goldblatt’s new claims on appeal, see Poolman v.

Appellate Case: 07-2545 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2008 Entry ID: 3441451
-3-

City of Grafton, 487 F.3d 1098, 1101 (8th Cir. 2007) (declining to consider claim

raised for first time on appeal).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2545 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2008 Entry ID: 3441451