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

Defendant, an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of the Chippewa Indians, entered into a satellite television contract with DISH but used his daughter's credit card to open his account. After defendant stopped making payments, DISH charged the daughter's credit card. The daughter sued DISH in state court but DISH removed to federal court where it filed a third party complaint against defendant. Defendant then filed an abuse of process claim against DISH in tribal court. At issue on appeal was DISH's challenge to the district court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the tribal court from conducting a trial on defendant's abuse of process claim. The court affirmed the district court's judgment because it was not "plain" that the tribal courts lacked jurisdiction over defendant's abuse of process complaint. View "DISH Network Service L.L.C. v. Laducer, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a dispute between the Union and Carlisle over the arbitrability of a grievance concerning disability benefits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Carlisle and denied the Union's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that Carlisle's claim for declaratory judgment was barred by the doctrine of res judicata where there was no basis for the district court to conclude that the Union acquiesced in the splitting of Carlisle's claims. Therefore, the Union did not waive its right to rely on the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and remanded with directions to dismiss Carlisle's action View "Carlisle Power Trans. Products v. United Steel, etc." on Justia Law

Voters filed suit against Officials challenging the process by which Officials confirmed the eligibility of voters who register on election day (election day registrants or EDRs). Voters also challenged a provision of the Minnesota Constitution denying the right of persons under guardianship to vote, as well as the sufficiency of notice afforded to such persons under certain Minnesota statutes. The court concluded that Voters could not prevail on their 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims based on Officials' failure to verify EDR's voting eligibility before allowing EDRs to cast their votes where Voters raised no allegations of the "aggravating factors" identified in Pettengill v. Putnam County R-1 School District; alleged no discriminatory or other intentional, unlawful misconduct by Officials sufficient to implicate section 1983; and alleged no defects causing Minnesota's voting system to be so "fundamentally unfair" that relief under section 1983 would be appropriate. Further, Voters lacked standing to raise their remaining claims where the amended complaint failed to allege that any plaintiff has been denied the right to vote by a constitutional provision barring persons under guardianship from voting. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Voters claims and denial of their motion for summary judgment as moot. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al. v. Ritchie, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that the district court used an incorrect standard to evaluate the effect of the Government's alleged use of perjured testimony during his underlying trial for wire fraud and money laundering. Defendant was a licensed attorney, a licensed real estate agent and broker, as well as a licensed contractor. He was convicted of charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud purchasers of five residential properties. The court held that a false testimony claim fell within the category of trial error, rather than structural error. Applying the harmless-error standard and assuming that the testimony at issue was false and the Government knew or should have known of its falsity, the challenged testimony at issue did not produce a substantial or injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the section 2255 motion. View "United States v. Clay" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed putative class actions under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1693, alleging that Mutual First and First National violated the Act because defendants' ATM machines did not have "on machine" notice of a transaction fee. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff's claim of statutory damages was sufficiently related to his injury to confer standing where defendants did not provide him with the required "on machine" notice and then charged him a prohibited fee following an ATM transaction that he initiated and completed. Further, plaintiff's injury was fairly traceable to defendants' conduct where, if defendants had not violated the Act's notice requirement, plaintiff would not have been forced to choose between engaging in a transaction without the required notice and walking away. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Charvat v. Mutual First Fed. Credit Union" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County after a jail operated by the County failed to provide him with necessary anti-seizure medication while he was incarcerated. In this instance, plaintiff presented no evidence to suggest that the County's policymaking officials would have received notice of the denial of his medication in the morning at issue and made a deliberate choice to ignore or tacitly authorize the denial in the course of those few hours. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the County because plaintiff failed to present evidence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees. View "Johnson, Jr. v. County of Douglas, NE" on Justia Law

Trustee filed an adversary complaint against Scarlett & Gucciardo to avoid as a preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. 547, and recover under 11 U.S.C. 550, the $65,000 payment Scarlett & Gucciardo had received from Debtor. Scarlett & Gucciardo received the payment on behalf of defendant in connection with the settlement of a lawsuit. Trustee then filed a motion to amend the complaint to join defendant and to have the amended complaint "relate back" to the date of the original complaint. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Trustee to amend his complaint and to allow Trustee's amended complaint to relate back to the date of Trustee's original complaint; the $65,000 payment was not a contemporaneous exchange within the meaning of section 547(c)(1); and the payment was not made in the ordinary course of business within the meaning of section 547(c)(2)(A). Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Ries v. Calandrillo" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of distribution of cocaine base and subsequently appealed his conviction. The court concluded that the incorrect date on the warrant was a "technicality issue" that did not invalidate the warrant; the magistrate judge's clerical error did not defeat probable cause; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, rejecting defendant's claim that the district court should have excluded the evidence discovered during the search of his residence; the government did not fail to establish that defendant lived at the residence where much of the evidence was discovered; and defendant's confession, combined with the evidence discovered during the controlled buys, trash pull, and search of his residence, was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

PETCO sought a declaration that ICNA had to defend and indemnify PETCO in an underlying litigation with Medtronic. Medtronic sued PETCO after an aquarium heater it had purchased from PETCO malfunctioned and started a fire at a Medtronic plant. The district court granted ICNA's motion for summary judgment and PETCO appealed. At issue was whether the aquarium heater satisfied a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the ground that PETCO failed to identify any mandatory or voluntary safety standard with which the heater complied. View "PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, et al. v. Ins. Co. of North America" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the BIA's order denying his motion to terminate deportation proceedings. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that petitioner's conviction of witness tampering in violation of Nebraska Statute 28-919(1)(c), (d), constituted an aggravated felony because it was an offense relating to the obstruction of justice under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(S). View "Armenta-Lagunas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law