Sharllette Berry v. Capella University, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 28, 2023
Docket23-1476
StatusUnpublished

This text of Sharllette Berry v. Capella University, LLC (Sharllette Berry v. Capella University, LLC) 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
Sharllette Berry v. Capella University, LLC, (8th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

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Submitted: December 14, 2023 Filed: December 28, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________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

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

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Ascente Business Consulting v. DR myCommerce
9 F.4th 839 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)
Derek Christopherson v. Robert Bushner
33 F.4th 495 (Eighth Circuit, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sharllette Berry v. Capella University, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharllette-berry-v-capella-university-llc-ca8-2023.