Court Opinion

ID: 4287801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-06-25 16:00:22.583342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:23.450159
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 17-2985
                          ___________________________

      Soo Tractor Sweeprake Co., doing business as Radius Steel Fabrication

                         lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                             v.

          Gavin/Solmonese LLC; Ted Gavin, Individually; Stephen Kunkel

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                                        ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City
                                  ____________

                               Submitted: June 14, 2018
                                 Filed: June 25, 2018
                                    [Unpublished]
                                    ____________

Before WOLLMAN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Soo Tractor Sweeprake Co. (Soo) appeals the district court’s1 dismissal, for
lack of standing, of its diversity action asserting contract and commercial tort claims.

      1
        The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
Having reviewed the record in light of the parties’ arguments, we agree with the
district court that, under Iowa law, Soo assigned its interest in the asserted claims
prior to filing the instant action. See Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson, 793 F.3d
910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); Red Giant Oil Co. v. Lawlor, 528
N.W.2d 524, 533 (Iowa 1995) (“Choses in action whether for breach of contract or
for tort are assignable in this state.”).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

                                          -2-