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

Appellees made claims on AFY's bankruptcy estate in connection with the sale of appellees' former interests of AFY. Appellants claimed to be the only present shareholders of AFY. On appeal, appellants challenged the bankruptcy court's denial of their objections to the claims. The court dismissed the appeal because appellants lacked standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's order where AFY was the only party directly and adversely affected by the order and any effect on appellants was indirect, based on their status as shareholders of AFY. View "Sears, et al. v. Sears, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of willful misrepresentation but acquitted of bank fraud. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant. As the district court's instructions fairly and adequately presented the essential elements of the willful misapplication offense, the court concluded that there was no error in the manner in which that court incorporated its nominee loan bank fraud instruction into the willful misapplication offenses charged in the indictment. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. The court remanded, however, for resentencing where the district court did not attempt to determine what value to credit in the actual loss calculation. View "United States v. Markert" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of bank robbery, two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to sever the charges where joinder did not violate Rule 8(a) and did not cause prejudice to defendant; in regards to defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in his car, the district court did not err in concluding that the woman driving defendant's car had common authority over the car and the woman voluntarily consented to the search; and in regards to the district court's imposition of life sentences, the district court committed no significant procedural error and the sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

Buffets filed suit against U.S. Bank and BMO Harris Bank alleging, among other things, violations of the Uniform Fiduciaries Act (UFA), Minn. Stat. 520.01 et seq. The district court asserted jurisdiction on the ground that the action was related to a Title 11 bankruptcy proceeding, 28 U.S.C. 1334(b), and that abstention in favor of state-court litigation was not required under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(2). The court concluded that, although the question of "related to bankruptcy" jurisdiction was difficult and close, the answer ultimately did not affect the court's jurisdiction. Even if the district court lacked "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction - because the banks could not pursue indemnification claims against LGI - the court had jurisdiction over the appeal under the rationale of Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis. On the merits, the court concluded that Buffets has not established a genuine dispute as to whether either bank was indifferent to LGI's suspicious activity, such that its actions amounted to bad faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the the district court's grant of summary judgment to the banks. View "Buffets, Inc., et al. v. BMO Harris Bank, et al." on Justia Law

Debtor filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and her case was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On appeal, debtor challenged the bankruptcy court's order denying her motion to reopen her case to pursue an alleged violation of the discharge injunction. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court where the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that debtor's allegations were without merit and, therefore, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen her bankruptcy case. View "Pennington-Thurman v. Bank of America N.A." on Justia Law

Dannix, a commercial painting contractor, filed suit against SWC alleging that SWC negligently misrepresented that a certain paint product SWC sold was appropriate for a particular painting project. The court concluded that the district court did not err in deciding that Missouri's economic loss doctrine precluded Dannix's negligent misrepresentation claim. The economic loss doctrine prohibited a commercial buyer of goods from seeking to recover in tort for economic losses that were contractual in nature. The court also concluded that the district court correctly dismissed Dannix's misrepresentation complaint where the complaint did not set forth any allegations of property damage to surfaces Dannix painted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Dannix's complaint. View "Dannix Painting v. Sherwin-Williams Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his parents filed suit against the District alleging violations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 and 794a, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the District. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because plaintiff failed to present evidence of bad faith or gross misjudgment by the District. View "B.M., et al. v. So. Callaway R-II School Dist." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was arrested on suspicion of passing a forged $100 bill, she sued two police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleged that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment right against arrest without probable cause. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers because, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff. The officers' conduct did not show plain incompetence or a knowing violation of the law. Accordingly, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. View "Clayborn v. Struebing, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that Bayer defrauded the United States government through its marketing and sale of the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of the qui tam action she brought against Bayer Healthcare under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733. Based upon the court's review of plaintiff's allegations regarding the Department of Defense (DoD) contracts, the court concluded that her complaint satisfied Rule 9(b)'s requirements and survived a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment with regard to her allegations regarding the DoD contracts and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to the allegations involving federal health insurance reimbursement claims under United States v. ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc. View "Simpson v. Bayer Healthcare, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine and other evidence found after a traffic stop of a borrowed car he was driving. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress because the evidence seized as a result of the installation and monitoring of the GPS device was admissible under the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Barraza-Maldonado" on Justia Law