Court Opinion

ID: 9913662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 17:01:09.482162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:44.778035
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 23-1476
                          ___________________________

                                    Sharllette Berry

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

                               Capella University, LLC

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                       ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
                                    ____________

                           Submitted: December 14, 2023
                             Filed: December 28, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      In this diversity action, Sharllette Berry appeals the district court’s1 dismissal
of her civil action against Capella University. After de novo review, see

      1
       The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495, 499 (8th Cir. 2022) (reviewing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo); Ascente Bus. Consulting, LLC v. DR myCommerce,
9 F.4th 839, 844 (8th Cir. 2021) (reviewing futility-based denial of leave to amend
de novo); we agree with the district court that Berry did not plead her fraud claim
with the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), see Ascente, 9
F.4th at 845 (party alleging fraud must state with particularity circumstances
constituting fraud, including who, what, where, when, and how). We also conclude
Berry failed to plead facts demonstrating her entitlement to relief under the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(labels and threadbare recitals of elements supported by conclusory statements is
insufficient to show entitlement to relief).

     Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and deny as moot Capella
University’s motion to supplement the record.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-