John and Patricia Vylasek appeal after the district court 1 dismissed their complaint with prejudice. They also move for this court to take judicial notice of certain facts.

After careful de novo review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper. See Anderson-Tully Co. v. McDaniel, 571 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir. 2009) (grant of motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction); Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828, 833 (Minn. 2011) (elements of breach-of-contract claim); Paidar v. Hughes, 615 N.W.2d 276, 279-80 (Minn. 2000) (elements of slander-of-title claim).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending motion.