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

Four days before the statute of limitations expired, the Barners filed a complaint in Arkansas state court against T/C Inc. and T/C LLC, based on injuries allegedly sustained on October 15, 2010. T/C Inc. had merged into T/C LLC before the Barners filed suit. Under Arkansas law, they had 120 days to serve the defendants with the complaint and summons. Their attorney sent to CT Corporation, the registered agent for Inc., the complaint and summons for each party. CT returned two receipts, showing that service had been completed for both defendants on January 24, 2014; however, CT was not the registered agent for LLC. On February 14, after the 120-day period had expired, the defendants filed notice of removal. On April 8, the Barners served the complaint and summons for LLC on its registered agent. The court found that the claims against LLC would have been dismissed with prejudice had the case remained in state court, so the Barners could not complete service post-removal, and that Inc. was no longer a legal entity capable of being sued. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Inc., but reversed dismissal against LLC. Had the case remained in state court, it would have been dismissed, but without prejudice; the Barners would have had a year to refile under the savings statute. View "Barner v. Thompson/Center Arms Co." on Justia Law

Hughes guides hunting parties, charging $1,600 to $2,600 per person for accommodations, meals, hunting stands, field dressing, and carcass-cleaning facilities. To hunt buck in Iowa, a hunter must have a “tag.” Non-residents must enter a lottery. Hughes gave his non-resident clients tags belonging to others. After they killed a buck, Hughes falsely reported to the Iowa DNR that the tag owner had killed the buck. The bucks were transported out of state. Hughes was indicted under the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. 3371, which prohibits selling in interstate commerce any wildlife taken in violation of state law. The value of the wildlife determines whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. The court instructed the jury: you may, but are not required to, consider, the price the wildlife would bring if sold on the open market between a willing buyer and seller; the price a hunter would pay for the opportunity to participate in a hunt for the wildlife; or Iowa’s valuation of the wildlife in state prosecutions where such wildlife is unlawfully taken. The jury found that the market value of the wildlife exceeded $350. The district court sentenced Hughes to three years’ probation, $7,000 in fines, and $1,802.50 in restitution. The Eighth Circuit reversed; the jury was not properly instructed as to the meaning of “market value.” View "United States v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Taylor was injured while attempting to secure a vehicle on a Cottrell car-hauling trailer. Dr. Odor operated on Taylor to complete a two-level cervical fusion. More than two years later, Taylor was again injured when he fell approximately 10 feet from a Cottrell trailer. He was taken to the emergency room and was discharged home with pain medication. The same month, Taylor reported to Dr. Odor with neck and back pain. After testing, Dr. Odor observed several disc protrusions and a disc desiccation. These injuries led to another complex spinal surgery with Dr. Odor, the cost of which exceeded $450,000. Two weeks before trial Cottrell claimed it had uncovered copies of agreements between Taylor's counsel and Dr. Odor which evidenced an impermissible contingent-fee agreement. The court found there was a contingency agreement and excluded Odor’s testimony as an expert witness, dismissed claims for Taylor's neck and back injuries, and stayed claims related to shoulder injuries. The Eighth Circuit reversed; the district court failed to articulate the precise interest Odor had in the outcome of the litigation and failed to explain why any such interest overcomes the general rule that Odor's bias and credibility should be resolved by the jury. View "Taylor v. Cottrell, Inc." on Justia Law

After his car was hit by a car driven negligently by Sheffer, Behlmann was billed $89,884.79 for medical treatment. Behlmann settled with Sheffer for $50,000, the limit of Sheffer’s policy. Behlmann sued his insurer, Century, for underinsured motorist benefits. Century argued that Behlmann’s medical treatment cost less than $50,000 and resulted from pre-existing conditions. The jury found for Century. Behlmann unsuccessfully requested a new trial, challenging the admission of evidence on the value of his medical treatment and the strike of the only African-American venire person. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting Missouri law: “Parties may introduce evidence of the value of the medical treatment rendered to a party that was reasonable, necessary, and a proximate result of the negligence of any party.” Behlmann did not establish that Century’s reasons for the strike were pretextual. Juror 4 was a long-time autoworker; he failed to disclose he was an autoworker despite relevant questioning; and he failed to disclose involvement in prior litigation. View "Behlmann v. Century Sur. Co." on Justia Law

In April 2011, while its patent application was pending with the USPTO, U.S. Water Services, which “sell[s] water treatment and purification equipment, materials, and services,” especially “to ethanol process technologies,” sued its competitor, ChemTreat, for misappropriation of trade secrets. In October 2011, the USPTO issued the 244 patent covering a method to reduce the formation of insoluble scale deposits during the production of ethanol using enzyme, phytase, in its “pHytOUT® system.”Three days before U.S. Water and ChemTreat settled the misappropriation claim, ChemTreat filed counterclaims requesting declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity of the 244 patent. The suit was filed before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, took effect, so the counterclaims independently did not establish appellate jurisdiction for the Federal Circuit. The district court granted ChemTreat summary judgment as to the noninfringement counterclaim and dismissed the invalidity counterclaim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Evaluating the “totality of [the] circumstances,” the district court did not err in finding the misappropriation action, together with U.S. Water’s statements to its customers and supplier, produced an objective, “reasonable apprehension of suit,” and did not err in concluding declaratory judgment subject matter jurisdiction existed. The decision did not constitute an advisory opinion. View "U.S. Water Servs., Inc. v. ChemTreat, Inc." on Justia Law

Lumber, a tax-exempt insurance trust (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(9)), purchased life insurance issued by GAMHC. GAMHC converted from an insurer owned by policyholders to one owned by stockholders. In 2003, Lumber received a $1,474,442.30 liquidating distribution and a statement that the entire “initial distribution . . . will constitute long-term capital gain.” Lumber reported the gain on its return for fiscal year 2004 and paid capital gains tax of $200,686. Lumber received additional distributions of $285,647 and $213,567, which it reported as taxable capital gains on its 2006 and 2008 returns. The IRS had adopted the position that a policyholder’s proprietary interest in a mutual insurance company had a tax basis of zero. In 2008, the Claims Court rejected that position. Lumber sought refunds for 2004, 2006, and 2008. The IRS delayed a ruling until the Federal Circuit affirmed, then allowed Lumber’s claims for 2006 and 2008 and refunded $42,847 and $32,035, but denied Lumber’s claim for 2004, citing the three-year limitations period. The district court granted Lumber summary judgment, concluding that the mitigation provisions, I.R.C. 1311-1314, permitted correcting the erroneous recognition of gain. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Allowing taxpayers to reopen closed tax years based upon a favorable change in, or reinterpretation of, the laws would be inconsistent with the congressional intent in enacting the mitigation provisions to “preserve unimpaired the essential function of the statute of limitations.” View "Ill. Lumber & Material v. United States" on Justia Law

Stephens visited the Oaklawn Club for gambling. After winning, playing slot machines, Stephens cashed out and left the casino. He returned later that evening and purchased another ticket for use in the slot machines. He was approached by uniformed security personnel and Jessup, a uniformed Hot Springs police officer. They accused Stephens of stealing the cashed-out ticket and detained Stephens while employees reviewed surveillance footage. Stephens alleges that Jessup threatened to “take him to jail immediately” if he did not return the money. Jessup recited Miranda warnings, escorted Stephens to his vehicle, and retrieved the money. An Arkansas state court granted Oaklawn summary judgment. Neither Jessup nor Amtote was a party to that action. Stephens then filed a federal suit against Jessup and Amtote, alleging the same causes of action against these new defendants. The court dismissed, citing issue preclusion. The Eighth Circuit reversed in part, finding that Stephens did not perfect an appeal with respect to Amtote. The court expressed no view on the merits of the Jessup claims, stating that the record is not clear that Stephens is trying to relitigate an issue that was previously decided or that Jessup and Oaklawn represent the same legal right. View "Stephens v. Jessup" on Justia Law

By quitclaim deed, 27 acres in Branson passed to Tori, Inc. Tori was dissolved, and, by quitclaim transactions, Rea acquired the land. Rea quitclaimed to Missouri Branson. Coverdell also claims ownership, based on a 1999 quitclaim from Tori. Coverdell's claim spurred state lawsuits, funded by Elfant, a businessman, who operates a Delaware LLC, Nekome, from his Florida home. In 2013, Missouri state courts rejected Coverdell's claim. In 2014, Nekome acquired Missouri Branson, days after receiving tax advice that merging Missouri Branson into an out-of-state corporation would avoid Missouri state taxes. Nekome became the sole member in a newly form company, Florida Branson. Missouri Branson merged into Florida Branson, transferring Missouri's claim of ownership to Florida. Days later, Florida Branson filed suit in federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction based on its Florida citizenship and the defendants’ Missouri citizenships, and alleging that the city, the electric company, and developers infringed on its rights by breaking ground on its land in 2004, to develop Branson Landing, a mixed-use retail, residential, and entertainment complex. Elfant admits that the only business that Florida Branson conducts consists of directing and funding the lawsuits." The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that Florida Branson's corporate maneuvers were done to manufacture diversity in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1359 and that the purported tax purpose for merging was pretextual. View "Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson" on Justia Law

On August 20, 2013, Lee, an Arkansas citizen, sued VTI and 10 John Does, alleging that while preparing for a welding project on August 21, 2010, he attached a newly purchased oxygen tank to his existing pressure regulator, manufactured by VTI. Lee “tried without success to adjust the regulator pressure” when “[s]uddenly, and without warning, the metal crimped end of the oxygen hose came loose from the metal handpiece, striking him in the right eye” and causing blindness in that eye. On December 18, 2013, Lee dismissed VTI and moved for leave to amend his complaint to substitute Airgas LLC and Airgas-Mid South (the alleged supplier of the tank) for two Doe defendants. The district court denied the motion, noting Lee failed to allege Airgas-Mid South’s principal place of business, the citizenship of Airgas LLC’s members, and the citizenship of any John Doe defendants. The order imposed a deadline by which Lee was to correct these errors. The district court permitted amendment as to Airgas Mid-South but ultimately dismissed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Lee’s claims against Airgas Mid-South were time-barred and the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the claims against the John Does. View "Lee v. Airgas - Mid South, Inc." on Justia Law

PR sued Windmill in Missouri state court, but did not serve Windmill with the complaint. More than two years later, Windmill moved to dismiss for lack of prosecution. After PR responded to the motion but before the state court ruled on it, Windmill filed a notice of removal. In federal court, PR moved to remand, arguing that Windmill had waived its right to remove when it filed the state court motion to dismiss. The district court granted PR’s motion. The Eighth Circuit reversed. The 28 U.S.C. 1446 right to remove a case filed in state court to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction can be waived by actions the defendant takes in state court. A defendant waives the right “by taking some substantial offensive or defensive action in the state court action indicating a willingness to litigate in that tribunal before filing a notice of removal with the federal court.” The right to removal is not lost by participating in state court proceedings short of seeking adjudication on the merits. Windmill’s motion was based on PR’s failure to complete service; it neither addressed nor sought adjudication on the merits and did not clearly and unequivocally demonstrate willingness to litigate in state court. View "PR Grp., LLC v. Windmill Int'l, Ltd." on Justia Law