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

After a Tessier's employee was modifying a hole cover on the roof of an unfinished building when the cover collapsed and he fell 22 feet to the floor below, OSHA issued a citation against Tessier's under 29 C.F.R. 1926.501(b)(4)(i), for failing to protect its employees from falling through holes.The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Tessier's, concluding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that the employees had removed a one-foot-by-three-foot section of the cover before it collapsed and, in doing so, exposed a hole. Because this hole was not covered and was more than six feet above the second floor, Tessier's was required to protect its employees from falling by means of an alternative form of fall protection, which it had not done. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in concluding that Tessier's had committed the violation. View "Tessier's, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of PepsiCo in an action brought by Northern, alleging that PepsiCo failed to protect Northern's interests under their exclusive bottling contracts. Applying New York common law, the court concluded that it is evident PepsiCo did not owe a duty to prevent transshipping under the express terms of the bottling contracts, and thus Northern's breach claim fails as a matter of law. The court also concluded that Northern cannot rely on an implied duty to create obligations that are not expressly included in the bottling contracts, and that duty cannot provide a basis for Northern's breach of contract claim.Furthermore, because the bottling agreement is unambiguous and fails to confer a contractual duty on PepsiCo to prevent transshipping, and given Northern's inability to establish that PepsiCo owed a duty to prevent transshipment of products into Northern's territories, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and Northern's breach of contract claim was properly disposed of on summary judgment. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to Northern's tortious interference claim. View "Northern Bottling Co., Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a tenured professor, filed suit against MSCU, the University, and five University employees, under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983, claiming various discrimination and retaliation counts. Plaintiff's complaint stemmed from a series of decisions made between 2013 and 2016 about faculty class schedules, resource allocation, and participation in certain programs. Plaintiff, a Black man born in Nigeria, claimed the individual defendants made these adverse decisions against him because of his race and national origin. Plaintiff also claimed the individual defendants retaliated against him for an earlier lawsuit against the University, and for reporting a University employee's alleged discriminatory conduct.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's freestanding section 1981 claims, concluding that he was barred from asserting section 1981 retaliation claims against state actors. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's section 1983 claims, concluding that plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of retaliation and thus failed to establish causation. View "Onyiah v. St. Cloud State University" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's decisions that debt owed by each debtor to Madison related to U.S. Bank in the amount of $1,676,162.20, plus interest, costs and any attorney's fees awarded in the matter are nondischargeable pursuant to Bankruptcy Code 523(a)(2)(A).The panel concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly analyzed first, under nonbankruptcy law the existence of a debt to Madison and second, under federal bankruptcy law the issue of dischargeability. In this case, the bankruptcy court appropriately found with respect to damages that debtors misrepresented and concealed material facts from Madison in order to further their conspiracy. View "Madison Resource Funding Corp. v. Marsh" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's decision denying petitioner's request for cancellation of removal. The court concluded that the substitution of an immigration judge did not violate petitioner's due process rights. In this case, the second immigration judge not only stated that she had familiarized herself with the record but also elaborated on pertinent facts in that record. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's challenge to the BIA's discretionary decision to deny his request for cancellation of removal. View "Avendano-Elvira v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's second revocation of supervised release and revocation sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. Defendant pleaded guilty to making false statements before a grand jury under oath and was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Defendant violated his first term of supervised release by failing to participate in substance abuse testing and violated his second term of supervised release by assaulting his ex-girlfriend. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in assessing the evidence and did not abuse its discretion in deciding to revoke supervised release. Furthermore, defendant's appeal of the sentence as substantively unreasonable is moot where he has already finished serving the term of imprisonment imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Daye" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's decision affirming the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' action based on issue preclusion grounds. Looking to North Dakota preclusion law for the federal common law principles of issue preclusion applicable in this case, the court concluded that its decision in Finstad II that plaintiffs do not have any interest in the property was an issue actually litigated in a prior suit between the parties that is binding on plaintiffs in this lawsuit. View "Finstad v. Gord" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's 72 month sentence for knowingly possessing a stolen firearm and remanded for resentencing before a different district court judge. In this case, defendant and the Government stipulated to a Sentencing Guidelines base offense level of 12. However, the Government later endorsed the PSR's contrary base offense level calculation of 20. The district court adopted the PSR's calculation.The court concluded that if the government breached the plea agreement in the case, a defendant may proceed with an appeal despite an appellate waiver; defendant preserved the issue for appeal; and the government breached the plea agreement. Even assuming a cure is possible, other circuits require that the government offer an unequivocal retraction of its erroneous position to sufficiently cure a breach. The court explained that the Government's conduct is a far cry from an unequivocal retraction. In this case, the Government's half-hearted and begrudging statement that the district court should follow the agreement was not enough—especially taking a holistic view of the Government's plea-related conduct. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a statutory maximum of 24 months' imprisonment based on defendant's revocation of his supervised release. After defendant completed his initial term of imprisonment, he has struggled to comply with the conditions of his supervised release because of his alcohol addiction.The court concluded that the district court's revocation sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court properly consulted the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and considered defendant's struggle with alcohol addiction in selecting the sentence imposed. In this case, the district court expressed particular concern about the physical danger Flying Horse had posed to others, including law enforcement officers, while intoxicated. View "United States v. Flying Horse" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by Smart against the County, based on the forum-selection clause in the parties' contract. The district court determined that the clause precluded Smart from suing the County in federal court and dismissed the case.The court explained that the ordinary understanding of "Arkansas courts" refers to courts that are constituted under the Arkansas state government, not any court that happens to be within Arkansas's borders. Furthermore, the word "pertinent" does not alter the meaning of "Arkansas courts," as Smart suggests. In this case, both the forum-selection clause and the anti-removal provision in the contract are clear, and they obviate the need to resort to the rule against surplusage. View "Smart Communications Collier Inc. v. Pope County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law