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

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants alleging that defendants breached a contract for legal services, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The district court granted defendants' motion to transfer the legal malpractice suit to the District of Nebraska. The district court subsequently denied plaintiffs' motion to retransfer and concluded that plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. Plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that, because the malpractice occurred exclusively in the District of Nebraska, there was no error in concluding that the Southern District of Iowa was an improper venue. Further, this issue is governed by the Nebraska, the transferee forum, choice-of-law principles. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment applying Nebraska's legal malpractice statute of limitations in ruling that plaintiffs' claim was time-barred.View "Steen v. Murray" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against XTO, an oil and natural gas producer, for damages caused by vibrations from drilling operations. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and XTO moved for a new trial. The district court denied the motion and XTO appealed. The court concluded that, even assuming the jury's fracking and earthquake discussions included any extraneous matters under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)(2)(A), XTO has not shown a reasonable possibility that the discussions prejudiced it or altered the verdict. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying XTO's motion for a new trial. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to subpoena the jury foreman under Moore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "Hiser v. XTO Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 two years and four months after his claims related to a traffic stop arose. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action as time barred under Iowa's two-year statute of limitations governing personal injury claims. The tolling provision plaintiff relied on comes from the Iowa Tort Claims Act, Iowa Code Ch. 669, not from the personal injury statute, and it has no application in this case.View "DeVries v. Driesen, et al." on Justia Law

U.S. Bank appealed the district court's denial of its motion to intervene in a suit between a homeowner and her insurer, State Farm. The court concluded that the district court reasonably determined that the bank was too late in attempting to intervene. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "U.S. Bank v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from litigation involving long grain rice producers' allegations that Bayer contaminated the United States rice supply. Plaintiff class representatives filed suit for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against other plaintiff lawyers, alleging that these other lawyers benefited in their state court actions from litigation materials and work product generated in the MDL by the plaintiff class but refused to pay for it. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court concluded, however, that each defendant voluntarily entered Missouri more than once to negotiate settlement of their state court cases, a settlement process which ultimately resulted in their receiving compensation as part of a settlement. Their voluntary entry into Missouri for financial benefit was both the transaction of business as that term is used in the Missouri long arm statute and constitutionally sufficient minimum contacts under the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.View "Downing, et al. v. Goldman Phipps, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against law enforcement as well as the City of Barling, alleging violations of his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. Plaintiff subsequently accepted defendants' offer of judgment under Rule 68. On appeal, plaintiff challenged, inter alia, the district court's denial of prejudgment interest on his tort claims under Arkansas law. The court held that a Rule 68 consent judgment for a sum certain must, absent indication otherwise be deemed to include prejudgment interest. In this case, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest. The court also concluded that Rule 54 does not require an evidentiary hearing when ruling on plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees. Finally, the district court's award of attorney's fees was reasonable where, inter alia, the district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on the prevailing market rate for civil rights litigation in the area. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Miller v. Dugan, et al." on Justia Law

Sentis filed suit against Shell, alleging contract and fraud claims, and violations of Missouri franchise laws as well as the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2801 et seq. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that Sentis' failure to preserve evidence caused sufficient prejudice to defendants to serve as sanctionable spoliation. Dismissal with prejudice was the appropriate sanction given plaintiffs' cumulative pattern of conduct in this matter and given the nature of the missing evidence and its role in Sentis' and Shell's cases. The court affirmed the judgment.View "Sentis Group, et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wyeth, alleging that she developed breast cancer after using Wyeth's's hormone therapy medication, Prempro. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the the Eastern District of Arkansas as part of the ongoing In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation. After the district court subsequently dismissed plaintiff's case for failure to respond to discovery orders, her attorney filed a Rule 60(b)(1) motion to set aside the dismissal. Plaintiff's attorney had failed to register for the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM-ECF) system and, consequently, did not receive electronic notices of the filings in plaintiff's case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b)(1) motion because the district court did not abuse its discretion where, on more than one occasion, the district court instructed all attorneys to register for the CM-ECF system and warned that those who did not would not receive electronic filing notices or hard copies of orders.View "Freeman v. Wyeth, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Minnesota's Family Child Care Providers Representation Act, Minn. Stat. 179A.06 and 179A.52. Plaintiffs, operators of child-care businesses in their homes, argued that the exclusive representation and the fair share fee provisions of the Act violate their First Amendment rights. The court dissolved the injunction pending appeal and affirmed the district court's dismissal because plaintiffs' claims are unripe for review where an election is not currently scheduled, no organization is trying to obtain certification through a card check program, no organization has filed a petition for an election, and plaintiffs have not shown any significant practical harm from awaiting a petition. View "Parrish, et al. v. Governor Mark Dayton, et al." on Justia Law

Fastpath, an Iowa corporation, filed suit against Arbela, a California services and software corporation, for breach of a mutual confidentiality agreement. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Arbela where the nature, quality, and quantity of Arbela's contacts with Iowa were not sufficient to demonstrate purposeful availment of the forum state. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Technologies Corp." on Justia Law