Summary
noting that "courts give considerable deference to plaintiff's choice of forum, and thus party seeking transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 typically bears burden of proving transfer is warranted"
Summary of this case from Hursh v. DST Sys.Opinion
No. 13-3049
04-24-2014
American Dairy Queen Corporation Plaintiff - Appellee v. Guy A. Blume Defendant - Appellant Blume Investments, LLC; Royal Professional Solutions, LLC Defendants
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[Unpublished]
Before BYE, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Guy Blume appeals from the final judgment entered by the district court in this action brought by American Dairy Queen Corporation. He challenges the default judgment entered against him, the denial of his requests to transfer venue, and the dismissal of his counterclaims. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering the default judgment or in dismissing Blume's counterclaims as sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084, 1105 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review; default judgment may be upheld if within range of acceptable sanctions); Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1211-14 (8th Cir. 1973) (with-prejudice dismissal of counterclaims as Rule 37 sanction did not constitute abuse of discretion). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to transfer venue. See In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d 909, 912-13 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (standard of review; courts give considerable deference to plaintiff's choice of forum, and thus party seeking transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) typically bears burden of proving transfer is warranted).
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Blume has not addressed the amount of the judgment in his arguments on appeal. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are waived).
--------
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.