Case Name: AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Guy A. BLUME, Defendant-Appellant Blume Investments, LLC; Royal Professional Solutions, LLC, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-24
Citations: 562 F. App'x 545
Docket Number: No. 13-3049
Parties: AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Guy A. BLUME, Defendant-Appellant Blume Investments, LLC; Royal Professional Solutions, LLC, Defendants.
Judges: Before BYE, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 562
Pages: 545–546

Head Matter:
AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Guy A. BLUME, Defendant-Appellant Blume Investments, LLC; Royal Professional Solutions, LLC, Defendants.
No. 13-3049.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2014.
Filed: April 24, 2014.
William Lowell Killion, Nicholas R. Rot-chadl, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Guy A. Blume, argued, Altura, MN, pro se.
Before BYE, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Guy Blume appeals from the final judgment entered by the district court in this action brought by American Dairy Queen Corporation. He challenges the default judgment entered against him, the denial of his requests to transfer venue, and the dismissal of his counterclaims. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering the default judgment or in dismissing Blume's counterclaims as sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084, 1105 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review; default judgment may be upheld if within range of acceptable sanctions); Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1211-14 (8th Cir.1973) (with-prejudice dismissal of counterclaims as Rule 37 sanction did not constitute abuse of discretion). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to transfer venue. See In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d 909, 912-13 (8th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (standard of review; courts give considerable deference to plaintiffs choice of forum, and thus party seeking transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) typically bears burden of proving transfer is warranted).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
. Blume has not addressed the amount of the judgment in his arguments on appeal. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir.2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are waived).