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

Several shareholder-derivative lawsuits were filed across the country, including one in Delaware state court and in federal district court, after an investigative report detailed an alleged bribery scheme involving Wal-Mart. In this appeal, at issue was whether a federal court could utilize Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States to stay a federal shareholder-derivative proceeding that contained a valid claim within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. The district court stayed and administratively terminated the Federal proceedings in favor of a substantially similar state-court proceeding that would have the realistic effect of precluding any future proceedings in federal court. Accordingly, this order was final and appealable. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the Colorado River doctrine could not be used to stay or dismiss a federal proceeding in favor of a concurrent state proceeding when the federal proceeding contained a claim over which Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Here, the district court abused its discretion by using its inherent power to control its docket as an alternative justification for the stay, a stay which effectively dismissed the federal proceeding in favor of a concurrent state dispute. The proper standard to apply, given the effect of the stay, was Colorado River. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cottrell, et al. v. Duke, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the Secretary of State, in his official capacity, and other state defendants. Plaintiff claimed race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied the state defendants' motion for summary judgment on the race discrimination and retaliation claims; concluded that plaintiff could pursue his Title VII claims against all defendants but that the Eleventh Amendment barred his section 1983 claims against the Secretary and his claims for monetary damages against the Secretary and Chief Hedden in their official capacities; denied Chief Hedden qualified immunity; and denied summary judgment to the state defendants as to mitigation of damages and punitive damages but granted summary judgment to the state defendants on the section 1981 claims, hostile work environment claims, and claim of deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects, except the court reversed its denial of qualified immunity to Chief Hedden on plaintiff's 1983 equal-protection retaliation claim. The right to be free from retaliation was clearly established as a First Amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation. View "Burton v. Arkansas Secretary of State, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her supervisor, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, alleging that the supervisor violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and claims against the Department under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff's FMLA claims failed because she was not an eligible employee under the FLMA and she had been employed for less than 12 months; plaintiff's FLSA claim failed because she did not plead adequately that the supervisor violated the statute; because plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her position, with or without reasonable accommodation, she failed to create a genuine issue for trial on a claim of discrimination under the ADA; and there was no genuine issue for trial on plaintiff's claim of unlawful retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the FMLA and FLSA claims and the district court's grant of summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. View "Hill v. Walker" on Justia Law

Movant, convicted of a drug offense, appealed the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. On appeal, movant argued that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing because the files and records of the case did not conclusively establish that he was not entitled to section 2255 relief, and the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). The court concluded that because the decision whether to move to dismiss was a tactical decision made within counsel's discretion, movant was not entitled to relief. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing was not warranted. Further, the district court did not err in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Thomas v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of five counts including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (Count 1) and conspiracy to use and carry firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 2). Defendant appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting testimony from multiple witnesses that tended to show defendant was part of an organized group - a "gang" - that distributed narcotics; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction on Count 2; the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on withdrawal where defendant offered no evidence of any affirmative step to withdraw from the conspiracy; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial after a juror played a voice message from an inmate out loud in the presence of other jury members because the message did not relate to the evidence at trial nor did it cause psychological pressure either for or against defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of transporting minors with intent to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Defendant appealed the district court's application of a vulnerable victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b)(1). The court concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in applying the vulnerable victim enhancement and did not abuse it sentencing discretion where the record provided ample evidence that defendant understood the victims were vulnerable, regardless of his purported intellectual limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Frohlich" on Justia Law

The Bank appealed the district court's calculation of a deficiency judgment against Sunrise. Where, as here, the state's highest court has unambiguously articulated state law, the district court must apply it. Because the district court ignored clear, well-settled Missouri law, it erred in calculating the deficiency based on the property's fair market value rather than the foreclosure sale price. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Sunrise Farms Dev., LLC, et al." on Justia Law

CBP imposed almost $38 million in penalties against UP under the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1584(a)(2), after finding illegal drugs secreted on trains brought to the U.S. border by Ferromex or KCSM, both Mexican railroads. The district court found that CBP lacked statutory authority to penalize UP and found in UP's favor. The government appealed. The court rejected CBP's constitutionally suspect contention that the Act authorizes the heavy fines at issue in this case; the statute does not authorize penalties against UP for drugs found on railcars UP neither owned nor controlled; and the statute did not authorize CBP to require UP, as a common carrier, to do more than reasonably possible to prevent Mexican drug cartels from hiding drugs on trains UP did not control in a country in which UP had no operations. The court concluded, however, that the district court's imprecise injunction must be corrected. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacating only the injunction. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that plaintiff did not have standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's denial of the Rule 60 motion because he did not possess a financial stake in the bankruptcy court's order denying the motion. Therefore, the panel dismissed the appeal. View "Conway, et al. v. Heyl" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the trial court unreasonably determined that the prosecutor's strike of two African-American venirepersons was not motivated by race; there was no error in the admission of one of the victim's out-of-court statements regarding a prior assault by petitioner to a police officer; petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence were rejected; and even if the PowerPoint presentation at issue should not have been shown to the jury, it did not render the trial fundamentally unfair and the resulting verdict did not constitute a denial of due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Strong v. Roper" on Justia Law