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

Plaintiff, an Iowa citizen with a home health care business, merged his business with other home health care providers to form Auxi, Inc., a Delaware corporation. After the merger, ACS acquired control of Auxi and then sold Auxi to HHC. Auxi did not inform plaintiff of the sale and plaintiff received no compensation for his shares of Auxi stock. Plaintiff filed suit against ACS claiming breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. The court concluded that plaintiff pleaded insufficient facts to support a claim that ACS breached its fiduciary duties as a majority shareholder; although plaintiff's complaint alleged damages, it contained no facts identifying the existence of a contract between ACS and plaintiff or its terms; and plaintiff pleaded no facts suggesting that the alleged contract between ACS and HHC manifested an intent to benefit him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of both claims. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its "considerable discretion," in concluding that it was not required to allow plaintiff to amend the post-judgment complaint where plaintiff never sought to amend until after dismissal, despite being on notice of the need to amend. View "Horras v. American Capital Strategies, Ltd." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. The court concluded that defendant's misunderstanding that he was guaranteed the ability to attend the Minnesota Teen Challenge, a long-term, faith-based chemical dependency program, did not permit withdrawal of the plea where the district court never directly said that Teen Challenge was not a part of the plea agreement, just not a part of the sentence; the record and presentence investigation report amply supported a determination that defendant likely committed the offenses; defendant had enough time to reach and consider the plea agreement; defendant's counsel's performance did not violate Lafler v. Cooper; and defendant's failure to object to counsel's performance precluded his ineffective assistance claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Norvell" on Justia Law

ABF filed suit against defendants alleging a violation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). On appeal, ABF challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). ABF contended that because the agreement's grievance-resolution system was unavailable, the district court may appoint a disinterested tribunal to hear the grievance or, alternatively to provide redress. The court concluded that the district court could not appoint a new tribunal because the National Grievance Committee (NGC) rules provided a solution. Though the rules here did not mandate the NGC's specific response to a disqualification, they nonetheless made clear that resolving it by amending or modifying the rules was an issue for the NGC. In regards to ABF's request for redress directly from the court for breach of the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA), the court rejected ABF's unavailability and futility arguments, as well as its remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "ABF Freight System, Inc. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al." on Justia Law

The M/V Julie White, a towboat owned by Artco, was pushing four barges on the river when the barges separated from the towboat and allided with Lock and Dam 25. The barges then sank. After Artco salvaged and removed the sunken barges from the Mississippi River, Artco filed suit under the Limitation of Shipowners' Liability Act (Limitation Act), 46 U.S.C. 30501-12, seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability for, claims arising from the allision. On appeal, Artco challenged the district court's dismissal of the limitation complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) because the United States' claims under the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401-76, were not subject to limitation under the Limitation Act. The court concluded that the government did not have statutory standing because it failed to file a claim in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Supplemental F(5), and therefore, the district court erred by entertaining the government's motion to dismiss the limitation complaint. Because the court concluded that the government was without standing, the court need not address the merits of the government's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "American River Transp., et al. v. United States, Corp of Engineers" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Cynthia and Alan Roers, filed suit against Countrywide and others after Countrywide initiated foreclosure proceedings on the ranch property they owned. The court concluded that fact questions existed as to whether the parties were operating under a mutual mistake as to a basic assumption on which the mortgage agreements were made; whether the ranch's acreage and corresponding value were material to the finance agreements for Cynthia's separate properties; and whether plaintiffs have been adversely affected and were, therefore, eligible to seek rescission of the mortgage agreements. The court concluded, however, that the district court did not err in granting Countrywide's motion for summary judgment on Alan's claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs have waived their remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Roers v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two laborers, filed suit against their employer, ConAgra Foods, alleging that ConAgra violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(b), by failing to compensate them and others similarly situated for time spent walking between changing stations where they donned and doffed their uniforms and the time clock where they punch in and out for the day. The court concluded that the time spent by the laborers donning and doffing their uniforms was excluded by agreement from the hours for which they were employed; donning and doffing was not an activity that the laborers were employed to perform, and it was therefore not a principal activity that begins and ends the workday; and it follows that the time spent walking between the clothes-changing stations and the time clock was not part of the workday and workweek for which the employer was liable to pay overtime compensation under the FLSA. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of ConAgra's motion for summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Adair, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, et al." on Justia Law

After defendants, Wendell O. Maness and Carolyn H. Maness, filed for bankruptcy, Legendary Stone sought a determination from the bankruptcy court that the indebtedness due from Top Shop, the company defendants owned, was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A), and that defendants were liable for such amounts under Missouri's lien fraud statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. 429.014. Two days before defendants filed for bankruptcy, Legendary Stone filed a criminal complaint against Wendell. Wendell was charged with theft under the lien fraud statute and subsequently was arrested, booked, and released on signature bond. The prosecutor eventually dismissed the charges against Wendell. Defendants then filed a counterclaim against Legendary Stone in the adversary proceeding asserting that Legendary Stone's actions in regards to the criminal complaint were attempts to collect a debt and willful violations of the automatic stay. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of defendants' counterclaim where Legendary Stone met its burden of presenting detailed evidence that its representatives were not attempting to use the criminal prosecution to collect a debt and where defendants failed to prove otherwise. View "Legendary Stone Arts, LLC v. Maness, et al." on Justia Law

The EPA filed suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. against Land O'Lakes, alleging that Land O'Lakes was responsible for cleanup costs at a contaminated refinery site. Land O'Lakes subsequently filed suit against its insurers, Wausau and Travelers, seeking payment of defense costs and indemnification under commercial general liability (CGL) policies that the insurers issued in connection with the CERCLA suit. The court concluded that Land O'Lakes's 2009 duty-to-defend claims were barred by the Minnesota statute of limitations where the 2001 Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) letter was a "suit" for arguably-covered damages as contemplated under the pertinent CGL policies. The court also concluded that Land O'Lakes's costs to remediate the refinery site fell within the owned-property exclusion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Land O'Lakes, Inc. v. Employers Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction on five counts of making a false claim for a tax refund on January 9, 2009; making a false claim for a tax refund on March 27, 2009; uttering a forged treasury check on March 9, 2009; mail fraud in January 2009; and aggravated identity theft on January 9, 2009. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant; the court rejected defendant's challenge to the district court's decision to grant the third motion in limine, asserting that his intent in offering such evidence was to show that he made the relevant filings in good faith, because it was irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 402; and the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying defendant's motions to continue. The court remanded with instructions that the district court modify its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of special condition two of supervised release. View "United States v. Jirak" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, on behalf of the United States, against the City, alleging that the City obtained grants from HUD by falsely certifying compliance with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and its applicable regulations, 12 U.S.C. 1701u; 24 C.F.R. 135. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish that he had direct and independent knowledge of the information underlying his fraud allegations and, therefore, affirmed the district court's decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under section 3730(e)(4). The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court denied plaintiff's motion to take judicial notice. View "United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul" on Justia Law