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

After plaintiff purchased licenses for RCI non-thermal, pulverizing, and drying system technology (PAD), he alleged that the capabilities of the PAD System were misrepresented to him. Two federal law suits were filed, one in Iowa and one in Missouri.In this consolidated appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Iowa judgment, rejecting RCI's argument that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the jury awarded no compensatory damages. The court concluded that punitive damages were recoverable under Iowa law because the jury necessarily found that plaintiff suffered actual damages when it found fraudulent misrepresentation. Furthermore, the jury could award punitive damages without an award of compensatory damages, and the punitive award was not unconstitutionally excessive. The court also concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief and the district court neither erred or abused its discretion as to plaintiff's equitable counterclaims. Finally, the court found that the method used and reasons given by the district court for the reduction in costs were well within its discretion, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees.The court remanded the Missouri judgment for further proceedings, concluding that the district court erred by applying federal law, rather than Iowa law, to determine whether plaintiff's claim was precluded. The district court also erred by determining that Missouri law on the economic loss doctrine would bar plaintiff's misrepresentation claims. The court also noted that plaintiff's conspiracy claim should be reinstated and the district court's attorneys' fee award to Resource as the prevailing party is set aside. View "Dunne v. Resource Converting, LLC" on Justia Law

At issue in this case are two provisions of North Dakota Senate Bill 2231. The first prohibits air ambulance providers from directly billing out-of-network insured patients for any amount not paid for by their insurers (the payment provision). The second prohibits air ambulance providers or their agents from selling subscription agreements (the subscription provision).Guardian Flight filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that both provisions are preempted under the Airlines Deregulation Act (ADA). Defendants responded that, even if preempted, the provisions were saved under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The district court concluded that although the ADA preempted both provisions, the McCarran-Ferguson Act saved the subscription provision.The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court's ADA preemption analysis and concluded that the ADA preempts both the payment provision and the subscription provision. However, the court held that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not apply because the provisions were not enacted "for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance." Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. View "Guardian Flight LLC v. Godfread" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, alleging that the County's right-of-way dedication ordinance violates their procedural due process rights. The court concluded that plaintiffs' due process and unconstitutional conditions claims are an impermissible attempt to recast a Takings claim. In this case, plaintiffs claim that the County's dedication rules could result in an exaction, which would require consideration of nexus and proportionality. However, the court concluded that this conflates takings and due process law. The court explained that plaintiffs claim a redundant remedy under the due process clause.The court concluded that the ordinance here promotes the government's interest in providing public roads and was not truly irrational. Furthermore, because plaintiffs received individualized notice and an opportunity to be heard on their variance applications, the County provided sufficient notice and opportunity for a hearing about their proposed uses. View "Pietsch v. Ward County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 84-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. In this case, after a traffic stop of a vehicle defendant was driving, police found a handgun and PCP inside the vehicle.The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the weapon in connection with another felony offense - possession of a controlled substance. Furthermore, there is no obvious error, and no reasonable likelihood that a more detailed explanation for the district court's sentencing decision would have resulted in a shorter term of imprisonment. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the mitigating factors and the district court had substantial latitude in weighing the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied Transdev's petition for review of the Board's order allowing a certain class of Transdev's workers to seek union representation where the Board determined that Transdev failed to show the workers were supervisors under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Transdev failed to prove road supervisors have the authority to discipline operators. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that Transdev failed to sufficiently prove road supervisors have the authority to discipline or effectively recommend discipline, and therefore Transdev failed to prove road supervisors are statutory supervisors on this basis.In regard to Transdev's alternative argument, the court found that the Board reasonably concluded that the one-time distribution of gift cards under the circumstances described by two road supervisors was insufficient to show that road supervisors have the authority to reward. Furthermore, the Board's decision that Transdev failed to show road supervisors responsibly direct other employees was supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the Board's decision here was supported by substantial evidence, and it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding that Transdev failed to show road supervisors were statutory supervisors, certifying the union, and finding that Transdev committed an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement of its order. View "Transdev Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order upholding the Social Security Administration's denial of plaintiff's benefits claim, because substantial evidence supports the finding that the SSA has met its burden. The court concluded that the Vocational Expert relied on sufficient evidence, such as plaintiff's own testimony, when he formed his expert opinion. The court also concluded that the evidence supports the ALJ's finding that plaintiff can transfer her job skills to new sedentary positions, such as the suggested positions of order clerk, receptionist, or appointment clerk. Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence in the record to show that plaintiff possessed job skills that would transfer to other sedentary occupations. View "Swedberg v. Saul" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for interstate stalking under 18 U.S.C. 2261A(1). The court concluded that the district court did not err in considering writings found in defendant's car in evaluating the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to provide just punishment, and to protect the public. In this case, the writings were evidence of defendant's intent to commit the charged offense and tended to show that he presented a danger to the victim and the community, and there was no First Amendment violation.The court also concluded that the prosecution did not engage in misconduct when it referred to defendant by masculine pronouns at sentencing after he asked to be referred to by gender-neutral pronouns. The court explained that defendant cites no authority for the proposition that litigants and courts must refer to defendants by their preferred pronouns, and the only cited authority is to the contrary. Furthermore, there is no showing that the use of pronouns affected the outcome of the proceeding. In regard to defendant's contention that the government disregarded his diagnosis of gender dysphoria, there was no prosecutorial misconduct. The record is clear that the district court sentenced defendant based on his conduct, not due to his gender or gender identity. The court further concluded that the government did not breach defendant's plea agreement by seeking restitution under both the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act and the Violence Against Women Act; the interstate stalking statute is not an unconstitutional overreach of the federal legislature; the court declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance claim; and the judge did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for recusal. View "United States v. Thomason" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 240-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court adopted the presentence investigation report finding that defendant was a career offender.The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that defendant's prior conviction for aiding and abetting second-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. Section 609.05 qualified as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court rejected defendant's arguments to the contrary, concluding that State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn. 1981), does not support defendant's contention that there is something "special" about Minnesota's definition of aiding and abetting. Similarly, the other Minnesota cases to which defendant cites fail to show that there is something "special" about the Minnesota courts' application of section 609.05. View "United States v. Yackel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, alleging that the Rental Property Registration and Inspection Ordinance violated their constitutional rights, breached their consent decree with the City, and violated the Fair Housing Act. The Ordinance implemented uniform residential rental property registration, and a regular inspection program that is phased in accordance with the history of code violations on each property, requiring all rental properties in the City to register with the Permits and Inspections Division before leasing to tenants. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed plaintiffs' claims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Ordinance does not violate Metro Omaha's constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Applying the Nebraska Supreme Court's rules of construction, the court concluded that the plain text of the Ordinance does not authorize warrantless inspections of properties if consent is withheld. Furthermore, pre-compliance review before inspections does not apply here where inspections are permitted only if there is consent, a warrant, or court order. Finally, by withholding consent, property owners are not subject to criminal liability or prohibited from renting their property.The court also concluded that the Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court explained that the Ordinance provides adequate notice of the proscribed conduct and does not lend itself to arbitrary enforcement. The court further concluded that Metro Omaha fails to plausibly plead a breach of the consent decree, and that the Ordinance does not violate the Fair Housing Act. View "Metropolitan Omaha Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Omaha, Nebraska" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release. The court concluded that there is no more support in the statutory text of 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) for adopting evidentiary hearing requirements for compassionate release motions than there is for mandatory hearings of any kind. The court explained that the statutory text all but refutes defendant's argument and the court declined to create such a requirement itself for an unambiguous statute under its supervisory powers. The court also concluded that the district court did not make an analytical error. In this case, contrary to defendant's argument, the district court considered whether his reasons for a reduction were "extraordinary and compelling" before ultimately denying relief. View "United States v. Vangh" on Justia Law