Tynisha Reinerio v. Bank of America N.A.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 6, 2018
Docket17-3120
StatusUnpublished

This text of Tynisha Reinerio v. Bank of America N.A. (Tynisha Reinerio v. Bank of America N.A.) 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
Tynisha Reinerio v. Bank of America N.A., (8th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 17-3120 ___________________________

Tynisha Latrice Reinerio, now known as Akosua Tanisha Aaebo

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Bank of America N.A.; Countrywide Financial Corporation; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; CWAB, Inc.; Bank of New York Mellon; Southlaw P.C.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

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

Submitted: June 1, 2018 Filed: June 6, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Akosua Tanisha Aaebo, formerly known as Tynisha Latrice Reinerio, appeals from the order of the District Court1 dismissing her claims as barred by res judicata and denying her motion to remand. She has also filed a motion in this Court for judicial notice.

After de novo review, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing Aaebo’s claims. See C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Lobrano, 695 F.3d 758, 763–64 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); see also Chesterfield Vill., Inc. v. City of Chesterfield, 64 S.W.3d 315, 318–20 (Mo. 2002) (applying the Missouri common-law doctrine of claim preclusion); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Commerical Union Ins. Co., 943 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Mo. 1997) (“The granting of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is a final judgment on the merits sufficient to raise the defense of res judicata in a later proceeding.”). We further conclude that the District Court did not err in denying Aaebo’s motion to remand. See Block v. Toyota Motor Corp., 665 F.3d 944, 947–48 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing de novo the denial of a motion to remand and explaining the fraudulent joinder standard).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny Aaebo’s pending motion. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

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

Related

Block v. Toyota Motor Corp.
665 F.3d 944 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield
64 S.W.3d 315 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2002)
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. George Lobrano, Jr.
695 F.3d 758 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance
943 S.W.2d 640 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tynisha Reinerio v. Bank of America N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tynisha-reinerio-v-bank-of-america-na-ca8-2018.