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

The FTC sued Lundbeck, Inc., alleging that its acquisition of the drug NeoProfen violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq., the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-7, the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12-27, the Minnesota Antitrust Law of 1971, and unjustly enriched Lundbeck. At issue was whether the district court properly determined that the FTC failed to identify a relevant market where the FTC did not meet its burden of proving that the drugs Indocin IV and Neoprofen were in the same product market. The court held that the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment.

Liberty Mutual sued Pella in the district court for declaratory judgment where the suit was sought to determine the scope of Liberty Mutual's obligation, under general commercial liability (GCL) policies issued to Pella, to reimburse Pella's defense costs in two underlying lawsuits. Both parties appealed the judgment of the district court. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Liberty Mutual's duty to reimburse Pella's defense costs should be determined by looking at the allegations in the complaint to determine if they stated a covered claim where Liberty Mutual would still have no duty to defend even if it had to reimburse defense costs in a suit where an "occurrence" was alleged but not yet an established fact. The court also held that because the underlying suits did not allege an "occurrence," Liberty Mutual did not owe Pella a duty to reimburse its costs in defending either action. Therefore, the court need not address Liberty Mutual's alternative argument. The court further held that the district court did not commit reversible error in granting summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. The court finally held that, in light of its conclusion that Liberty Mutual had no duty to reimburse Pella's defense costs in the underlying suits, the court need not address the issue of defense costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Liberty Mutual on Pella's bad-faith counterclaim. The court reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to Pella on Liberty Mutual's claim for declaratory judgment and remanded with instructions to enter declaratory judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual.

Five hunters commenced this purported class action against A.L.S. Enterprises, and three of its licensees (collectively, defendants), who sell odor absorbing clothing under various brand names in retail stores and mail order catalogs, alleging that defendants violated the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA), Minn. Stat. 325F.69, subd. 1; the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act (MUTPA), Minn. Stat. 325D.13; and the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (MDTPA), Minn. Stat. 325D.44, subd. 1. Defendants appealed the grant of a permanent injunction, arguing that the district court erred in its literal falsity determinations and in granting an injunction based solely on those determinations. The court held that plaintiffs failed to prove both the requisite irreparable injury and their core allegations that defendants' use of the terms "odor eliminating" and "reactivation" were literally false. Accordingly, the court directed the district court to enter an order dismissing with prejudice all claims for equitable relief. The court held, however, that plaintiffs' individual claims for damages could not be resolved on this summary judgment record. Accordingly, the court remanded for a determination of those claims applying the standards prescribed in Wiegand v. Walser Auto. Groups, Inc.

LCI Equipments, Inc. (LLC) was a Texas corporation that imported and sold the tractor that killed Rudy Slater in a roll-over accident. Wanda Slater, an Arkansas resident and Rudy's wife, commenced a wrongful death action in state court, asserting negligence and strict product liability claims against LCI, and others, focusing primarily on the tractor's lack of a roll-over protection system (ROPS). LCI's insurer, also a Texas corporation, denied coverage and refused to defend LCI under its Commercial General Liability policy. With the wrongful death suit pending, LCI assigned its rights in the policy to Slater who then commenced this action against the insurer in Arkansas state court. On appeal, Slater asserted for the first time the absence of diversity jurisdiction and further argued that the district court erred in construing the policy exclusion. The court held that, as here, where Slater structured the case, naming LCI as a nominal plaintiff, the district court had, and properly exercised, diversity jurisdiction. The court also noted that the partial assignment of the $100 interest retained by LCI did not defeat jurisdiction. The court held that Slater's argument that the insurer had a duty to defend because of LCI's failure to install ROPS safety equipment was not properly preserved in the district court and therefore, the court declined to consider it further. The court also agreed with the district court's conclusion that LaBatt Co. v. Hartford Lloyd's Ins. Co., reflected Texas law. Moreover, the definition of "Your product" in the insurer's policy expressly excluded the "providing of or failure to provide warnings or instructions," unlike the exclusion at issue in LaBatt. Therefore, the insurer's contention was more consistent with the plain language of the policy and Slater had failed to show plain error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

FICO brought suit against three credit bureaus: Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union, as well as against VantageScore, the credit bureaus' joint venture. The suit alleged antitrust, trademark infringement, false-advertising, and other claims. FICO, Experian, and VantageScore appealed from the district court's judgment. The court held that FICO failed to demonstrate that it had suffered any antitrust injury that would entitle it to seek damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12-27, and FICO failed to demonstrate the threat of an immediate injury that might support injunctive relief under section 16. The court also held that there was no genuine issue of material fact that consumers in this market immediately understood "300-850" to describe the qualities and characteristics of FICO's credit score and therefore, the district court did not err in finding the mark to be merely descriptive. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to determine that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) relied on FICO's false representation in deciding whether to issue the "300-850" trademark registration. The court agreed with the district court that VantageScore was not a licensee and therefore was not estopped from challenging the mark under either theory of agency or equity. The court finally held that FICO's false advertising claims were properly dismissed and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs sued Chambers Bank of North Arkansas for fraudulent concealment, claiming that the Bank failed to disclose to plaintiffs certain information regarding a real estate development. At issue was whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the bank on their fraudulent concealment claim. The court held that the district court properly found there to be insufficient evidence of special circumstances that obligated the bank to make disclosures to plaintiffs regarding their investment in the development. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank.

Plaintiff filed suit against, inter alia, U.S. Bank, N.A. (U.S. Bank) seeking to invalidate the foreclosure and sale of his home. Plaintiff alleged that the mortgage that the lender relied upon in foreclosing on his home was defective and therefore could not provide a valid basis for foreclosure under Minnesota law and that the lender violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., by failing to provide required notice to plaintiff of his ability to cancel the transaction and by refusing to cancel the mortgage when plaintiff exercised his right to rescind the mortgage on those grounds. The court declined to reach plaintiff's Minnesota Statute 523.23 argument where plaintiff conceded he never cited to this provision to the district court at trial nor in his motion for new trial or amended verdict. The court also held that plaintiff's wife was authorized to receive the Notice of Right to Cancel on plaintiff's behalf; plaintiff cited to no evidence or legal authority that the second Notice of Right to Cancel was required under TILA; plaintiff had no standing to challenge the lender's failure to send the second notice to his former wife; and plaintiff had not overcome the rebuttable presumption of delivery of the required notice to him. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

3M Company sued Inspired Technologies, Inc. (ITI) for allegedly unfair and false advertising, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq., and the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (MDPTA), Minnesota Statutes 325D.43-325D.48, alleging that ITI engaged in an advertising campaign for its Frog Tape product that depicted 3M Tape as performing poorly in certain respects. ITI tendered a defense of the lawsuit to its liability-insurance carrier, AMCO Insurance Company (AMCO), and the lawsuit ultimately settled. Following the settlement, AMCO filed the instant declaratory judgment action against ITI, seeking a declaration that it did not owe ITI any duty to defend or indemnify because the insurance policy's knowledge-of-false exclusion excluded the 3M suit from coverage. The court found that the two interrogatory answers upon which the district court relied did not reflect that 3M alleged ITI's knowledge of falsity as to all the purportedly unfair advertising. Consequently, the court held that AMCO failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating, as a matter of law, that every claim in 3M's complaint fell clearly outside the policy's coverage. Accordingly, because 3M alleged at least one arguably coverable claim, AMCO owed ITI a duty under Minnesota law to defend the entire suit and therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment was reversed and remanded.

This case arose when appellant alleged claims of tortuous interference with contract or business expectancy and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-101, et seq. Appellant subsequently sought a temporary retraining order and preliminary injunction after appellee terminated appellant's patient privileges at a residential nursing home. The court held that appellant did not meet the factors in the Dataphase Syst. Inc. v. C.L. Syst., which evaluated whether to issue an injunction. Consequently, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class, sued defendant under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (MSMLA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 408.231-408.241, alleging that defendant charged them unauthorized interest and fees in violation of section 408.233.1 of the MSMLA. At issue was whether defendants violated the MSMLA by charging plaintiffs a loan discount, settlement/closing fee, document processing/delivery fee, and prepaid interest. The court held that plaintiffs did suffer a loss of money when defendant charged the loan discount, although plaintiffs received the loan discount amount two days later as part of a loan disbursement. The court also held that it could not decide whether the loan discount and the settlement/closing fee violated the MSMLA and remanded for further proceedings. The court further held that the document processing/delivery fee was not included in section 408.233's exclusive list of authorized charges and violated the MSMLA. The court finally held that because the processing/delivery free violated the MSMLA, the prepaid interest was an additional violation of the statute. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.