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

Debtors filed a motion requesting findings of contempt against Great Western. The bankruptcy court denied debtors' motion, concluding that there was no time frame within which the bank was required to file an amended UCC financing statement. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the motion because the order approving the stipulation was not clear, unambiguous or certain. View "Fischer, et al. v. Great Western Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Darwin alleging that the insurance company breached its duty to defend and its implied duties of good faith and fair dealing under the policy at issue. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Darwin. The court concluded that Darwin owed no duty to defend plaintiffs because all of the claims at issue fell within the Customer Funds Exclusion; the district court's interpretation of the Customer Funds Exclusion did not violate the illusory coverage doctrine; and the reasonable expectations doctrine did not apply in this case. The court also concluded that the innocent insured doctrine did not obligate Darwin to defend plaintiffs and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied contractual duties of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Bethel, II, et al. v. Darwin Select Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Reyco appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Union and the district court's denial of its motion for summary judgment and request to vacate the arbitrator's award. At issue was Article XII, section 3 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Reyco and the Union. In this case, the arbitrator recognized that the crux of the issue was whether the use of the word "may" was discretionary or mandatory when referring to exceptions to be made to a holiday pay policy. The arbitrator, relying on parol evidence, concluded that the word "may" indicated the company held "some discretion" and that the language of the contract did not make granting the exception mandatory. The court concluded, however, that there was no ambiguity in the contract language at issue. The arbitrator was not construing an ambiguous contract term, but rather was imposing a new obligation upon Reyco. Therefore, the arbitrator's interpretation altered the plain language of the contract as written. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order and opinion granting summary judgment for the Union and confirming the arbitration award, and directed the court to grant Reyco's motion for summary judgment, vacating the arbitrator's award. View "Reyco Granning LLC v. IBT, Local No. 245" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's dismissal of his federal habeas petition. The district court did, however, grant a certificate of appealability on several issues. The court concluded, inter alia, that the district court's legal errors meant that the district court had not answered the question Atkins v. Virginia required it to answer: under Arkansas law, did petitioner prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the relevant skill areas. The court dismissed the claims petitioner attempted to raise for the first time on appeal; affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's remaining claims with the exception of his Atkins claim and the four ineffective assistance claims meriting a hearing under Trevino v. Thaler; vacated the district court's denial of relief on these four claims; vacated the district court's finding that petitioner was not mentally retarded under Atkins; reversed the denial of a hearing on the four potentially meritorious ineffective assistance claims; and remanded for further proceedings, including a hearing on the four ineffective assistance claims and a new Atkins finding under the appropriate standard. View "Sasser v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former supervisor and employer, the Department, for statutory and constitutional violations. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the supervisor's appeal where the supervisor challenged the sufficiency of plaintiff's pleadings to state 42 U.S.C. 1983, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., interference and retaliation claims. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to state a section 1983 claim for gender discrimination where her conclusory assertion that she was discharged under circumstances similarly situated men were not imported legal language couched as factual allegations and failed to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying the supervisor's motion to dismiss the claim. Further, the district court erred in denying the supervisor's motion to dismiss the FMLA entitlement claim and the FMLA discrimination claim. The court remanded for the district court to consider whether to allow plaintiff to amend her pleadings. Finally, the court, declining to exercise pendant jurisdiction, did not have jurisdiction to hear the Department's appeal. View "Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health, et al." on Justia Law

The Market sought a declaration that its employment separation agreement with defendant was invalid because defendant had altered the agreement and fraudulently induced the president of the Market to sign it. Defendant counterclaimed to enforce the agreement. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Market where defendant failed to fulfill a condition precedent - returning company property - and such failure meant that the Market had not duty to perform under the agreement. Alternatively, the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking defendant's pleadings based on defendant's deliberate and willful discovery abuses. The district court acted within its discretion to impose sanctions under Rule 37. View "St. Louis Produce Market v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are survivors of the victims who were murdered inside an apartment building owned by the landlords. A state court found that the landlords breached their landlord-tenant duty to provide security to the victims and awarded plaintiffs $4 million in total damages. Plaintiffs then filed an equitable garnishment action to recover insurance proceeds from one of the landlord's insurers to satisfy a portion of the wrongful death judgments. The district court ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to collect $1 million in insurance proceeds from the insurer. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the insurance policy unambiguously precluded coverage of the wrongful death damages where the business property exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage of the wrongful death judgments plaintiffs obtained against the landlords. View "Eichholz, et al. v. Secura Supreme Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. The magistrate judge found that defendant effectively waived any right to complain about his counsel's performance where counsel had discussed with him the circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest and seizure of the firearm and defendant had professed satisfaction with counsel's performance at his plea hearing. Assuming that defendant did not waive his right to complain of counsel's performance, the court held that defendant failed to show prejudice because even if counsel had filed a motion to suppress evidence discovered during the search, it would have failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lawhorn" on Justia Law

Movant was convicted of aiding and abetting the robbery of a credit union, and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to the credit union robbery. On appeal, movant challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as untimely. The court concluded that movant's five-month confinement in a special housing unit did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting the application of equitable tolling; equitable tolling did not apply in this instance where movant argued that he mistakenly relied upon his attorney's assertion that she would file a section 2255 motion on his behalf where the attorney's actions did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance; and even if the attorney's actions had constituted an extraordinary circumstance, movant did not act with diligence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Muhammad v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, her husband, and their jointly owned company filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two employees of the Department (Hansen and Watkins), alleging violations of their due process rights. Plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that the Department failed to provide plaintiff with actual notice of her placement on the disqualification list and deprived all the plaintiffs of due process. The court could find no authority or "general constitutional rule" requiring Hansen and Watkins to provide plaintiff final oral notice or request written confirmation of her termination in addition to the notice and opportunity for hearing they had already provided. Therefore, the court concluded that placing plaintiff on the disqualification list was not a deprivation of due process rights. Accordingly, Hansen and Watkins were entitled to qualified immunity on the individual capacity claims against them. Plaintiff's remaining claim was without merit. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Foster, et al. v. MO Dept. of Health and Senior Servs., et al." on Justia Law