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

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Union Pacific Railway, and Stickle, alleging that failure to properly build and maintain railway bridges over the Cedar River caused or exacerbated the 2008 flood and that the decision to attempt to stabilize the bridges by weighing them down with railcars filled with ballast caused or exacerbated the flooding of their properties, either because bridges collapsed and effectively dammed the river and blocked drainage, or because railcars on bridges that did not collapse blocked the free flow of the river and diverted water into low-lying areas. Union Pacific filed Notice of Removal that asserted federal question jurisdiction and stated that attorneys for the co-defendants had no objection to removal, accompanied by a local rule certification that: “co-defendants have given their consent to the removal.” Stickle did not file notice of consent to removal until more than 30 days after Union Pacific was served. By that time, Plaintiffs had moved to remand, arguing that their claims were not completely preempted and that not all defendants had timely consented. The district court denied remand. The Eighth Circuit vacated, finding the consent adequate, but that the state claims were not completely preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, 49 U.S.C. 701. View "Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co." on Justia Law

Former and current employees filed a class action lawsuit in state court against Gilster and other defendants, alleging lung impairment (or potential lung impairment) from exposure to butter-flavoring products, including diacetyl, used in Gilster’s microwave popcorn packaging plant in Jasper, Missouri. Defendants removed the action to federal court. Six weeks later, the employees dismissed all defendants except Gilster. The district court ordered a remand to state court based on the Class Action Fairness Act’s local-controversy exception, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(4), under which, a court is required to decline jurisdiction when “greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed,” determined as of the date of the filing. The district court permitted discovery on state citizenship. For all of the potential class members, except the current employees, plaintiffs provided only last-known addresses, some 27 years old, and did not identify state citizenship. The court ultimately found that 41 percent of potential class members were Missouri citizens. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Because the employees did not meet their burden of proof that a CAFA exception applies, the court erred by resolving doubt in favor of the party seeking remand. View "Hood v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corp." on Justia Law

Convent filed suit in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, seeking to appeal a resolution that the North Little Rock City Council passed declaring Convent's property a nuisance and condemning the property. In the same complaint, Convent asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code 16-123-101, and a common law claim of trespass. The defendants removed the case to federal district court based on the federal claims and then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court did not grant the motion, but found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Convent's claims based on Convent's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies; the court remanded the case to state court. Convent sought costs, fees, and expenses incurred due to “improper removal." The district court rejected the motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal of this action to federal court. View "Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock" on Justia Law

Expander Global conducts no business and is merely a holding company for its wholly owned subsidiary, Expander SystemSweden, another Swedish corporation. Expander Sweden wholly owns Expander Americas. Those companies manufacture industrial pins used in heavy machinery. In 2010, Eagle entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement with Expander Americas to provide consulting services. The Agreement led to a relationship between Global and Bakker, Eagle’s sole owner, who acted as a project manager and as secretary of the Global Board of Directors. In 2011, Global terminated Bakker from his positions and its agreement with Eagle. Eagle sued Expander Americas, alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel; Bakker sued Global for quantum meruit. The district court dismissed the quantum meruit action for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Global did not have the requisite minimum contacts with Missouri to be subject to its Long-Arm Statute or to satisfy due process. It was not licensed to do business in the state; it did not advertise within the state; it did not send employees to the state; and no money was received or sent to the state. The court granted Expander Americas summary judgment on the remaining claims, based on the statute of frauds. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Eagle Tech. v. Expander Americas, Inc." on Justia Law

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) creates “navigators,” to assist consumers in purchasing health insurance from exchanges, 42 U.S.C. 18031(i), and authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to establish standards for navigators and exchanges. HHS regulations recognize: federal navigators, certified application counselors (CACs), and non-navigator assistance personnel. They conduct many of the same activities, but federal navigators have more extensive duties. Plaintiffs, federally-certified counselor designated organizations, employ CACs. The federal government established a Missouri Federally Facilitated Exchange. The Health Insurance Marketplace Innovation Act (HIMIA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 376.2000, regulates “person[s] that, for compensation, provide[] information or services in connection with eligibility, enrollment, or program specifications of any health benefit exchange.” Regulatory provisions dictate what state navigators and cannot do. Plaintiffs challenged: the definition of state navigators; three substantive provisions; and penalty provisions. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the ACA preempted HIMIA. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, finding likelihood of success in challenges to HIMIA requirements that: state navigators refrain from providing information about health insurance plans not offered by the exchange; that in some circumstances, the navigator must advise consultation with a licensed insurance producer regarding private coverage; and that CACs provide information about different health insurance plans and clarify the distinctions. The court vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that ACA does not entirely preempt HIMIA. View "St. Louis Effort For AIDS v. Huff" on Justia Law

Debtor filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition. Debtor had a program under which independent contractor drivers could lease and acquire ownership of trucks. Trucks were financed or leased from creditors, including Daimler. At the time of filing, Daimler was the lessor of 14 trucks and held security interests in 99 others and in driver lease payments and other proceeds generated by the use of such trucks. Daimler sought sequestration to prevent unauthorized use of that money. The parties submitted an agreed order, providing that Daimler would sell 21 trucks and credit the net proceeds. Debtor would retain 80 trucks subject to Daimler’s security interest and would make adequate protection payments. The order was silent about Daimler’s security interest in proceeds from the use of the trucks. The bankruptcy court confirmed a plan. The debtor appealed with respect to application of excess adequate protection payments, claiming it overpaid for erosion in the value of the trucks and argued that the court erred when it supplemented the secured portion of Daimler’s claim with an award of $51,909.40 as proceeds from the use of Daimler’s trucks. The Eighth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The orders were interlocutory. The debtor now possesses no trucks; no meaningful relief could be granted. Debtor did not propose a plan that was denied, so it is not an aggrieved party, and does not have standing. View "O&S Trucking, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz Fin. Servs., USA" on Justia Law

Prisoners on death row filed suit, challenging Missouri's execution protocol as violating the federal Controlled Substances Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and based on Eighth Amendment due process, ex post facto, and other claims. The district court sealed certain documents or docket entries, making them inaccessible to the public. There was no indication in the record why the entries were sealed, nor any explanation of what types of documents were sealed. Publisher Larry Flynt filed motions to intervene in both cases, under Federal Rule 24(b), and moved to unseal the records and entries. No party opposed Flynt's motions to intervene. One case had already been dismissed. In his motions, Flynt stated he had an interest in the sealed records as a publisher and as an advocate against the death penalty. Flynt claimed a heightened interest because Franklin, who had confessed to shooting Flynt, was a Missouri death row inmate and a plaintiff in both cases. Franklin was executed in November 2013; on that same day the district court denied Flynt's motion to intervene in one case as moot, and in the other, stating that "generalized interest" does not justify intervention. The Eighth Circuit reversed; for reasons of judicial efficiency, Rule 24(b) intervention is often preferable to filing a separate action. View "Flynt v. Lombardi" on Justia Law

In 2005 E3’s predecessor began construction of an ethanol plant, to be powered, in part, by methane, and contracted with Biothane for a boiler system. Biothane, an expert in systems integration but not in boilers specifically, subcontracted with PEI to install and integrate the boilers. Biothane retained overall responsibility. Both are engineering companies. In 2007, PEI’s engineer repeatedly tried and failed to light the main flame of one of the boilers. The repeated attempts caused gas to build up and explode. E3 claims that the boiler never worked properly afterward and that the plant failed as a result. The plant’s owners eventually reorganized in bankruptcy. In 2011 (3 years and 364 days after the explosion) E3 sued, alleging torts against both companies and breach of contract against Biothane. The district court granted defendants summary judgment, finding all of E3’s claims time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-222, Nebraska’s two-year limitations period for actions based on professional negligence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Regardless of whether the chain of events ultimately led to the breach of a contract, E3 still sued Biothane “for an action performed in a professional capacity.” View "E3 Biofuels, LLC v. Biothane, LLC" on Justia Law

In March, 2004, Harris closed on a home with a mortgage loan from MPI. To be licensed in Missouri, MPI, as obligor and principal, bought two “Missouri Residential Mortgage Brokers Bonds” from Hartford, its surety, RSMo 443.849. The surety bonds stated that the two parties were “jointly and severally” bound for payment to any person “who may have a claim against” MPI. Harris sued MPI for violating the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, sections 407.010-.1500. Harris obtained a judgment for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. Hartford had notice of the suit against MPI, but chose not to intervene. As surety, Hartford failed to pay the judgment amount due on the bonds. In 2012, Harris sued Hartford for breach of contract, vexatious refusal to pay, and equitable garnishment. The district court granted Hartford summary judgment, rejecting the 10-year statute of limitations in RSMo 516.110(1) in favor of the three-year statute in section 516.130(2). The Eighth Circuit reversed. Harris’s claim against Hartford sought the amount due on the bonds, not a penalty. View "Harris v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Debtors filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in 1999. Debtors proposed several plans of reorganization, but none were confirmed. On the Trustee's motion, the bankruptcy court dismissed Debtors' case in 2004. Debtors did not appeal and the case was closed on the bankruptcy clerk's docket in 2005. In 2014, Debtors moved to reopen their case "to pursue Confirmation of their current Plan[.]" The Trustee and Agrifinance objected, and, without first holding a hearing, the bankruptcy court entered a text order denying Debtors' motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. There is no requirement in 11 U.S.C. 350 that the court provide a hearing on a motion to reopen and nothing would have been gained by holding a hearing. View "Bowman v. Casamatta" on Justia Law