Levi Garrett v. Ronald Stock

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2878 ___________________________

Levi Edward Garrett lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant James Edward Garrett; Sandra Ann Garrett lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs v. Ronald Stock; Kristin K. Stock lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

___________________________

No. 25-2973 ___________________________

James Edward Garrett lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant Sandra Ann Garrett; Levi Edward Garrett lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs v. Ronald Stock; Kristin K. Stock lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Central ____________ Submitted: April 30, 2026 Filed: May 5, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

James and Levi Garrett appeal following the district court’s1 rulings denying a motion for a continuance and entering judgment in accordance with a jury verdict on the issue of damages stemming from breached real estate agreements. Following our review, we conclude that denial of the request for a continuance, which was signed only by Levi Garrett after the Garretts’ attorneys withdrew, was not an abuse of discretion, see Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., 809 F.3d 1018, 1022 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing denial of postponement for abuse of discretion; finding no abuse of discretion in denial of deferment of damages hearing where no time frame was provided as to when, if ever, reason for delay would be resolved); and we decline to consider challenges to the jury trial or entry of judgment following the damages verdict that were not raised in the district court, see id. (reviewing court ordinarily does not consider argument first raised on appeal); see also Jones ex rel. Jones v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 401 F.3d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 2005) (non-attorney may not engage in practice of law on behalf of others). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.