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

After New Adesta initiated an arbitration against the guarantors of certain indemnification obligations, three of the guarantors, brought an action in Nebraska state court seeking a declaration that New Adesta's arbitral claims were released and discharged in a settlement agreement. New Adesta removed to federal court and moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss guarantors' case. The district court granted New Adesta's motion in its entirety.The Eighth Circuit concluded that the Settlement Agreement neither abrogated, modified, nor terminated the arbitration clauses set forth in the Purchase Agreement. In this case, the underlying issue, indemnification for the NYSTA work, is not a matter that was addressed in the Settlement Agreement, the Nebraska action, or the Illinois action. The court explained that, while the Federal Arbitration Act generally requires a federal district court to stay an action pending an arbitration, rather than to dismiss it, district courts may, in their discretion, dismiss an action rather than stay it where it is clear the entire controversy between the parties will be resolved by arbitration. In this case, the court concluded that the parties have a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims at issue, which fall within the scope of the arbitration clauses. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sommerfeld v. Adesta, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. The court concluded that the First Step Act does not mandate that district courts analyze the 18 U.S.C. 3553 factors for a permissive reduction in sentence. Nor does it require the district court to reduce a sentence based on post-sentencing rehabilitation. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion sentencing defendant and, contrary to defendant's contention, did not place undue weight on the Guidelines range. Finally, the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court failed to provide a reasoned decision capable of meaningful appellate review where the district court first explained why defendant could receive a reduction and then explained why it would not exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence. View "United States v. Stallings" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's second amended complaint (SAC) against TD Ameritrade. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from a systemic glitch of TD Ameritrade's tax-loss harvesting tool (TLH Tool), which failed to reinvest plaintiff's funds in an effort to avoid violating the "Wash Sale Rule." Plaintiff filed a class action, alleging claims for breach of contract and negligence.The court held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) preempts plaintiff's class action claims because he failed to demonstrate these claims are rooted in a violation of any specific contract provision. The court explained that, while, on its face, the operative complaint focuses on TD Ameritrade's alleged improper administration of the TLH Tool, the allegations are insufficient to demonstrate TD Ameritrade breached any contract terms. Therefore, plaintiff's class action claims are rooted in TD Ameritrade's omissions in disclosing information about the operation of the TLH Tool, which triggers SLUSA preemption.Applying Nebraska law, the court also concluded that plaintiff's contract claim was properly dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where plaintiff failed to allege TD Ameritrade breached any contract terms or promises in the administration of the TLH Tool. Therefore, the allegations failed to provide TD Ameritrade with reasonable notice of the breach of contract claim as required by Rule 8. The court further concluded that the duty plaintiff alleges in his negligence claim arose out of the contract between the parties and thus activated the economic loss rule, which precludes a negligence cause of action. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the SAC with prejudice and denying leave to amend as futile. View "Knowles v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a police officer under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer unlawfully arrested him and used excessive force during the arrest. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from an incident where the officer issued tickets to him for illegal parking and resisting arrest. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to illegal parking by signing the ticket at the police station, and the City later dismissed the charge of resisting arrest.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment on plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim where there is a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the officer entered plaintiff's home without a warrant to effect the arrest. In regard to plaintiff's separate Fourth Amendment claim premised on the alleged use of excessive force, the court concluded that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because an officer could reasonably believe that plaintiff was resisting arrest. The court explained that, under the circumstances, it was not clearly established at the time that officers were forbidden to use force, including a taser, to arrest a suspect who resisted, ignored instructions, and walked away from the officer. The court noted that any damages that plaintiff suffered because of his arrest are subsumed within his unlawful arrest claim. Therefore, even without a freestanding claim for use of excessive force, plaintiff may recover any damages that he suffered from the officer's use of a taser if plaintiff succeeds on his claim alleging unlawful arrest based on an unjustified entry into the home. View "Gerling v. Waite" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Walmart in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging age discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). The court assumed that plaintiff met his prima facie burden under the McDonnell Douglas standard, but concluded that Walmart offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating his employment, the violation of the Hazardous Materials Endorsement policy while on a Third Written (a policy meaning he could be fired if disciplined again). The court also concluded that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find that Walmart's proffered reason for firing him was pretextual. View "Gardner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of the trustee's motion to determine the reasonableness of respondent's attorney's fees. At issue in this case is the reasonableness of fees charged by a consumer bankruptcy attorney, respondent, for all work associated with filing a chapter 7 case using a bifurcated arrangement. The panel found no clear error in any of the findings of fact made by the bankruptcy court, concluding that it was well within its authority to reduce respondent's fees by $500 and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. In this case, respondent failed to present evidence that would enable the court to conduct a lodestar analysis. View "Ridings v. Casamatta" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in unlawful possession of ammunition. The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for aggravated battery of a peace officer in violation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-3.05(d)(4) and two separate felony convictions for causing willful injury in violation of Iowa Code 708.4(2) qualified as violent felonies for purposes of sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The court concluded that the district court did not err in relying on the proffered Shepard documents to conclude that defendant's Illinois conviction for aggravated battery of a peace officer was based on the "causes bodily harm" alternative and was therefore a violent felony conviction under the ACCA's force clause. The court also concluded that both of defendant's willful injury convictions were Class D felony violations of section 708.4(2), which requires that a person actually "causes bodily injury to another." Therefore, defendant was convicted of offenses requiring violent, physical force as an element. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base, and possessing controlled substances with intent to manufacture and distribute at least 280 grams of cocaine base. The court concluded that there was no error in applying the USSG 4B1.1 career offender enhancement because defendant's prior Iowa conviction for attempted murder qualified as a crime of violence and his Iowa drug conviction constituted a qualifying controlled substance offense. The court also concluded that defendant's 240-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court had wide latitude to consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Daredevil filed suit against ZTE for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. After the case went to arbitration in Florida, Daredevil sought to add ZTE Corp., the parent company of ZTE USA, to its arbitration claims. The arbitrator rejected the request to add ZTE Corp., ruling that Daredevil's claims against ZTE Corp. were outside the scope of arbitration. Daredevil then filed this suit against ZTE Corp., alleging breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contract. The arbitrator ultimately denied each of Daredevil's claims against ZTE USA. The arbitration award was confirmed by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Daredevil subsequently reopened this case in the Eastern District of Missouri against ZTE Corp.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to apply Florida law, holding that Daredevil's claims met the requirements for claim preclusion and were therefore barred. The court explained that Daredevil's current and previous claims share identity of the parties and identity of the cause of action, and Daredevil does not dispute that Florida's other two requirements are satisfied. In this case, privity exists between ZTE Corp. and ZTE USA where ZTE Corp. and ZTE USA are parent and subsidiary. Furthermore, Daredevil's current claims are so closely related to its arbitration claims and thus the identity-of-cause-of-action requirement has been met. Accordingly, Daredevil's claims against ZTE Corp. are barred by the decision in its prior arbitration against ZTE USA. View "Daredevil, Inc. v. ZTE Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Singapore residents and citizens who invested in a now-defunct North Dakota company called North Dakota Developments, LLC (NDD), filed suit seeking damages from defendant for his role in convincing plaintiffs to buy fraudulent, unregistered securities.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over defendant because his conduct and connection with North Dakota were such that he should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court there. The court also agreed with the district court that venue was proper where plaintiffs' claims arose from the sale or solicitation of unregistered, fraudulent North Dakota securities related to real property located in North Dakota. The court declined to consider the issue of forum non conveniens because defendant failed to raise the claim in the district court. Finally, the court concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment where defendant decided to stop participating in the district court litigation, including not responding to the motion for summary judgment. View "Panircelvan Kaliannan v. Ee Hoong Liang" on Justia Law