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

Two brothers, Tom and Robert Hoffmann, were formerly partners in a family heating and air conditioning business. After Robert bought out Tom’s interest, they settled their disputes in state court with an agreement that included a four-year prohibition on Tom’s use of the “Hoffmann” name in any HVAC business, as well as non-disparagement and non-solicitation clauses. After the four-year period, Tom started a new company, Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC, using the family name. Robert and his company, Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., objected and filed suit in federal court, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Tom and his company on the copyright claim, finding insufficient evidence of damages or a causal link between the alleged infringement and any profits. The remaining claims proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a mixed verdict largely favoring Tom and his company on the trademark and unfair competition claims. Both sides sought attorney fees, but the district court denied all requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the copyright claim, holding that the evidence of damages and profits was too speculative. It also upheld the jury instructions and verdict on the trademark claims, finding the instructions properly reflected the law regarding customer sophistication and initial-interest confusion. The court agreed that ambiguity in the settlement agreement’s language about post-four-year use of the Hoffmann name was a factual question for the jury. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of attorney fees to Robert, as he had not personally incurred any fees. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "Hoffmann Bros. Heating & Air v. Hoffmann Air & Heating" on Justia Law

A Nebraska software company entered into a lease agreement with a financial technology firm for the use of proprietary software designed to facilitate electronic transactions. The agreement required the tech firm to pay substantial annual fees upon acceptance of the software, with installation dependent on the tech firm’s cooperation. The parties also entered a separate agreement for preinstallation services, which were paid in full. After initial delays and a temporary suspension due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the tech firm ultimately terminated the project, citing incompatibility of the software with its infrastructure.The software company filed suit in Nebraska state court, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, seeking damages equal to the unpaid lease fees. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The district court granted summary judgment for the tech firm, holding that a limitation-of-liability clause in the lease agreement barred the software company from recovering the damages sought. The court found that the clause limited recovery to fees actually paid, not fees owed, and that the clause was neither unconscionable nor rendered the contract meaningless. The court also determined that the Uniform Commercial Code did not apply, and even if it did, the contract did not fail of its essential purpose.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that, under Delaware law, the limitation-of-liability clause was enforceable as written, limiting damages to fees paid and barring recovery of unpaid fees. The court also found the clause was not unconscionable and that the contract did not fail of its essential purpose. The judgment in favor of the tech firm was affirmed. View "Baldwin Hacket and Meeks, Inc. v. Early Warning Services, LLC" on Justia Law

A waste hauling company operating in Kansas City brought suit against a mobile waste compaction business and its franchisor. The waste hauler owns containers that are leased to customers, who sometimes contract separately with the compaction company to compress waste inside those containers. The hauler alleged that the compaction company’s activities damaged its containers and interfered with its business relationships. The hauler sought various forms of relief, including damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and nominal damages, but ultimately disavowed any claim for actual monetary damages, citing a lack of evidence to support such damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied the hauler’s request for a temporary restraining order, finding no irreparable harm. During discovery, the hauler admitted it could not identify or quantify any actual damages and stipulated it was not seeking damages outside Kansas City. The district court granted the compaction company’s motion to strike the hauler’s jury demand, holding that the hauler had not presented evidence of compensatory damages, that nominal damages were unavailable under Missouri law for the claims asserted, and that the remaining claims were equitable in nature. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the compaction company and its franchisor, finding the hauler failed to prove essential elements of its claims, including actual damages and direct benefit conferred for unjust enrichment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the hauler was not entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment because it failed to present evidence of compensatory damages and nominal damages were not available for its claims under Missouri law. The court also affirmed judgment for the compaction company on the trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment claims, finding the hauler failed to prove dispossession, damages, or a direct benefit conferred. View "Allied Services v. Smash My Trash, LLC" on Justia Law

Michael Lindell, a Minnesota entrepreneur, challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, claiming to have data proving Chinese interference. Lindell Management LLC (LMC) hosted a "Cyber Symposium" in August 2021, offering a $5 million reward to anyone who could prove the data provided was not from the November 2020 election. Robert Zeidman, a software developer, participated in the challenge, reviewed the data, and concluded it did not contain any information related to the election. The challenge judges disagreed and denied his claim.Zeidman filed for arbitration, and the arbitration panel unanimously found in his favor, ordering LMC to pay the $5 million reward. The panel determined that the contract required participants to prove the data was not related to the election and that Zeidman had met this burden. Zeidman then moved to confirm the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, while LMC sought to vacate it. The district court confirmed the panel's decision, finding that the panel had arguably interpreted and applied the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the arbitration panel had exceeded its authority by using extrinsic evidence to interpret the unambiguous contract terms. The court held that the panel effectively amended the contract by requiring the data to be packet capture data, which violated Minnesota contract law and arbitration precedents. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with directions to grant LMC's motion to vacate the arbitration award. View "Zeidman v. Lindell Management LLC" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, K7 Design Group, Inc. (K7) offered to sell hand sanitizer to Walmart, Inc., doing business as Sam’s Club (Sam’s Club). K7 and Sam’s Club discussed and agreed upon the product, price, quantity, and delivery terms for various hand sanitizer products through email communications. K7 delivered over 1,000,000 units of hand sanitizer to Sam’s Club, which paid approximately $17.5 million. However, Sam’s Club did not collect or pay for the remaining hand sanitizer, leading to storage issues for K7.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas held a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of K7 on its breach of contract claim and awarded $7,157,426.14 in damages. Sam’s Club’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial were denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Sam’s Club argued that K7 failed to present sufficient evidence of an obligation to pay for the products, the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and the district court abused its discretion in instructing the jury. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the communications between K7 and Sam’s Club constituted binding orders under Arkansas’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court found that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions or in denying Sam’s Club’s motions. The court also affirmed the district court’s award of prejudgment interest and attorney fees and costs. View "K7 Design Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law

Just Funky, LLC, an Ohio company, and Think 3 Fold, LLC, an Arkansas company, entered into a business relationship in 2020 to supply plush toys to Walmart. Think 3 Fold issued purchase orders to Just Funky in late 2021, but the parties could not agree on a final price. Concurrently, Just Funky provided a loan to Think 3 Fold, which defaulted on the payments. The parties attempted to settle the loan dispute, but Think 3 Fold's late payment complicated matters. They also discussed a larger plush toy deal as part of the settlement, but no agreement was reached. Think 3 Fold paid for a smaller plush toy order, which Just Funky did not deliver.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas ruled in favor of Think 3 Fold, granting summary judgment on Just Funky's breach of contract claim for the larger plush deal, finding no contract was formed due to lack of agreement on essential terms. The court also ruled in favor of Think 3 Fold on its counterclaim for the smaller plush deal, rejecting Just Funky's setoff defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, agreeing that no contract was formed for the larger plush deal as there was no meeting of the minds on the price term. The court also upheld the rejection of Just Funky's setoff defense, finding that the $173,000 was part of settlement negotiations and never became due. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Just Funky, LLC v. Think 3 Fold, LLC" on Justia Law

Crabar/GBF, Inc. (Crabar) sued Mark Wright, Wright Printing Co. (WPCO), Mardra Sikora, Jamie Frederickson, and Alexandra Kohlhaas for trade secret violations and related claims. Crabar alleged that after purchasing WPCO's folder business, WPCO retained and used confidential information, including customer lists and sales data, to launch a competing folder business. Crabar also claimed that former employees Kohlhaas and Frederickson took and used Crabar's confidential information to aid WPCO's new business.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska held an eleven-day trial, where the jury found all defendants liable on each count, awarding Crabar over five million dollars in compensatory and exemplary damages. Post-trial motions led to a final amended judgment of roughly four million dollars against the defendants. Defendants appealed, challenging several of the district court’s rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, including the denial of WPCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding a contractual damages limitation, finding WPCO waived the argument by not raising it in the final pretrial order. The court also upheld the enforceability of confidentiality agreements signed by Frederickson and Kohlhaas, and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, and causation of damages.The Eighth Circuit also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on damages, as the expert's assumptions were not fundamentally unsupported. The court found no error in the jury's award calculations, rejecting the argument of double recovery and affirming the sufficiency of evidence linking defendants' actions to Crabar's damages. The court concluded that the jury's awards were not excessive or the result of passion or prejudice. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Crabar/GBF, Inc. v. Wright" on Justia Law

Dr. Jeffery Weisman filed a lawsuit after resigning from Washington University’s residency program, alleging that he was forced to resign due to hostile treatment and that Washington University and Barnes Jewish Hospital prevented him from transferring to another residency program. Weisman brought claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, fraudulent inducement, and defamation under Missouri law. Washington University and Barnes Jewish Hospital counterclaimed for a violation of the Missouri Computer Tampering Act (MCTA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed Weisman’s tortious interference and fraudulent inducement claims, and some of his breach of contract claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Barnes Jewish Hospital on the remaining breach of contract claims and the defamation claim. The court also dismissed the MCTA counterclaims and the defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees. Weisman appealed the adverse judgments on his claims, and the defendants cross-appealed the dismissal of the MCTA counterclaims and denial of attorneys’ fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the statute of frauds barred Weisman’s breach of contract claim related to the Lab-Residency Contract, as it was an oral agreement for a term of five years. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims, concluding that Evers and Benzinger, as agents of Washington University, were not third parties to the contracts. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the fraudulent inducement claims, as the alleged Separation Agreement did not exist. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the MCTA counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Weisman’s tender of full payment rendered the claims moot. View "Weisman v. Barnes Jewish Hospital" on Justia Law

BCC Partners, LLC ("BCC") contracted with Ben F. Blanton Construction, Inc. ("Blanton") to build an apartment complex in Creve Coeur, Missouri. Blanton obtained an insurance policy from Travelers Property Casualty Company of America ("Travelers"), naming Blanton as the "Named Insured" and BCC as an "Additional Named Insured." A retaining wall failure during construction led to damage and delays, resulting in multiple insurance claims. Travelers paid $1.3 million into an escrow account, which was divided among claimants. BCC later sought coverage for loss of rental income and soft costs due to the delays, but Travelers denied the claim after an initial advance payment of $200,000.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Travelers, concluding that BCC was not entitled to the demanded payments under the Policy. BCC appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that under the plain meaning of the Policy, only a "Named Insured" is covered for losses of rental income and soft costs. BCC, as an "Additional Named Insured," did not qualify for such coverage. The court found that the Policy's language was clear and unambiguous, and BCC's arguments to the contrary were unavailing. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that Travelers did not breach the Policy and that BCC's claim for vexatious refusal to pay also failed. View "BCC Partners, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America" on Justia Law

Brett Jens resigned from his position at Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC, and subsequently joined a competitor, J.R. Simplot Company. Wilbur-Ellis filed a lawsuit against Jens and Simplot, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce restrictive covenants in Jens’s employment agreement and to prevent Simplot’s alleged tortious interference with the agreement. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the restrictive covenants were no longer enforceable.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota reviewed the case and determined that Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim against Jens. The court found that the restrictive covenants in Jens’s employment agreement did not survive past the agreement’s expiration date of February 28, 2010. Wilbur-Ellis appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction, arguing that the restrictive covenants were intended to begin when Jens’s employment ended. Simplot cross-appealed, contending that Wilbur-Ellis could not enforce the restrictive covenants because the employer in the agreement was Wilbur-Ellis Air, LLC, not Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, agreeing that the restrictive covenants did not survive the expiration of the employment agreement. The court emphasized that the agreement did not contain a survival clause or any language indicating that the restrictive covenants were intended to extend beyond the termination of the agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to succeed on the merits, which is the most significant factor in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. View "Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC v. Jens" on Justia Law