Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Tussey, et al. v. ABB, Inc., et al.
These consolidated appeals arose from a class action against ABB under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The district court entered judgment against the ABB defendants and the Fidelity defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of sections 1104, 1106, and 1109. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and award against the ABB fiduciaries with respect to recordkeeping; vacated the judgment and award on the participants' investment selection where the district court erroneously substituted its own de novo interpretation of the Plan, and mapping claims where the claims were timely; reversed the judgment against Fidelity where the district court erred in finding that Fidelity breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty by paying the expenses on the float accounts and distributing the remaining float to the investment options; vacated the attorney fee award as to all defendants; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Tussey, et al. v. ABB, Inc., et al." on Justia Law
Posted in:
ERISA, U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Somoza Garcia v. Holder, Jr.
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's order dismissing his request for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner has not presented any evidence indicating that persons who identify gang members to police suffered greater crime than other members of the population who resisted gang violence. Therefore, petitioner's attempt to define a cognizable social group on this basis failed for lack of both particularity and visibility. Petitioner's proffered political status also failed; nothing in the record suggested that MS-13 targeted petitioner for political reasons; and therefore, the BIA's legal determinations were correct and substantial evidence supported its decision to deny withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A). Finally, substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision to deny relief under the CAT where the record did not compel the conclusion that it was more likely than not that petitioner would be tortured with the acquiescence of a public official. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Somoza Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Immigration Law, U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Allied Sales Drivers, et al. v. Sara Lee Bakery Group, et al.
Sara Lee and the Unions entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and an outsourcing agreement which permitted Sara Lee to outsource covered functions to a contract company. After Sara Lee did outsource one of the covered functions and the contract company hired Sara Lee's displaced employees, Sara Lee refused to require the contract company to adhere to the CBA for its remaining terms. The Unions argued that Sara Lee breached the outsourcing agreement. The court concluded that Sara Lee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law where the Unions failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sara Lee subsequently changed subcontractors. The court found it unnecessary to address the extension agreement's impact on the old CBA's term or to reconcile this tangle of agreements, because the proposition that Sara Lee never subsequently changed subcontractors provided a clear basis upon which to affirm. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Allied Sales Drivers, et al. v. Sara Lee Bakery Group, et al." on Justia Law
The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main Street Ingredients, LLC
Netherlands filed suit against Main Street, seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether Netherlands had a duty to defend or indemnify Main Street in the underlying lawsuit with Malt-O-Meal. The court concluded that, because Main Street did not intentionally sell to Malt-O-Meal FDA-condemnable dried milk, the sale of FDA-condemnable dried milk was an "accident" that constituted an "occurrence" under the policy; the district court properly concluded that the "your product" exclusion did not apply because the property damage claimed was to Malt-O-Meal's product, not Main Street's product; the district court correctly found the impaired property exclusion did not apply where the instant oatmeal was not "impaired property" because it could not "be restored to use" and where the instant oatmeal was "physically injured;" and construing the recall exclusion "strictly against the insurer," the court concluded that the district court correctly found that the exclusion did not apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment where Main Street's loss was covered under the policy and no exclusions applied. View "The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main Street Ingredients, LLC" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Insurance Law, U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Madden, et al. v. Lumber One Home Center, Inc.
Plaintiffs, three former employees, filed suit against Lumber One, claiming that Lumber One incorrectly classified them as executive employees who were exempt from overtime pay regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). After overturning the jury verdict, the district court awarded plaintiffs overtime pay and attorneys' fees. The court concluded that Lumber One failed to show that Plaintiffs Madden and O'Bar met the executive exemption standard where Lumber One failed to prove that these plaintiffs had the authority to hire or fire employees, or that their recommendations regarding personnel decisions were given "particular weight" by the decisionmaker. The court concluded, however, that Lumber One did prove that Plaintiff Wortman was eligible for the executive exemption. Accordingly, the court affirmed with respect to Madden and O'Bar, reversed with respect to Wortman, and remanded for a new determination of attorneys' fees. View "Madden, et al. v. Lumber One Home Center, Inc." on Justia Law
Washington, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed suit against Countrywide, alleging violation of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (MSMLA), 516.231 to 408.241 RSMo. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of their claims as barred by the three-year statute of limitations of section 516.130(2). The court concluded that the MSMLA was subject to the three-year limitations period of section 516.130(2), not the six-year statute of limitations under section 516.420, pursuant to Rashaw v. United Consumers Credit Union. The court also concluded, under Missouri law, that the "entire damage" to plaintiffs was capable of ascertainment "in a single action" and the "continuing or repeated wrong" exception did not apply in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Washington, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law
An v. Holder
Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court upheld the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on the IJ's finding of numerous discrepancies including petitioner's evasiveness and non-responsive explanations, and lack of corroborating evidence. Further, the BIA's decision that petitioner was not eligible for asylum was supported by substantial evidence. Because the court upheld the agency's adverse credibility finding, petitioner could not prevail on his challenges to the IJ and BIA. Petitioner's asylum and withholding claims likewise failed, as they rested on his discredited testimony. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "An v. Holder" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Immigration Law, U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Products, LLC
Lovely Skin filed suit against Ishtar, alleging four counts of trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1127, and common law unfair competition and injury to business reputation in violation of Nebraska law. Ishtar counterclaimed, seeking cancellation of the registrations of Lovely Skin's two trademarks. The court concluded that Ishtar did not demonstrate that Lovely Skin's trademarks were not registrable because they lacked acquired distinctiveness at the time of their registrations. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment canceling the registrations of LOVELYSKIN and LOVELYSKIN.COM. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in considering all of the SquirtCo v. Seven-Up Company factors and determining that no likelihood of confusion existed between Lovely Skin's trademarks and Ishtar's website. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for Ishtar on all four counts. View "Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Products, LLC" on Justia Law
Armstrong, et al. v. C.I.R.
Appellants, two couples, challenged the Tax Court's decisions disallowing their claims of dependency exemption deductions and child tax credits for a child of each husband's prior marriage. For each couple, the only tax year at issue, a year in which the ex-wife, the custodial parent, failed to sign a document stating that she "will not claim such child as a dependent" that year, even though she had agreed to provide that document if her ex-husband paid all required child support. The court reviewed the Tax Court's interpretation of the governing statute de novo and concluded that its decisions were consistent with the plain language of 26 U.S.C. 152(e)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Armstrong, et al. v. C.I.R." on Justia Law
Ames v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., et al.
Plaintiff filed sex- and pregnancy-based employment discrimination claims against Nationwide under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Iowa Code 216.6. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating constructive discharge, where, even if her supervisor's comment that it was best that plaintiff go home with her babies might support a finding of intent to force plaintiff to resign, plaintiff did not give Nationwide a reasonable opportunity to address and ameliorate the conditions that she claimed constituted constructive discharge. The court also concluded that plaintiff waived her argument that she was actually discharged because she did not raise it in the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Nationwide. View "Ames v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law