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

In 2013, Vercellino was injured in an accident while riding on an ATV operated by his friend, Kenney. Both were minors. Vercellino was a covered dependent on his mother’s insurance plan. The plan is self-funded, so ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001, preempted state law. The Insurer paid nearly $600,000 in medical expenses and did not exercise its right to seek recovery in subrogation from Kenney or Kenney’s parents during the applicable statutory period, nor did Vercellino’s mother ever file suit to recover medical expenses from the Kenneys. In 2019, Vercellino, then an adult, filed suit against the Kenneys seeking general damages and sought declaratory judgment that the Insurer would have no right of reimbursement from any proceeds recovered in that litigation. The Insurer counterclaimed, seeking declaratory judgment that it would be entitled to recover up to the full amount it paid for Vercellino’s medical expenses from any judgment or settlement Vercellino obtained.The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Insurer. The plain language of the plan at issue here is unambiguous: the Insurer is entitled to seek reimbursement for medical expenses arising out of the ATV accident paid on Vercellino’s behalf from any judgment or settlement he receives in his litigation with Kenney. View "Vercellino v. Optum Insight, Inc." on Justia Law

Robinson filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit six years and one day after police officers arrested and allegedly beat him. The day before he sued was Veterans Day, so federal courthouses were closed. The defendants argued that his claims were untimely. The district court asked whether some of the claims were really timely filed because the limitations period, which ordinarily would have ended on a “legal holiday,” actually “continue[d] to run until the end of the next day.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Despite the hint, Robinson never made that argument himself, so the court dismissed the claims.The Eighth Circuit reversed in part. Robinson’s privacy, excessive force, and false-arrest claims were timely. Robinson’s failure to argue the federal-holiday rule was forfeiture, not waiver, as it involved inaction rather than acquiescence. Once the district court raised the federal-holiday rule, Robinson’s counsel thought there was little point in pressing the issue. Forfeiture is excusable in limited, well-defined circumstances, including when “the proper resolution is beyond any doubt,” for “purely legal issue[s]” that do not require “additional evidence or argument.” Here, how the federal-holiday rule works is clear, none of the relevant dates are in dispute, and everyone agrees that a six-year statute of limitations applies; this “purely legal issue” that is “beyond doubt.” Robinson’s malicious-prosecution claim, however, does not state” a constitutional claim and was properly dismissed. View "Robinson v. Norling" on Justia Law

A judgment creditor’s attorney, Rodenburg, mailed the consumer debtor, Ojogwu a copy of the garnishment summons Rodenburg had served on garnishee US Bank, knowing that Ojogwu had retained counsel after the default judgment was entered and that he disputed the debt. The district court held that Minn. Stat. 571.72(4), which requires that copies of papers served on a third-party garnishee “be served by mail at the last known mailing address of the debtor not later than five days after the service is made upon the garnishee” was inconsistent with, and therefore preempted by, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: “Without the prior consent of the consumer . . . or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with collection of any debt . . . if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt.” 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(2).The Eighth Circuit ordered the dismissal of the case. Under recent Supreme Court precedent, Ojogwu lacks Article III standing to pursue this claim in federal court because he failed to allege and the record does not show that he suffered concrete injury-in-fact from Rodenburg’s alleged violation of section 1692c(a)(2). View "Ojogwu v. Rodenburg Law Firm" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion for extension of time to file a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 as moot, and vacated the district court's order denying the extension motion. The court concluded that the district court cannot revisit the subsequent order because it has now been made final by the administrative panel's denial of a certificate of appealability. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for a firearm offense, concluding that his convictions for attempted second-degree murder in violation of Minn. Stat. Sections 609.17, subdiv. 1; and 609.19(1), were violent felonies for purposes of sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court explained that the underlying crime that defendant attempted was second-degree murder, which takes place when a person "causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation." In this case, defendant must have had intent or purpose, or at least knowledge, which are both greater than recklessness. View "United States v. Matthews" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the insurers, seeking to represent a nationwide class of people whose trips were cancelled because of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and who were not paid by these insurers. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court concluded that plaintiff's flight cancellation caused by the government's stay-at-home orders fell under his travel insurance policies' epidemic exclusion. In this case, an ordinary person of average understanding reading the policy terms here would deduce that WHO "recognized" COVID-19 as either a pandemic or an epidemic by including COVID-19 on its list of pandemic or epidemic diseases. Furthermore, plaintiff's flight cancellation resulted from the COVID-19 epidemic and the epidemic affected plaintiff. View "Bauer v. AGA Service Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review of an order of the BIA upholding the denial of his motion to reopen proceedings and to rescind an order of removal entered in absentia. The court concluded that the agency reasonably concluded that petitioner's explanations left "too many questions" unanswered, and that he failed to overcome the presumption that mail sent to his address in Lincoln was delivered and received. Therefore, the agency did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen proceedings and to rescind the removal order entered in petitioner's absence. View "Hesso v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence, holding that a non-retroactive change in the law under which defendant was sentenced cannot constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for reducing a sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). The court stated that the fact that defendant combined his reliance on a non-retroactive change in law with assertions about age, health, and rehabilitation does not help his case for compassionate release. The court explained that adding a legally impermissible ground to other insufficient factual considerations cannot justify a sentence reduction. View "United States v. Crandall" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm charge, as well as forcibly assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1) and (b), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of this section 111 offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and Instruction 7 submitting the section 111 charge was not an abuse of the district court's discretion to fashion appropriate instructions, much less plain error. View "United States v. Wilkins" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition, namely, five .45-caliber shell casings found at the scene of the shooting. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that defendant was the shooter and that the shell casings were knowingly discharged from the shooter's firearm. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion to control closing arguments when it did not sua sponte challenge the prosecutor's rebuttal closing arguments. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantial upward variance and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Obi" on Justia Law