Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Jonathan Weber Arrington, the defendant, was employed by Recon Roofing and Construction to handle their finances. He was found guilty of wire fraud, having embezzled a total of $315,835 from the company between August 2019 and March 2021. Arrington appealed his sentence and the related restitution order. He argued that the district court erred by assigning him the burden of proof regarding any offset to the restitution amount. The defendant also contended that the court didn't account for the value of payments he made towards the loss, and that the imposed sentence was unreasonably harsh.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the sentence but vacated the restitution order. The Appeals Court stated that the district court was correct in assigning Arrington the burden of proof for any offset to the amount of restitution. However, it was determined that the district court had erred in not reducing the restitution amount by the value of shares sold by the defendant back to the company. Therefore, the restitution amount was reduced by $50,000 to $265,835. The court found the prison sentence to be reasonable, considering the factors such as Arrington's position of trust within the company, the extent of the fraud, his attempt to cover it up, and his prior federal fraud conviction. View "United States v. Arrington" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court's decision to impose sanctions on attorney Gregory Leyh and his law firm under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for filing frivolous claims. The sanctions were requested by Martin Leigh, P.C., a party that Leyh had included in a series of lawsuits filed on behalf of Gwen Caranchini, who had defaulted on her home loan and was seeking to stop foreclosure proceedings.The district court had imposed sanctions after Leyh failed to respond to a warning letter and motion for sanctions served by Martin Leigh. On appeal, Leyh argued that the sanctions imposed were inappropriate because Martin Leigh had not complied with Rule 11(c)(2)'s safe harbor provision, which requires that a party be given an opportunity to withdraw or correct the offending document before a motion for sanctions is filed.The appellate court agreed with Leyh, finding that Martin Leigh had not adhered to the strict procedural requirements of Rule 11(c)(2). The court also noted that while Leyh's legal tactics were an abuse of the system, Martin Leigh had not pursued other possible avenues for sanctions, such as Rule 11(c)(3), 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or the court's inherent powers. The court thus reversed the sanctions and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the award. View "Martin Leigh PC v. Leyh" on Justia Law

Four ninth-grade football players at Park Hill High School in Kansas City, Missouri, were suspended or expelled after one of them created an online petition titled "Start Slavery Again" and the others posted comments favoring the petition. They filed a lawsuit against the Park Hill School District and various school officials, claiming that their rights to equal protection and due process were violated.In their suit, the students argued that they were deprived of substantive and procedural due process in the disciplinary procedures. They also claimed that they were deprived of equal protection because another student, who they alleged was a willing participant in creating the petition, was not punished. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment for the school district, dismissing all of the students' claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that the students received adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to present their case in the school disciplinary proceedings, satisfying the requirements of due process. The court further held that the disciplinary actions taken by the school district were not so egregious as to violate the students' substantive due process rights. Lastly, the court rejected the students' equal protection claim on the basis that the student who was not punished was not similarly situated to the plaintiffs given their greater involvement in creating and supporting the petition. View "Plaintiff A v. Park Hill School District" on Justia Law

The case centers on an insurance dispute between Cardinal Building Materials, Inc. and Amerisure Insurance Company following damage to Cardinal's facility by a tornado. Cardinal initially received a payout from Amerisure but later claimed additional coverage under its policy. Amerisure requested further documentation to support these additional losses, which Cardinal provided, albeit in an unorganized and delayed manner. Amerisure also requested Cardinal to provide a representative for an examination under oath, which Cardinal complied with. Subsequently, Amerisure argued that Cardinal had failed to cooperate as outlined in the insurance policy due to its delayed and disorganized submission of documents, and changes to the claim amount. The district court granted summary judgment in Amerisure's favor, holding that Cardinal had materially breached the insurance policy's cooperation clause.However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court noted that while Cardinal's document submission and response times were not ideal, the policy did not specify a particular format or schedule for document submission. The court also pointed out that Amerisure did not provide evidence that it had requested a "signed, sworn proof of loss" from Cardinal, a requirement in the policy. As such, the court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Cardinal's actions constituted a material breach of the cooperation clause, making summary judgment inappropriate.The court did not address Amerisure’s alternative arguments that Cardinal failed to generate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding damages or present evidence from which a jury could rationally estimate Cardinal’s damages. The court deemed these arguments to be fact-intensive and best left to the district court to decide in the first instance. The court therefore vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Cardinal Building Materials, Inc. v. Amerisure Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case involves the death of Andrew Dawson Bell, who committed suicide while detained at the Washington County Detention Center (WCDC) in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Bell's mother, Judy Lynn Smith-Dandridge, filed a lawsuit against several Fayetteville Police Department officers, WCDC employees, nurses, and Washington County itself, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to Bell's serious medical needs, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Arkansas Code Ann. § 16-123-105. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, and Smith-Dandridge appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.Bell had a history of mental illness and substance abuse. On the day he died, Bell had called the police several times, reporting hallucinations of people trying to break into his apartment. Officers responded but found no evidence of a break-in. They arrested Bell for terroristic threats, disorderly conduct, and carrying a weapon. When Bell was processed into WCDC, he informed the intake officers of his mental health history, including a history of suicidal ideation. Despite this, he was placed in the general population.The main issue on appeal was whether the police officers and WCDC personnel had knowledge of Bell's substantial risk of suicide and deliberately disregarded it. Smith-Dandridge argued that the officers’ interactions with Bell and their review of his arrest history established they had the requisite knowledge to establish deliberate indifference. However, the court found that while Bell's behavior put the officers on notice of signs of mental illness, it did not make it obvious to them that Bell had a substantial risk of suicide. Similarly, the court found that the WCDC personnel's inaction to prevent Bell's suicide did not constitute criminal recklessness.The court also dismissed Smith-Dandridge's claim that Washington County was deliberately indifferent in its failure to train jail staff. The court found that Smith-Dandridge failed to show that the alleged deficient training caused WCDC personnel to be deliberately indifferent to Bell's substantial risk of suicide. As such, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of all defendants. View "Smith-Dandridge v. Geanolous" on Justia Law

The case revolved around Darron Mayo, who was appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a hidden camera placed by police officers across his apartment door. The evidence from this camera was used to obtain a search warrant for Mayo's apartment, where police found drugs, paraphernalia, cash, a loaded pistol, and an iPhone containing incriminating photographs and videos.Mayo argued that the footage from the hidden camera violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the search warrant was deficient after removing evidence obtained from the camera. He also contended that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, however, affirmed the decision of the District Court, ruling that the probable cause affidavit remained sufficient even when the evidence from the hidden camera was omitted.The court cited four sets of related facts supporting this conclusion. First, various drugs, a scale, and stolen handguns were found in a car associated with Mayo. Second, Mayo's fingerprints were found on a handgun magazine, and a video linked him to the vehicle. Third, during a traffic stop, Mayo gave a false name, marijuana was found in the car, and he made incriminating phone calls recorded by a police dash camera. Fourth, utilities in Mayo's name connected him to the apartment in question. These facts indicated a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in his apartment. Therefore, the court held that the hidden camera footage was not necessary to establish probable cause. View "United States v. Mayo" on Justia Law

Three shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Department of the Treasury, alleging harm from the unconstitutional removal restriction of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Their claims were based on the premise that if President Trump had been able to remove the FHFA Director without restrictions, he would have ended a provision that, in the event of liquidation, allowed the Treasury to recover its full preference before any other shareholder. The district court dismissed the shareholders' claims, finding that they did not sufficiently demonstrate any harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court noted that to challenge agency action, a party must not only show that the removal restriction is unconstitutional but also that the provision caused or would cause them harm. The court found that the shareholders' assertions did not satisfy this standard. They relied heavily on a post-presidency letter from President Trump expressing his desire to have removed the FHFA Director during his presidency. The court determined that this letter did not meet the criteria of a "public statement expressing displeasure" as outlined by the Supreme Court in Collins v. Yellen. Furthermore, the court found the shareholders' circumstantial evidence of harm speculative and insufficient to state a claim for relief. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims. View "Bhatti v. Fed. Housing Finance Agency" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed a dispute between two Honduran nationals, Dennys Antonio Reyes Molina and Eny Adamy Mejia Rodriguez, over the wrongful removal of their daughter from Honduras to the United States by the father, Reyes. The mother, Rodriguez, petitioned for the child's return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the United States in the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA). Reyes conceded wrongful removal, but argued that returning the child to Honduras would put her at grave risk of physical harm.The District Court found that Reyes had failed to prove such grave risk by clear and convincing evidence and ordered the child's return to Honduras. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court affirmed this decision. The court found that while Rodriguez had physically punished the child in the past, it was not "highly probable" that such punishment would continue upon the child's return to Honduras. The court also held that the injuries inflicted on the child by Rodriguez's past physical punishment did not indicate that the child would face a magnitude of physical harm that would allow the court to lawfully decline to return the child to Honduras.Reyes argued that the District Court erred by considering his actions in deciding the case. However, the Appeals Court concluded that the District Court did not rely on Reyes's actions in determining that he had not met his evidentiary burden. Therefore, the Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's decision to order the child's return to Honduras. View "Rodriguez v. Molina" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment, based on qualified immunity, in favor of government attorneys Michael Spindler-Krage and Thomas Canan. The plaintiff, Michael Davitt, had brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Spindler-Krage and Canan, alleging they violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they advised police that Davitt could be removed from his hotel room without eviction proceedings.During the COVID-19 pandemic, Olmsted County, Minnesota, arranged temporary, non-communal housing for elderly and vulnerable homeless individuals. Davitt, who was 69 years old and homeless, was moved into a Super 8 hotel room. When the county stopped paying for his room, Davitt refused to leave, citing a Minnesota governor's executive order temporarily prohibiting evictions. Spindler-Krage and Canan, after reviewing the relevant state law, the executive order, and the Agreement for Hotel Guests, advised the police that Davitt was a hotel guest, not a tenant protected by the executive order.In granting Spindler-Krage and Canan summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the district court found that no case law, statute, or other legal authority clearly established that Davitt was a tenant with a constitutionally protected right to his hotel room. The court also found that the advice provided to the police was objectively reasonable. The Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that Spindler-Krage and Canan did not violate Davitt’s clearly established rights and were thus entitled to qualified immunity. View "Davitt v. Krage" on Justia Law

In this case, a minor student known as A.J.T., who suffers from epilepsy, sued her school district, Osseo Area Schools, alleging disability discrimination for not providing her evening instruction sessions. A.J.T.'s epilepsy is severe in the mornings, preventing her from attending school until noon. The child's parents requested evening instruction so that she could have a school day closer in length to her peers. However, the school district denied these requests.A.J.T., through her parents, filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted Osseo Area Schools' motion for summary judgment, finding that the school district could not be held liable as it did not act with bad faith or gross misjudgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court stated that while A.J.T. might have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, she failed to prove that school officials acted with "either bad faith or gross misjudgment." The court found that the school district did not ignore A.J.T.'s needs or delay its efforts to address them. It further held that in cases involving educational services for disabled children, mere noncompliance with applicable federal statutes or failure to provide a reasonable accommodation is not enough to trigger liability. The plaintiff must prove that the school officials acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment. In this case, A.J.T. failed to identify conduct that cleared that high bar, and as such, the court held that summary judgment was proper. View "A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279" on Justia Law