Court Opinion

ID: 9928918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 17:00:40.432352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:59:37.025646
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-2255
                       ___________________________

                               Madison B. Turner

                      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                         v.

                             ILG Technologies LLC

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                     ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
              for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
                                ____________

                          Submitted: January 15, 2024
                            Filed: February 1, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Madison Turner appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of her
diversity action against ILG Technologies LLC (ILG). Upon careful review, we

     1
      The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of the original complaint
because the district court unequivocally informed Turner that the dismissal was a
final decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and Turner did not timely appeal it. See
Hope v. Klabal, 457 F.3d 784, 789 (8th Cir. 2006); Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440
F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006).

       As to the district court’s dismissal of the second amended complaint, assuming,
as Turner argues, that summary-judgment standards apply, we conclude that ILG was
entitled to summary judgment. See Blair v. Wills, 420 F.3d 823, 826-827 (8th Cir.
2005). The license agreement disclaimed ILG’s liability for damages, and while
Turner argues that there is a genuine dispute regarding her acceptance of the
agreement, she does not point to any evidence to rebut ILG’s evidence that users of
its software must accept the license agreement when they download the software.
Further, Turner alleged in the operative pleading that she downloaded the software
multiple times. See Grant v. City of Blytheville, 841 F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir. 2016).
While she argues that she did not have the opportunity to obtain evidence to dispute
ILG’s evidence, she does not explain what discoverable information she sought
concerning the license agreement, or how it would have rebutted ILG’s evidence. See
BJC Health Sys. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 348 F.3d 685, 689 (8th Cir. 2003). We also
conclude that ILG is not judicially estopped from relying on the license agreement.
See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001).

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
We also deny the pending appellate motions.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-