Brock Fredin v. Halberg Criminal Defense

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 28, 2020
Docket20-2205
StatusUnpublished

This text of Brock Fredin v. Halberg Criminal Defense (Brock Fredin v. Halberg Criminal Defense) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brock Fredin v. Halberg Criminal Defense, (8th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-2205 ___________________________

Brock Fredin

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Halberg Criminal Defense; Christina Zauhar

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: December 21, 2020 Filed: December 28, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Brock Fredin appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his diversity legal malpractice action. Having reviewed the record and considered the parties’

1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (grant of motion to dismiss for failure to state claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo); Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 394 (8th Cir. 2016) (denial of motion to amend complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Flores v. United States, 689 F.3d 894, 900 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing district court’s interpretation of Minnesota malpractice statute de novo, and denial of motion to extend time limits set forth in Minnesota expert review statute for abuse of discretion); In re Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 443 F.3d 987, 993 (8th Cir. 2006) (denial of motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion). The motion for reimbursement of the appellate filing fee is denied. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brock Fredin v. Halberg Criminal Defense, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-fredin-v-halberg-criminal-defense-ca8-2020.