Minnesota resident Elena Ruzicka appeals the district court’s ^[1] adverse grant of summary judgment in this diversity action challenging the legality of the foreclosure and sheriffs sale of her home. Upon de novo review, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012), we affirm. Specifically, we agree with the district court that Ruzicka’s evidence failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Chase’s compliance with Minn. Stat. § 580.041, subd. lb, which requires that the mortgage-holder deliver a specified foreclosure-advice notice with every written communication to the mortgagor, up to the time of a foreclosure sale. We also agree with the district court that Ruz-icka could not prevail on her breach-of-contract claim, as the summary judgment record would not permit the conclusion that Chase’s alleged breach of the mortgage agreement caused Ruzicka to suffer any economic damages that would not have otherwise occurred. See Gen. Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd., 703 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir. 2013).

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