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

A group of Union Pacific Railroad Company employees filed a class action lawsuit against the company, alleging that its fitness-for-duty program violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Todd DeGeer, believing he was part of this class, filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge and an individual lawsuit after the class was decertified. DeGeer argued that his claims were tolled under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah doctrine. The district court dismissed his claims as untimely, finding that DeGeer was not a member of the narrowly defined class.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska initially certified a class that included Union Pacific employees subjected to fitness-for-duty evaluations due to a reportable health event. DeGeer was on a list of employees provided by Union Pacific and submitted a declaration supporting the plaintiffs' certification motion. However, the class definition was later narrowed, and the district court certified the class under this new definition. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the class certification, leading DeGeer to file his individual claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Eighth Circuit held that DeGeer was entitled to American Pipe tolling because the revised class definition did not unambiguously exclude him. The court emphasized that ambiguities in class definitions should be resolved in favor of applying tolling. Consequently, DeGeer's claims were tolled during the pendency of the class action, making his individual lawsuit timely. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "DeGeer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Marcus Millsap was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), aiding and abetting attempted murder in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Millsap was involved with the New Aryan Empire, a white-supremacist organization engaged in drug trafficking. He assisted the organization's president, Wesley Gullett, in drug operations and attempted to retaliate against Bruce Hurley, a police informant, by offering money to have him killed. Gullett attempted to kill Hurley but failed, and Hurley was later murdered by an unknown perpetrator.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas sentenced Millsap to life imprisonment. Millsap appealed, arguing that his indictment should have been dismissed due to a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, and that the district court made several errors regarding evidentiary issues and juror intimidation. He also challenged his sentence if the convictions were upheld.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act did not apply because Millsap was transferred to federal custody via a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum before a detainer was lodged. The court also held that there was no sufficient showing of juror intimidation to justify a mistrial. The court found the evidence sufficient to support Millsap's convictions on all counts, including his association with the drug-trafficking enterprise and his involvement in the attempted murder of Hurley.The court also ruled that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements and other evidence, and that any potential errors were harmless. The court upheld the district court's application of sentencing enhancements and the calculation of Millsap's criminal history points. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Millsap" on Justia Law

TD Ameritrade offers brokerage services to retail investors, allowing them to trade stocks through its online platform. The company routes customer orders to trading venues for execution. Roderick Ford, representing a group of investors, alleged that TD Ameritrade's order-routing practices violated the company's duty of best execution by prioritizing venues that paid the company the most money rather than those providing the best outcomes for customers. Ford claimed this violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that CEO Frederic J. Tomczyk was jointly liable under § 20(a) of the Act.A magistrate judge initially recommended denying Ford's motion for class certification due to the predominance of individual questions of economic loss. However, the district court certified a class, believing Ford's expert's algorithm could address these issues. The Eighth Circuit reversed this decision, stating individual inquiries were still necessary. Ford then proposed a new class definition and moved again for certification under Rule 23(b)(3), (b)(2), and (c)(4). The district court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3) and alternatively under Rule 23(b)(2) and (c)(4).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's certification order for abuse of discretion. The court found that Ford's new theory of economic loss, based on commissions paid, did not align with the previous definition of economic loss and still required individualized inquiries. Consequently, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(3). The court also found that the alternative certifications under Rule 23(b)(2) and (c)(4) were improper due to the predominance of individual issues and the lack of cohesiveness among class members. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ford v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp." on Justia Law

Darris Lamar Mull pleaded guilty to four counts of being a felon in possession of firearms, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence investigation report (PSR) assessed a base offense level of 20 due to the involvement of a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. Mull objected, arguing that his co-defendant was responsible for that firearm. The district court overruled the objection and sentenced Mull to 135 months’ imprisonment. Mull appealed, challenging the application of the sentencing enhancement and arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri initially reviewed the case. Mull objected to the PSR's findings, particularly the base offense level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B). The district court found that Mull's offense involved a semiautomatic firearm with a large capacity magazine and overruled his objection. The court adopted the PSR's factual content and calculations, sentencing Mull to 135 months based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) enhancement. It found that Mull and his co-defendant engaged in jointly undertaken criminal activity, making Mull accountable for the co-defendant's possession and use of the firearm. The court also rejected Mull's Second Amendment challenge, citing Eighth Circuit precedent that upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, maintaining Mull's 135-month sentence. View "United States v. Mull" on Justia Law

JES Farms Partnership sold crops through Indigo Ag's digital platform. In 2021, JES initiated arbitration against Indigo, alleging breach of a marketplace seller agreement and trade rule violations. Indigo counterclaimed, alleging JES breached the agreement and its addenda. JES then sought a federal court's declaratory judgment that Indigo’s counterclaims were not arbitrable and that some addenda were invalid. Indigo moved to compel arbitration based on the agreement's arbitration clause.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota partially denied Indigo's motion. The court agreed that Indigo’s counterclaims were arbitrable but ruled that the enforceability of the addenda was not arbitrable under the marketplace seller agreement. The court found the arbitration clause "narrow" and concluded that disputes about the addenda's enforceability did not relate to crop transactions. Indigo appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court determined that the arbitration clause in the marketplace seller agreement was broad, covering "any dispute" related to the agreement or transactions under it. The court found that the enforceability of the addenda was indeed a dispute "relating to crop transactions" and thus fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and directed it to grant Indigo’s motion to compel arbitration and address the case's status pending arbitration. View "JES Farms Partnership v. Indigo Ag Inc." on Justia Law

Erica Barrett and other employees of O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. alleged that the company’s 401(k) plan managers breached their fiduciary duty by imposing high recordkeeping expenses and inflated expense ratios on the plan, resulting in less money for the participants. They claimed that these high costs were due to either incompetence or laziness on the part of the plan managers.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissed the complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide meaningful benchmarks to support their claim that the plan’s fees were excessive. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiffs did not adequately compare the costs of O’Reilly’s plan with those of similar plans offering the same services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the plaintiffs did not provide meaningful benchmarks to show that the plan’s fees were excessive. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ comparisons were flawed because they did not account for the different services included in the fees of the comparator plans. Additionally, the court found that aggregate data from the Investment Company Institute was insufficient to establish a plausible claim of mismanagement. The court also dismissed the failure-to-monitor claim against O’Reilly and its board of directors, as it was derivative of the primary claim. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice, as the plaintiffs did not formally request leave to amend their complaint. View "Barrett v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, Shawn Scherer was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Shortly after beginning his supervised release, he tested positive for methamphetamine and absconded, leading to the revocation of his supervised release in June 2020. He was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment and three more years of supervised release. Scherer violated the conditions of his second supervised-release term, resulting in another revocation in April 2021 and a sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment and 24 months of supervised release. During his third term, he again violated conditions, leading to state charges and federal revocation proceedings.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota revoked Scherer’s supervised release multiple times due to repeated violations, including drug use and absconding from reentry centers. At his latest revocation hearing, Scherer admitted to the violations. The government requested a sentence within the Guidelines’ range of 8 to 14 months, while Scherer’s counsel highlighted his positive activities while incarcerated. The district court, however, noted Scherer’s consistent non-compliance with supervised release conditions and sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Scherer argued that the district court abused its discretion by limiting his counsel’s argument and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The Eighth Circuit held that any error in limiting counsel’s argument was harmless, as the mitigating factors were already presented through other means. The court also found the 36-month sentence substantively reasonable, given Scherer’s repeated violations and failure to comply with supervised release conditions. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "United States v. Scherer" on Justia Law

Craig and Brianna Dulworth discovered that Experian, a credit-reporting agency, incorrectly reported their automobile loan as discharged through bankruptcy, despite their reaffirmation and continued payments. After Experian ignored their correction letters, the Dulworths sued in Indiana state court, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian removed the case to federal court and issued broad subpoenas to the Dulworths' law firm, Stecklein & Rapp, seeking extensive information, including details about the firm's business structure and interactions with other clients.Stecklein & Rapp sought relief from the subpoenas in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, where compliance was required. The district court found the requested materials irrelevant to the Dulworths' lawsuit, quashed the subpoenas, and awarded $93,243.50 in attorney fees and costs to Stecklein & Rapp. Experian appealed both the fee award and the discovery ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing that the subpoenas were overly broad and irrelevant to the case. The court emphasized that the Fair Credit Reporting Act required Experian to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation upon receiving a dispute notice, regardless of whether the notice came directly from the consumer or through their attorney. The court also upheld the attorney fees award, noting that Experian failed to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden on Stecklein & Rapp, justifying the sanctions under Rule 45(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. View "Stecklein & Rapp Chartered v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Raymond Black, a skilled mechanic at Swift Pork Company, was responsible for operating and fixing the loin-puller machine. He frequently took FMLA leave to care for his wife, who had severe cardiovascular disease. After returning to work from a bout of pneumonia, Black was reassigned to a different task, which led to a dispute with his supervisor. Black requested vacation time, which was denied, and then opted for FMLA leave to care for his sick wife. He was subsequently fired after a meeting with the human-resources director and plant manager.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment in favor of Swift Pork Company on both of Black's FMLA claims—interference and discrimination. Black then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to create a jury question on whether Black's FMLA leave was medically necessary and whether Swift interfered with his FMLA rights by not crediting his absences and firing him. Therefore, the court reversed the summary judgment on the interference claim and remanded it for further proceedings.However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the discrimination claim. The court concluded that there was no evidence that Swift fired Black because he took FMLA leave, especially given his extensive history of taking FMLA leave without repercussions. Negative comments from supervisors who did not make the termination decision were insufficient to establish a discriminatory motive.In summary, the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the interference claim but affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination claim. View "Black v. Swift Pork Company" on Justia Law

Henry Dailey began a ten-year term of supervised release after serving a prison sentence for his involvement in a commercial sex trafficking ring. Four months into his supervised release, his Probation Officer filed a Violation Report alleging numerous violations of his release conditions. Dailey admitted to most of the violations, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 6 to 12 months imprisonment. Despite a joint recommendation for 6 months imprisonment followed by ten years of supervised release, the district court sentenced Dailey to 12 months imprisonment followed by 240 months of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri initially sentenced Dailey to 84 months imprisonment followed by 120 months of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to one count of Interstate Transportation for Prostitution. Upon completing his prison term, Dailey began his supervised release in November 2022. In March 2023, his Probation Officer reported multiple violations, including failing to register internet-capable devices and involvement in drug sales. At a preliminary revocation hearing, the magistrate judge found probable cause to proceed. Dailey later stipulated to most violations but contested some allegations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Dailey appealed the new term of supervised release, alleging procedural errors and a substantively unreasonable sentence. The appellate court found no procedural error, noting that the district court did not base its sentence on unproven allegations and allowed Dailey ample opportunity to defend against the contested violations. The court also found the 240-month term of supervised release substantively reasonable, given Dailey's criminal history and repeated violations. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Dailey" on Justia Law