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

Debtor appealed a bankruptcy court order holding that the funds in his health savings account (HSA) were not excluded from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 541(b)(7)(A)(ii) and were not exempt. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) held that an HSA was not a health insurance plan regulated by state law and, therefore, the HSA was not excluded from the bankruptcy estate by section 541(b)(7)(A)(ii). The BAP also concluded that section 522(d)(10)(C) and (11)(D) exemptions did not apply in this instance where the funds in the HSA could be used for purposes other than "disability, illness, or unemployment" and also could be used for purposes other than "personal bodily injury." Further, these exemptions applied only to a debtor's "right to receive" the stated benefits but, in this instance, debtor had already received the money from his employer and there was no longer a "right to receive" the funds that are already in the account. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Leitch v. Christians" on Justia Law

After the parties failed to negotiate a franchise renewal agreement, Home Instead filed a declaratory judgment action against Friend. Friend subsequently filed this interlocutory appeal after the district court denied its motion for a preliminary injunction allowing it to continue operating as a franchisee of Home Instead during the pendency of the litigation. The court concluded that the franchise agreements at issue were ambiguous. Consequently, the district court erred in concluding that the contract was unambiguous and that, as a matter of law, the contract allowed Home Instead to raise the minimum performance requirement in renewal contracts. The district court's denial of Friend's motion for a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion because the district court based its denial on this erroneous legal conclusion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, et al." on Justia Law

In this product liability suit against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Reglan and its generic equivalent (metoclopramide), plaintiff appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment to Brand Defendants and its dismissal of her claims with prejudice against Generic Defendants. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Brand Defendants where plaintiff's claims were not viable under Arkansas law because she stipulated that she never used Reglan manufactured or distributed by any of the Brand Defendants. In regards to the claims against the Generic Defendants, the court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's non-warning breach of implied warranty claims and remanded for further consideration as to whether they adequately stated viable claims under Arkansas law and if so, whether the Generic Defendants could nonetheless establish preemption. It was not immediately clear whether Arkansas offered generic drug manufacturers an opportunity, consistent with federal obligations to somehow alter an otherwise unreasonably dangerous drug. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's failure to warn and failure to update claims; reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's non-warning design defect and breach of implied warrant claims; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Minnesota homeowners represented by the same counsel, brought thirteen separate claims against defendants, nearly all of which rested on a "show me the note" theory. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss nearly all of the claims and sua sponte sanctioned counsel, awarding attorney fees to defendants. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court had diversity jurisdiction as the claims against the sole nondiverse defendant lacked a reasonable basis in fact and law; plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss; the "show me the note" theory had been repeatedly rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court and this court applying Minnesota law; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against counsel under Rule 11 where, at the very least, counsel had lacked a frivolous basis for appeal. View "Welk, et al. v. Ally Financial,Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Missouri state court against Walgreens seeking damages related to Walgreens' alleged practice of coding its web pages to cause tracking codes or "flash cookies" to be downloaded onto plaintiffs' computers. Walgreens filed its notice of removal nearly one year after plaintiffs initially filed the putative class action. The court declined to adopt Walgreens' reading of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3), holding that discovery responses were not "other paper" under section 1446(b)(3) as a matter of law. Therefore, Walgreens had no statutory basis to remove the case at this juncture. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order remanding the case to state court and declined to reach Walgreens' remaining arguments. View "Dalton, et al. v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in not granting a mistrial and that the district court erred in sentencing him to 210 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that, even if the district court erred in reading the portion of the indictment stating the nature of his prior conviction, there was no clear prejudice here and defendant was not entitled to a mistrial on this basis. Further, the district court did not plainly err in sentencing defendant to more than 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), where defendant was convicted of at least three requisite offenses. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Parents appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that the antenuptial agreement between their son and his then-wife, Kathy L. Cox, was ineffective to waive Kathy's right to the funds in Michael's 401(k) plan. The son died before his divorce from Kathy was finalized. The parties agreed that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., governed the distribution of the funds in the plan. The court concluded that the son's designation of his Parents as beneficiaries of the plan must yield to Kathy's rights as a surviving spouse, agreeing with the district court that Kathy's consent did not satisfy the acknowledgment requirement of section 1055(c)(2)(A)(iii). View "MidAmerican v. Cox, Sr., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, asserting that Miller v. Alabama announced a new rule that applied retroactively. Miller held that a sentencing scheme that required a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for certain crimes committed by defendants who were under the age of 18 violated the Eighth Amendment. The court granted defendant an authorization to file a successive section 2255 motion because he made a prima facie showing that his motion contained a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. The court joined other circuits in adopting the proposition that a prima facie showing in this context was simply a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in these consolidated appeals brought claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., related to their mortgage transactions. The court held that to accomplish rescission within the meaning of section 1635(f), the obligor must file a rescission action in court. Because neither plaintiffs accomplished rescission in this way within three years of their respective transactions, their right to rescind expired and the district court correctly entered summary judgment on these claims. Further, plaintiffs were not entitled, as a matter of law, to money damages for the banks' refusal to rescind, although their claim was cognizable, where the violation - that each set of plaintiffs were given one, rather than two TILA disclosures - was not facially apparent on the loan documents as set forth in section 1641. View "Keiran, et al. v. Home Capital, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Debtors filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and later, in an amended schedule, claimed as exempt an unliquidated personal injury claim. On appeal, debtors challenged the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling that the holding in In re Benn compelled the conclusion that debtors' unliquidated personal injury claim could not be exempted from their bankruptcy schedules. The court concluded, however, that unless In re Benn was overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court, it remained binding precedent, and was directly applicable to the issues in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Abdul-Rahim, et al. v. LaBarge, Jr." on Justia Law