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

A VeroBlue preferred shareholder, FishDish appeals the district court's order granting appellees' motions to dismiss FishDish's appeal of the bankruptcy court order confirming debtors' Chapter 11 plan of reorganization over FishDish's objections, and certain pre-confirmation orders.After determining that the district court and this court have statutory subject matter jurisdiction, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in limiting the mandatory but non-jurisdictional timeliness requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 to appeals from final bankruptcy court orders. Because FishDish has conceded that its appeal from the preconfirmation Claim Objection Order was untimely under Rule 8002, the court affirmed the grant of appellees' Partial Motion to Dismiss Appeal on this alternative ground. In regard to the equitable mootness claim, the court concluded that the district court did not apply a sufficiently rigorous test to determine when bankruptcy equities and pragmatics justify foregoing Article III judicial review of a bankruptcy court order confirming a Chapter 11 plan. Therefore, the court remanded for further district court proceedings. View "FishDish, LLP v. VeroBlue Farms USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, whose case is part of the Bair Hugger multidistrict litigation (MDL) against 3M, appeals the district court's orders deciding that Ohio substantive law applies in her case and denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that, after consideration of the eleven factors that may be considered in an Ohio choice-of-law analysis, the district court did not err in deciding that Ohio substantive law governed this case. In this case, plaintiff has not rebutted the presumption that the substantive law of Ohio, the state where she was injured, governs this products liability case. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint where plaintiff failed to comply with local rules. View "Axline v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to launder money, and two counts of money laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give defendant's good-faith instruction. The court explained that, even assuming that defendant's instruction was timely requested, supported by the evidence, and a correct statement of the law, the district court did not abuse its discretion by omitting it from the jury instructions because the instructions as a whole adequately submitted the issues to the jury by properly instructing the jury on the intent element of wire fraud. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in ordering defendant to forfeit $91,586 where he acquired the sum because it was in his bank account and whether he used the money for his "personal benefit" is irrelevant. View "United States v. Asomani" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's revocation sentence and remanded for resentencing on a closed record. The court concluded that the government lacked a reasonably satisfactory explanation for the assault victim's unavailability at the revocation hearing; the government failed to present corroborating evidence to show reliability of the oral, unsworn accounts, and photos produced at the hearing; and thus the district court erred by relying on hearsay to establish that defendant had committed a new crime. Furthermore, the district court's error was not harmless. Finally, the court granted defendant's request to remand without expanding the record. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied petitions for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order denying petitioner and her two minor children's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner testified that she had suffered persecution, or alternatively torture, at a drug cartel's behest because of her membership in a particular social group defined as "Mexican mothers who refuse to work for the Cartel."The court concluded that the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's asylum application because petitioner's social group is not sufficiently particularized or socially distinct. Insofar as petitioner relies on her uncle's death as evidence of persecution, the court has previously explained that evidence of isolated violence is insufficient. Because petitioner was unable to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that she is also unable to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. Finally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's denial of CAT relief based on the fact that petitioner can safely relocate, joining her parents in a Mexican state free from the cartel's control. View "Rosales-Reyes v. Garland" on Justia Law

CNI owed IPFS the unearned premium from an insurance policy that was cancelled prematurely, but the parties disputed the value of the unearned premium. The district court granted partial summary judgment to IPFS but denied IPFS's request for prejudgment interest. IPFS filed a motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), requesting prejudgment interest, which the district court granted. CNI appeals.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting IPFS's Rule 59(e) motion. The court explained that the fact that IPFS did not request prejudgment interest in its initial summary judgment briefing does not mean that the district court was prohibited from considering the request in a post-judgment Rule 59(e) motion. The court also concluded that the district court did not miscalculate the amount of prejudgment interest owed by CNI under Nebraska law. In this case, because the district court could readily determine the amount based on the premium finance agreement and no reasonable controversy existed as to the amount, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the entire claim was liquidated and subject to prejudgment interest. View "Continental Indemnity Co. v. IPFS of New York, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two couples who entered into multiple timeshare contracts with Wyndham, filed suit against Wyndham, alleging various improper trade practices under Missouri law. Wyndham counterclaimed for breach of contract. Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wyndham on its counterclaim.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the notice of appeal confers appellate jurisdiction over the district court's grant of summary judgment. On the merits, the court concluded that plaintiffs ratified their contracts with Wyndham and thus cannot assert duress as a defense. Furthermore, even assuming that the couples did not ratify their contracts and waive the duress defense, the facts show that neither couple was prevented from exercising their free will. Finally, the court concluded that none of Wyndham's alleged misrepresentations rise to the level of fraudulent misrepresentation. View "Kohlbeck v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's discriminatory discharge and failure to accommodate claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) against his former employer.In regard to plaintiff's disability-discrimination claim, the court concluded that the employer articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for his termination and plaintiff failed to establish a factual dispute as to pretext where the record is replete with evidence concerning his deficient performance, none of which was related to his disability or his period of leave. In regard to plaintiff's failure-to-accommodate claim, the court concluded that there is no evidence in the record suggesting that plaintiff's performance issues were linked to his disability, and the record simply does not support that an accommodation would have allowed him to perform the essential functions of his position. View "Vinh v. Express Scripts Services Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact of his 12-year-old daughter. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where there was no plain error and the appeal waiver is therefore enforceable. On this record, the court explained that there is simply no chance that, if defendant had timely objected and government counsel had reaffirmed the government's promise in Paragraph G to recommend a five year sentence, the outcome of the sentence proceeding would have been different. View "United States v. Helper" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the BIA's order denying petitioner removal relief. The court concluded that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption set out in In re Y-L-, 23 I.&N. Dec. 270, 274 (A.G.), that unlawful trafficking in controlled substances presumptively constitutes a particularly serious crime. Furthermore, the IJ did not err in not considering mental health as a factor in the particularly serious crime analysis.In regard to relief under the Convention Against Torture, the court agreed with the IJ's finding that, while cartel violence continues in Mexico, that alone cannot show a more-likely-than-not chance that the Mexican government would acquiesce in petitioner's torture. In this case, petitioner's evidence falls short of this standard where the threats she experienced where not sufficient to support her claims. View "Gilbertson v. Garland" on Justia Law