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

Plaintiffs, parents of LD, filed suit against the school district and others after their daughter LD, a 13-year-old, 7th grade student, was sexually abused by her teacher, Brian Robeson.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district and the principal. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that the principal had actual notice of the abuse, and the principal and the school district were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' Title IX and 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the school district and principal on plaintiffs' Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act where plaintiffs' claim arose out of Robeson's sexual assault of LD, an intentional tort to which the Act's intentional tort exception applies. The court further concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the principal on plaintiffs' aiding and abetting intentional infliction of emotional distress claim where nothing in the record, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, indicates that the principal encouraged or assisted Robeson in inflicting emotional distress on LD.The court joined its sister circuits in finding that there is no right to a jury trial on the issue of damages following entry of default judgment. The court affirmed the district court's order denying plaintiffs' request for a jury trial on the issue of damages against Robeson. Finally, the court affirmed the $1,249,540.41 amount of damages awarded against Robeson. View "KD v. Douglas County School District No. 001" on Justia Law

Employer-appointed trustees filed a complaint in the district court seeking the appointment of an impartial umpire to resolve a deadlock on a motion, pursuant to Section 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act, brought by one of the employer-appointed trustees. The district court dismissed the complaint and declined to appoint an umpire.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that, based on the entirety of the Trust Agreement, the delegation proposed by the employer trustees' motion is beyond the trustees' authority to implement. The court explained that because the proposed delegation and amendment to the Trust Agreement are beyond the trustees' authority to implement, the deadlocked motion is not a matter arising in connection with the administration of the plan or a matter within the trustees' jurisdiction. Therefore, the Trust Agreement does not authorize the appointment of a neutral umpire to resolve the deadlocked motion. Furthermore, because the court found that adopting the employer trustees' proposed motion would require amending the Trust Agreement, the court also necessarily concluded that the deadlocked motion does not concern trust fund "administration" under section 302(c)(5). Accordingly, the deadlocked motion is not a matter of trust "administration" under either the Trust Agreement or section 302(c)(5), and thus the district court did not err in declining to appoint an umpire. View "Gillick v. Elliott" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order of restitution where defendant sexually and financially exploited a high school student who he helped enter the United States on a fraudulent visa. The court concluded that defendant waived his first two arguments claiming that he did not commit an offense against property and that A.S.M. is not a victim, because these arguments are the opposite of what defendant argued before the district court.Although defendant did not waive the issue of whether his specific conduct caused A.S.M.'s losses, defendant's claim failed on the merits. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err by finding that A.S.M.'s losses for future wage loss and medical expenses stemming from the sexual abuse, as well as lost wages, were caused by defendant's specific conduct. Therefore, there was no error in awarding restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. View "United States v. Sukhtipyaroge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a tenured professor, filed suit against the University, a faculty union, and the Board of Trustees, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. Plaintiff claimed that the designation of IFO as plaintiff's exclusive representative violates the First Amendment by wrongly compelling her to speak through and associate with an entity with which she disagrees. Plaintiff also claimed that granting preferences to IFO members to serve on meet-and-confer committees discriminates against her and others who declined to associate with the union.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on all of plaintiff's claims. Because plaintiff properly concedes that the district court correctly rejected her compelled-speech claim (Count I) under Minnesota State Board of Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984), the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on her Count 1 claims. Furthermore, the district court correctly rejected plaintiff's invitation to read Count II as an unconstitutional-conditions claim for three reasons: first, the complaint's text does not support this reading; second, there are inconsistencies in plaintiff's filings; and plaintiff's claim that IFO's meet-and-confer rights under Minnesota law discriminate against her associational preferences is similar to Knight. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for leave to amend her complaint, which she made in her Rule 59(e) motion to vacate the judgment. View "Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization" on Justia Law

Gould was appointed as a business agent for the Carpenters Regional Council by the Executive Secretary-Treasurer (EST). Gould began complaining of financial and administrative waste in 2008. The EST removed Gould. Gould sued, asserting wrongful termination. Gould received voluminous Council documents in discovery and, in a letter to the EST, outlined alleged financial improprieties and breaches of fiduciary duties. The Council hired the Calibre accounting firm to perform an audit and invited Gould to assist in the investigation. Gould questioned Calibre’s independence but agreed to provide documents.Gould subsequently sought to amend his state court suit to add Labor Code breach of fiduciary duty counts against the EST, 29 U.S.C. 501(b). The Council declared that the EST’s approval of expenditures was outside the scope of Gould’s demand letter and therefore “Calibre was not asked to investigate” The state court denied Gould leave to add the claims. The documents Gould provided were never forwarded by the Council's attorney to Calibre. The audit concluded that the Council’s expense reimbursement policy was sound. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Gould’s motion for leave to file a federal complaint under 29 U.S.C. 501(b) against the EST. A union member who files a Section 501(b) lawsuit after a union has taken action in response to the member’s request should show an objectively reasonable ground for belief that the union’s accounting or other action was not legitimate. Gould failed to make the necessary showing and failed to meet the condition precedent of a timely and appropriate request to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time. View "Gould v. Bond" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm offense. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that an officer with forty years experience must be allowed to draw on this experience and training to make inferences from and deductions about whether there was reasonable suspicion that one or both of these suspects may be armed and dangerous. In this case, police suspected that defendant's companion was a suspect in the theft of two firearms stolen three days earlier; a Terry stop of both men was reasonable; and the officer had a reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat down search of defendant based on information related to the companion. Furthermore, the officer asked the men if they were armed and defendant stated that the he was. Therefore, the officer retrieved the firearm from defendant's pocket. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for various child pornography charges. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request to photograph and show photos of his penis where the proffered evidence had little probative value and the evidence prejudiced the government based on undue delay. Alternatively, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the photos as a discovery sanction for late disclosure. Even if the district court abused its discretion or otherwise erred, any error was harmless.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request to allow his former cellmate to testify about his penis based on lack of probative value and as a discovery sanction for late disclosure. Furthermore, any error was harmless. View "United States v. Copp" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Commission in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that the Commission discriminated against her in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff argues that her suspension, probation, and termination were discrimination based on race and national origin. The Commission stated that plaintiff's termination was due to failure to comply with requests to provide company passwords to agency programs and documents. The court concluded that plaintiff did not show evidence of pretext or that she could satisfy the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework before the district court or in her opening brief, and thus she cannot prove a circumstantial case of discrimination. View "Towery v. Mississippi County Arkansas Economic Opportunity Commission, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of appellants' motion to amend their complaint and dismissal of their state law claims against various U.S. and Peruvian defendants. Appellants' claims stemmed from business arrangements with defendants for the purchase and export of Peruvian agricultural products.Looking to the totality of the circumstances, the court declined to exercise its discretion to permit appellants to amend their complaint on appeal. The court explained that this case presents the unusual circumstance in which appellants not only failed to plead diversity jurisdiction in their complaint but also made no attempt to amend their complaint to do so—in spite of defendants' jurisdictional challenges and the district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Therefore, this case does not involve merely a technical pleading error. Rather, appellants seek to amend entirely the jurisdictional basis for their remaining state law claims—in addition to dropping their two civil RICO claims and 15 of 21 defendants—for the first time on appeal. The court concluded that permitting appellants to amend their defective pleadings this late in the game would be unfair to defendants. View "Nuevos Destinos, LLC v. Peck" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 156-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the prosecution's argument that there was no evidence to support defendant's theory was a fair response and did not shift the burden of proof. Furthermore, the court’s instruction on the burden of proof, and the prosecution's own reminder to the jury that the burden of proof rested with the government, avoided any potential prejudice. The court rejected defendant's contention that the prosecutor attacked defense counsel by arguing that he was trying to distract the jury. Rather, the prosecution is entitled to comment on its interpretation of the evidence and the government did not exceed its considerable latitude in rebuttal.The court also concluded that there was no error in admitting text messages that were protected by the marital communications privilege where defendant failed to produce evidence showing that she and R.B. were married under the law of any State. Defendant also waived any marital privilege when she consented to the search of her phone. Finally, the court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of defendant's request for a two-level decrease in offense level under USSG 2D1.1(b)(18) where she failed to show that she had truthfully provided the government all information and evidence she had concerning the offense. View "United States v. Lagunas Hernandez" on Justia Law