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

Shields and Wilson are Indians with interests on the Bakken Oil Shale Formation in the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota, allotted to them under the Dawes Act of 1887. Such land is held in trust by the government, but may be leased by allottees. Shields and Wilson leased oil and gas mining rights on their allotments to companies and affiliated individuals who won a sealed bid auction conducted by the Board of Indian Affairs in 2007. After the auction, the women agreed to terms with the winning bidders, the BIA approved the leases, and the winning bidders sold them for a large profit. Shields and Wilson filed a putative class action, claiming that the government had breached its fiduciary duty by approving the leases for the oil and gas mining rights, and that the bidders aided, abetted, and induced the government to breach that duty. The district court concluded that the United States was a required party which could not be joined, but without which the action could not proceed in equity and good conscience, and dismissed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The United States enjoys sovereign immunity for the claims and can decide itself when and where it wants to intervene. View "Two Shields v. Wilkinson." on Justia Law

Ideker sued, alleging she developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma from exposure to benzene while working in HD’s paint department. The district court dismissed, predicting that the Missouri Supreme Court would require Ideker to raise her claim before Missouri’s labor and industrial relations commission because it was covered by Missouri’s Workers’ Compensation Law. Ideker then filed a workers’ compensation claim, which is pending. The dismissal became final. Less than 30 days later, the Missouri Court of Appeals issued an opinion that cast doubt on that prediction. Although Ideker’s counsel was aware of the decision before time to appeal expired, counsel stated that “there was little incentive for Ideker to seek appellate review requiring a second federal court to predict how Missouri courts would rule.” Ideker filed a complaint in state court, reasserting her occupational disease claim. Harley-Davidson removed the case to federal court. The court dismissed without prejudice on collateral estoppel grounds, concluding that its prior decision was binding because Missouri law precluded Ideker “from relitigating issues finally decided in [an] incorrect order[].” The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Any purported “mistake” the court made in predicting Missouri law does not enable Ideker to circumvent the dismissal by refiling the same injury claim based on the same historical facts in a second case. View "Ideker v. Harley-Davidson, Inc." on Justia Law

Billings, Golden Valley, McKenzie, and Slope Counties in North Dakota, and the state, sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. 2409a, seeking to quiet title to alleged rights-of-way along section lines that run through lands owned by the federal government in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. They alleged that in North Dakota, with a few exceptions, a public easement provides a right-of-way for public travel within 33 feet on either side of the section lines. The federal government does not recognize these rights-of-way. Nonprofit environmental organizations sought to intervene as defendants as of right under FRCP 24(a) or permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). They alleged that they possess important aesthetic, recreational, and environmental interests in preserving the Grasslands. The district court denied the motion to intervene as of right, finding that they failed to show injury in-fact or a recognized interest in the suit’s subject matter and that the United States adequately represented any legally protectable interest. The court also denied the alternative request for permissive intervention. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that the groups did not overcome the presumption of adequate representation and noting that permissive intervention is “wholly discretionary.” View "North Dakota v. Badlands Conservation Alliance" on Justia Law

Rogers’s 2005 mortgage on her Minnesota home was executed in favor of Countrywide and it listed Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as the mortgagee. In 2008, MERS transferred its interest in the mortgage to a securitized mortgage trust by assigning the mortgage to Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate holders. Bank of New York was party to a Pooling and Servicing Agreement between various entities. According to Rogers, that Agreement governed the mortgage trust and required “that all mortgages to be included in the corpus of the Mortgage Trust were to be transferred into the Mortgage Trust between June 1, 2005 and August 8, 2005.” In 2012, Bank of New York commenced foreclosure proceedings on Rogers’s house, and purchased the house at a sheriff’s sale. Rogers sought a declaratory judgment that the foreclosure was invalid, claiming that the 2008 assignment of her mortgage to the trust violated the Agreement. The district court dismissed, holding Rogers did not have standing to challenge the foreclosure on the ground that the defendants violated an agreement to which Rogers was not party. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that Rogers lacked standing. View "Rogers v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

Union Electric is a power company, and EIM is a trade-association-owned excess carrier for power companies. Union, as an association member, is a partial owner of EIM and is the named insured in a $100 million excess liability policy issued by EIM. Union and other power companies drafted the general form policy; Union negotiated the present policy with EIM. The policy requires that coverage disputes go through a mini-trial and arbitration. An exclusive forum-selection clause and a choice-of-law clause named New York. After failure of a Missouri reservoir caused extensive damage, Union paid to settle claims; EIM paid $68 million of the policy's $100 million limit. Union filed suit in Missouri seeking the remaining $32 million plus damages for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. The district court dismissed, based on the forum-selection clause, The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the relationship between the mini-trial requirement, the arbitration provision, and a public policy argument. On remand, the court denied the motion to dismiss, noting that arbitration agreements in insurance contracts are unenforceable under Missouri law and that contractual choice-of-law provisions have been held unenforceable if they would allow enforcement of such an agreement. The Supreme Court, in a different case, subsequently supported enforcement of contractual forum-selection clauses "[i]n all but the most unusual cases." Relying on that case, EIM moved for a transfer stating that it would not seek enforcement of the arbitration provision. The court held that the motion was not untimely and that the forum-selection clause was enforceable. The Eighth Circuit denied a writ of prohibition or mandamus to prevent the transfer, stating that Union did not establish entitlement to extraordinary relief. View "Union Elec. Co. v. Energy Mut. Ins. Ltd." on Justia Law

Reid worked as an attorney in Minnesota and received health insurance from Blue Cross through her law firm. In 2008, her son was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. One of the treatments he received was behavioral therapy. Reid’s Blue Cross policy initially covered this treatment. In 2012, Blue Cross informed Reid her policy would exclude coverage for behavioral therapy beginning in 2013. Reid sought an injunction. The district court dismissed most of Reid’s claims under FRCP 12(b)(6) but allowed claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 2013, Reid moved to Arizona; she lost her BlueCross coverage some time thereafter. Injunctive relief became moot. The district court then entered an order granting Reid’s motion to dismiss, granting Blue Cross’s motion to the extent it sought dismissal, and denying Blue Cross’s motion to the extent it sought vacatur of its earlier Rule 12(b)(6) ruling. The court provided no explanation for its denial of vacatur. The Eighth Circuit remanded to allow the court to provide an explanation. View "Reid v. BCBSM, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2002, ESI acquired NPA, which provided pharmacy-benefit-management services to health funds created by the police union. In 2003, those funds brought a class action against ESI and NPA. The funds had never contracted with ESI. In 2004, the New York Attorney General sued ESI, resulting in a consent judgment. Based on that consent judgment, ESI moved for summary judgment in the funds’ suit. The district court granted ESI’s motion, applying res judicata. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. ESI argued that the AG “alleged claims on behalf of the” funds, but the funds were not parties to the AG’s suit, nor did the AG allege claims on their behalf. The AG complaint referred to “other New York government plans,” meaning “counties and municipalities that contract with ESI.” The funds did not contract with ESI and are neither a county nor a municipality. They are private trusts. Their trustees are union officers, not city officials with whom they bargain. View "Lynch v. Nat'l Prescription Admin." on Justia Law

The Belcourt School District operates within the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. The North Dakota Constitution requires that the District provide education to children who are Indians or reside on Indian reservations. The Tribe and School District have agreed to share responsibility for educating students, both Indian and non-Indian, residing on the Reservation, and entered into agreements in 2006 and 2009 that provided the District with exclusive authority to administer "day-to-day operations" at Turtle Mountain Community High School, including supervision and employment of staff. Tribe members sued, alleging defamation, excessive use of force, and multiple employment-related claims. The Tribal Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the District and its employees for claims related to the employees' performance of their official duties. The Tribal Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the District signed the agreements, subjecting itself to Tribal jurisdiction. The federal trial court concluded that the Tribal Court had jurisdiction, based on the agreements. The Eighth Circuit reversed and held that the Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction, reasoning that the District was clearly acting in its official capacity, in furtherance of its obligations under the state constitution, when it entered into the agreements, View "Belcourt Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Davis" on Justia Law

Fort Yates School District operates within the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The North Dakota Constitution requires that the District provide education to children who are Indians or reside on reservations. In 2003, the District and the Tribe entered into an Agreement, providing that both the Standing Rock and the Fort Yates School Boards would govern the school system; that all property or equipment purchased under the Agreement would generally be joint property; and that it "neither diminishes nor expands rights or protections afforded … under tribal, state or federal law." After a fight between two students, A. was suspended and C. obtained a restraining order against A. A. allegedly violated the restraining order by verbally harassing C. at school. The school suspended A. for 10 additional days. Murphy sued on behalf of her daughter, C., a Tribe member, in the Tribal Court, which held that it had jurisdiction. The District did not appeal to the Standing Rock Supreme Court, but filed suit in federal court against Murphy and the Tribal Court. The district court dismissed and remanded to the Tribal Court. The Eighth Circuit reversed with respect to Tribal Court jurisdiction, but affirmed dismissal of the Tribal Court on sovereign immunity grounds. View "Fort Yates Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Diamond filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. February 28, 2012 was the deadline for complaints to determine the dischargeability of certain debts under 11 U.S.C. 523(c). On February 15, Goldstein requested a 60-day “extension of proceedings” and “withholding of the entry of the discharge order,” claiming that he was a creditor but did not receive proper notice. The bankruptcy court found the request to be for “abatement of the case.” Finding no cause for relief, it denied the motion and the request to withhold discharge. The case closed. A year later Goldstein filed a dischargeability complaint in a different jurisdiction, not citing a statute, but captioned “Fraud and Defalcation.” The court transferred the matter to the original court. After a remand, that court entered an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. Goldstein responded. The court took no action on its show cause order, but scheduled a trial. Diamond filed an answer, requesting dismissal. Goldstein responded; the court dismissed, determining that the debt was not excepted from discharge. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Goldstein had adequate time to protect his rights. He used that time to file a proof of claim and move for extension. He cannot , long after the fact, claim to have been hindered by his lack of knowledge of the case. View "Goldstein v. Diamond" on Justia Law