United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1293

___________________________

Streambend Properties II, LLC; Streambend Properties VIII, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC; Ivy Tower Development, LLC; Moody Group,

LLC; Goben Enterprises, LP; Wischermann Holdings, LLC; Jeffrey Laux; Gary

Benson; Burnet Realty, LLC; Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company;

John Doe; Mary Rowe; XYZ, Corp.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

Submitted: November 14, 2017

Filed: November 16, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

We have seen this case thrice before. First, we held Streambend Properties II,

LLC and Streambend Properties VIII, LLC (collectively, Streambend) had alleged
enough of a connection with interstate commerce to go forward with claims against

various parties involved in the development of a residential condominium where

Streambend had sought to buy units. See Streambend Props. II, LLC v. Ivy Tower

Minneapolis, LLC, 451 Fed. Appx. 627 (8th Cir. 2012) (unpublished per curiam). 

Second, we affirmed the subsequent dismissal of some of those claims and the grant

of summary judgment to the defendants on the rest. See Streambend Props. II, LLC

v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC, 781 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2015). Third, in an

unreported order, we summarily affirmed after the district court denied a motion by

Streambend’s beneficial owner, Jerald Hammann, to join the case or take

Streambend’s place as plaintiff. In the second and third appeals, we also denied

additional motions originally filed in this court seeking to add Hammann to this

litigation.

Now, Streambend appeals from the denial of its motion for relief from the

judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), and a renewed motion for substitution of

parties, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c). We agree with the district court that these motions 1

represent improper attempts to relitigate issues already decided. See SDDS, Inc. v.

South Dakota (In re SDDS, Inc.), 225 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 2000); see also

Maxfield v. Cintas Corp., No. 2, 487 F.3d 1132, 1134-35 (8th Cir. 2007) (law-of-thecase and prior-panel doctrines). Streambend’s challenge to our precedent forbidding

the use of Rule 60 motions for such collateral attacks would be unavailing even if we

found it persuasive, because we cannot overrule another panel of this court. See

Maxfield, 487 F.3d at 1135.

Further, we see no reversible error in the district court’s implicit refusal to

grant Streambend leave to amend the complaint or conduct limited discovery, as

Streambend requested in its briefs. Streambend did not request this alternative relief

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

-2-
by motion, did not cite authority supporting it, did not submit proposed amendments

for review, and did not offer anything more than speculation about what it expected

to discover. Any of these would suffice to justify the district court’s decision. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (motions); United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913, 933 (8th

Cir. 2014) (legal authority); Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th

Cir. 2008) (proposed amendments); cf.Toben v. BridgestoneRetail Operations, LLC,

751 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014) (discovery).

We affirm the denial of Streambend’s motions.

______________________________

-3-