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

In this dispute over waste-removal services, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Pietoso's complaint against Republic Services and Allied Services. The court could not conclude at this stage that Pietoso's invoice payments manifested its consent to paying Optional Reason increases. Therefore, it cannot yet be decided that defendants did not breach the Agreement by imposing Optional Reason increases without Pietoso's consent. Therefore, the district court erred in concluding otherwise and in deciding that Pietoso's allegations failed to state a claim for breach of contract. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Pietoso, Inc. v. Republic Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on a charge of assaulting a dating partner by strangulation or suffocation. The district court instructed the jury on both the charged offense and a lesser-included offense of simple assault. The jury acquitted defendant of assault by strangulation, and convicted him of simple assault. Defendant appealed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that defendant waived his challenge to the district court's decision to give a lesser-included instruction on simple assault because he invited the alleged error by agreeing that simple assault was "the appropriate lesser-included offense." Even if defendant had not waived his challenge, the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction. In this case, the court applied the elements test to identify the relevant offense: a lesser crime is necessarily included in the greater if the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense. The court concluded that the elements of simple assault are a subset of the elements of assault by strangulation. View "United States v. Stricker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress in an action where defendant was convicted of robbing or attempting to rob multiple stores around the Twin Cities. Law enforcement identified defendant by searching cellular-tower records, which showed that defendant's cell phone was at or near at least four of the robberies.In this case, the affidavits for the search warrants explained why there was a fair probability that the cellular-tower records would identify the robber. Considered in their totality, the court concluded that the facts provided a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed. The court explained that the judges knew from the affidavits that the robberies were connected by a common modus operandi; that the robber likely carried a cell phone, even if he did not use it during the robberies; and that comparing the numbers from cellular-tower records could reveal his true identity. Furthermore, the search warrants were constrained both geographically and temporally. View "United States v. James" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Carrington on plaintiff's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim. The court agreed with the district court that Carrington's alleged misrepresentations and unfair conduct were not made or carried out in connection with an attempt to collect a debt, and thus plaintiff failed to allege a claim under the Act.In this case, the communications at issue were not made in connection with an attempt to collect on the underlying mortgage debt. Although the boilerplate disclosures section of each letter stated "for the purpose of collecting a debt," these types of boilerplate mini-Miranda disclosures do not automatically trigger the protections of the Act. Rather, the court looked to the substance of the letter, which did not try to induce plaintiff to pay his outstanding debt. View "Heinz v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of EaglePicher's motion to dismiss Timothy Stockton's intervenor complaint for lack of standing. Stockton sought to intervene in a lawsuit brought by Certon against EaglePicher, arguing that Certon had assigned to him the rights that it was asserting against EaglePicher. However, the court concluded that the district court correctly determined that Stockton had standing only if the assignment was in effect, and the district court correctly determined that, even considering the excerpts from the Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), Stockton failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the assignment was in effect. The court explained that, even considering the excerpts from the SPA, it is at least as likely as not that the circumstances required for the assignment to be in effect were not present by the time Stockton sought to intervene. View "Stockton v. EaglePicher Technologies, LLC" on Justia Law

AGRED filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its rights and obligations under a written agreement with the United States. The Corps, acting on behalf of the United States, moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that AGRED lacks standing.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of AGRED's declaratory judgment claim based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and agreed with the district court that AGRED's injury was not caused by the Corps. In this case, AGRED failed to establish a connection between its injury of being enjoined from charging fees for access a lake plaintiff owns and the Corps' conduct. The court explained that there are several kinks in AGRED's causal chain, including that AGRED's injury results directly from FOLEA's thus far successful lawsuit. In this case, there is no real contractual dispute between AGRED and the Corps. Therefore, AGRED fails to meet the causation requirement for standing because it cannot show that its injury is fairly traceable to the Corps. View "Agred Foundation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Union Pacific in Missouri state court, alleging age discrimination, constructive discharge, and hostile work environment claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff also filed suit against Missouri resident Foster B. McDaniel, claiming that McDaniel aided and abetted Union Pacific in its discriminatory acts. After Union Pacific removed to federal court, the district court granted McDaniel's motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff's motion to remand. The district court later granted Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in dismissing McDaniel on the basis of fraudulent joinder because plaintiff's complaint failed to make a colorable claim that McDaniel directly oversaw or was actively involved in discrimination. The court also concluded that the district court did nor err in determining plaintiff did not administratively exhaust his constructive discharge claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting Union Pacific summary judgment on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim because plaintiff failed to establish age-related harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish the existence of a hostile work environment. View "Henson v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of NCO in an action brought by plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs failed to put forth evidence establishing that they worked overtime hours and that NCO had constructive knowledge of their claimed overtime hours. The court need not reach the questions whether plaintiffs' claims are foreclosed by the statute of limitations or whether they are entitled to liquidated damages. View "Rapp v. Network of Community Options, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for stealing opioids and other pain medications from 14 pain patients while she was working as a hospice nurse. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3A1.1(b)(2)(B) for an offense involving a large number of vulnerable victims. In this case, the district court emphasized defendant's "hands-on conduct" and the fact that she had a special responsibility as a nurse to give her patients the pain medication they needed. The district court recognized that although 14 may not be a large number in other circumstances, this crime exceeded the number of vulnerable victims typically found in offenses of like kind. View "United States v. Boll" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to remand this removed action to state court under the local-controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). In this case, plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Missouri sate court against defendants, alleging that defendants owned and/or operated the West Lake Landfill and were responsible for the contamination of plaintiffs' property, which plaintiffs claimed occurred due to defendants' allegedly improper acceptance and handling of radioactive waste at the landfill. Rock Road Industries was a citizen of Missouri at the time plaintiffs filed their complaint. After plaintiffs filed the complaint, Rock Road Industries merged with Bridgeton Landfill. Defendants removed to federal court, alleging federal-question jurisdiction existed under the Price-Anderson Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.After determining that it has jurisdiction over the appeal of the remand order under 28 U.S.C. 1291, the court concluded that CAFA's local-controversy exception does not require remand in this case because plaintiffs failed to show that the conduct of defendant Rock Road Industries - the only Missouri-citizen defendant and thus the only possible local defendant for purposes of the exception - formed a significant basis for the claims asserted in the complaint. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Kitchin v. Bridgeton Landfill, LLC" on Justia Law