Cheri B. Dietrich v. Soo Line Railroad Company , 671 F. App'x 403 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 16-1993
    ___________________________
    Cheri B. Dietrich
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Soo Line Railroad Company, doing business as Canadian Pacific
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
    ____________
    Submitted: December 7, 2016
    Filed: December 12, 2016
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Cheri Dietrich appeals the district court’s1 order denying her motion for default
    judgment and dismissing her action for failure to state a claim. Having jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , this court affirms.
    After conducting careful review of the record, this court concludes that default
    judgment was properly denied because Soo Line Railroad Company filed a timely
    motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. See Adams v. American Family Mut.
    Ins. Co., 
    813 F.3d 1151
    , 1154 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review of grant of motion to
    dismiss); Comiskey v. JFTJ Corp., 
    989 F.2d 1007
    , 1009-10 (8th Cir. 1993)
    (abuse-of-discretion review of denial of motion for default judgment); Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 55(a) (default judgment is warranted when the defendant “has failed to plead or
    otherwise defend”); Comiskey, 
    989 F.2d at 1009-10
     (default judgment is rare judicial
    act). This court also concludes the action was properly dismissed because the
    amended complaint was time-barred and did not relate back to the original complaint.
    See 
    45 U.S.C. § 153
     First (r) (2-year statute of limitations for those seeking judicial
    review of NRAB award); Gatlin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
    631 F.2d 551
    , 554 (8th Cir.
    1980) (statute of limitations period accrues on date NRAB issues decision); Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C) (amendment of pleading that changes party against whom claim
    is asserted relates back to original pleading if, as relevant, new party receives notice
    or should have known of the action within the time period for service of complaint).
    The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Becky R.
    Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-1993

Citation Numbers: 671 F. App'x 403

Filed Date: 12/12/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023