Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02893/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02893-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2893

___________

Albert Ray Steward III, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Royal Bank of Canada, a Canadian * Appeal from the United States

company; RBC Centura Banks, Inc., a * District Court for the

subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada; * District of Minnesota.

RBC Dain Rauscher, a subsidiary of *

Royal Bank of Canada; RBC Builder * [UNPUBLISHED]

Finance, a subsidiary of Royal Bank *

of Canada; RBC Insurance Holding, *

Inc., a subsidiary of Royal Bank of *

Canada; RBC Liberty Life Insurance *

Company, a subsidiary of Royal Bank *

of Canada; RBC Capital Markets *

Corporation, a subsidiary of Royal *

Bank of Canada; Doe, Defendants 1 *

through 24, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 30, 2008

Filed: October 8, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 07-2893 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2008 Entry ID: 3478169
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J.

Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Albert Ray Steward appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his complaint.

After careful review, we conclude that dismissal was proper because the court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d

214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (threshold requirement in every federal case is jurisdiction);

see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n.10 (2006) (noting that claim

invoking federal-question jurisdiction may be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is immaterial and made solely for purpose

of obtaining jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous); 4:20 Commc’ns,

Ins. v. Paradigm Co., 336 F.3d 775, 779 (8th Cir. 2003) (party invoking federal

jurisdiction has burden to establish jurisdictional requirements). We also conclude

that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Steward leave to file a second

amended complaint. See Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, 318 F.3d 832, 844 (8th

Cir. 2003) (standard of review; leave to amend should be denied for reasons such as

undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies with

earlier amendments, undue prejudice to non-movant, or futility of amendment).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2893 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2008 Entry ID: 3478169