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

After plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, TAW, in Nebraska state court, TAW removed to federal district court where the action was dismissed with prejudice. On appeal, a panel of the Eighth Circuit vacated the dismissal and ordered the action remanded to state court, concluding that a removal defect left the district court without subject-matter jurisdiction. TAW Enterprises petitioned for rehearing en banc and the Eighth Circuit vacated the panel opinion, granting rehearing en banc.The en banc court now overrules prior circuit precedents, Horton v. Conklin, 431 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2005), and Hurt v. Dow Chemical Co., 963 F.2d 1142, 1146 (8th Cir. 1992), to the extent they hold that a violation of 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2), the so-called forum-defendant rule, is an unwaivable jurisdictional defect in removal. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction to reach the merits of plaintiff's appeal. On the merits, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim as a matter of law for retaliatory demotion and discharge in contravention of public policy under Nebraska law. View "Holbein v. TAW Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Dat was born in a Kenyan refugee camp in 1993. Admitted to the U.S. around 1994, he became a lawful permanent resident. Dat pled guilty to robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951, and was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment. Dat’s robbery conviction is a deportable offense, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Dat moved to vacate his guilty plea, claiming that his attorney, Allen, assured him that his immigration status would not be affected by his plea. Allen testified that she repeatedly told Dat the charges were “deportable offenses,” that she never told him, his mother, or his fiancée that he would not be deported. that she encouraged Dat to hire an immigration attorney, and that they reviewed the Plea Petition, which says that non-citizens would be permanently removed from the U.S. if found guilty of most felony offenses. The Plea Agreement refers to immigration consequences. Dat and Allen also reviewed the PSR, which stated that immigration proceedings would commence after his release from custody.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that Dat was not denied effective assistance of counsel. It was objectively reasonable for Allen to tell Dat that he “could” face immigration ramifications that “could” result in deportation. An alien with a deportable conviction may still seek “relief from removal. These “immigration law complexities” should caution any defense attorney not to advise a defendant considering a guilty plea that the result of a post-conviction, contested removal proceeding is certain. View "Dat v. United States" on Justia Law

Maras's application for tenure as an associate professor at the University of Missouri Department of Educational, School and Counseling Psychology was denied. She filed suit, claiming discrimination on the basis of sex, citing the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), and violations of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing in her employment contract. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Describing the university's tenure-review process as “elaborate and painstaking,” the court noted that numerous people over four years expressed concerns about Maras's record of scholarship. Many throughout the application process, including people outside the university, expressed similar concerns. That widely shared opinion strongly supports the university's proffered reason for tenure denial. The comparators Maras identified are not similarly situated in all relevant respects to Maras; they did not share the same ultimate decision-maker. One comparator was in a completely different department. Each of them had several positive recommendations at many steps in the tenure process, while Maras did not; it is not obvious that their records of scholarship were no better than Maras's. Maras did not show "that the circumstances permit a reasonable inference of discriminatory animus." View "Maras v. Curators of the University of Missouri" on Justia Law

Police stopped Anguiano for expired license plates. The car contained a fake DEA badge and cash. At the hotel where Anguiano was staying, Baez’s wife, Gavino, admitted the officers. Baez was sitting next to Chevrolet keys and a methamphetamine pipe. Gavino consented to a search. In a backpack, officers found a Chevrolet Equinox owner’s manual. A locked armoire appeared to be under video surveillance. A canine unit alerted at the armoire and at an Equinox that responded to the Chevrolet keys. With a warrant, officers searched the hotel suite and the Equinox. The armoire held methamphetamine and a gun. The Equinox contained methamphetamine, another firearm, and a safe with ammunition and receipts in Baez’s name. The other conspirators pled guilty.The court denied Baez’s motions to suppress the evidence and his incriminating statements. Baez, claiming that he was infiltrating the conspiracy to assist law enforcement, sought to introduce evidence regarding his mental health and a potential informant with whom he was acquainted. Baez moved to compel the government to disclose information about the informant. The court excluded the evidence, partially granted his Brady motion, and declined to instruct the jury that it would “negate[] the specific intent required” if Baez intended to “assist ongoing federal investigations.” The court departed from the guidelines range of 360 months’ to life imprisonment, sentencing Baez to 168 months’ imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding the denial of his suppression motions, the failure to instruct the jury on an “innocent-intent” defense, the exclusion of the evidence related to that defense, the partial denial of his Brady motion, and the reasonableness of his sentence. View "United States v. Baez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former clients of RBC, filed a purported class action suit against RBC for breach of contract, alleging that RBC breached its duties to comply with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) rules and to know the clients' investment profiles.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to RBC, holding that the plain language of the Client Account Agreement did not create either duty. Applying Minnesota law, the court concluded that the Agreement's unambiguous plain language does not create a contractual duty that RBC comply with FINRA rules. In this case, the "subject to" language does not create a contractual duty. Rather, it is an acknowledgement by clients that RBC will comply with FINRA rules. Furthermore, the "I agree" phrase is an acknowledgment of the terms and conditions and does not create a duty. Finally, the court concluded that the RBC did not breach a contractual duty to know its customers. View "Luis v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC" on Justia Law

The school district filed suit against ACE, seeking a declaratory judgment stating that the school district's legal liability insurance policy provided coverage for a teacher's retaliatory discharge lawsuit filed against the school district and the principal of Pine Bluff High School. The school district argued that coverage existed for the underlying lawsuit or, alternatively, ACE waived all defenses to coverage and was estopped from claiming no coverage.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ACE, holding that the single claim provision unambiguously applies and that neither the 2015 Policy nor the 2016 Policy provide coverage for the school district's claim based on the teacher's September 22, 2016 lawsuit. The court applied Arkansas law and held that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are inapplicable here. View "Pine Bluff School District v. Ace American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment for possession of controlled substances with the intent to distribute, and a consecutive term of 30 months imprisonment for violating the terms of a previously imposed term of supervised release.The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence, holding that the district court did not procedurally err by finding that a consecutive term was mandatory under the Sentencing Guidelines. Rather, the record reflects that the district court treated the Guidelines as merely advisory and exercised its discretion in ordering consecutive sentences. In this case, the district court calculated the Guidelines range for defendant's new offense as 168 to 210 months imprisonment and noted the parties' plea agreement (and the agreed-to range of 144 to 216-months imprisonment). View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions. The court did not find that "any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude" that al-Shabaab's presence in Somalia is materially different than existed in 2011 based on petitioner's evidence. Furthermore, the IJ did account for the emergence and growth of ISIS-Somalia in its determination, but ultimately determined that the "isolated references" in the record were insufficient to establish petitioner's claims. Finally, the IJ did consider petitioner's personal circumstances when determining whether the alleged changed country conditions were material. In this case, the IJ concluded that Westernized Somalis face no greater threat of harm than existed at the time of petitioner's prior proceedings in 2011, and petitioner failed to sufficiently show how his presence on the 2017 repatriation flight thrust him into "particular notoriety" thereby creating a greater risk of persecution. View "Mohamed v. Barr" on Justia Law

After Cassandra Braun was killed in a high-speed police pursuit of a speeding vehicle, her mother filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging constitutional violations against the officer involved in the accident and his supervisor.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that the officer believed he was responding to an emergency, triggering the intent-to-harm standard. In this case, plaintiff failed to argue, much less present any evidence, that the officer intended to harm anyone. Therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the officer on plaintiff's substantive due process claim because she failed to establish a constitutional violation. Furthermore, the district court also rightly granted summary judgment for the supervisor where plaintiff's failure-to-train-or-supervise claim requires an underlying constitutional violation. View "Braun v. Burke" on Justia Law

After officers from the Cedar Rapids Police Department shot and killed Jonathan Gossman during an altercation after stopping his vehicle to investigate possible drug crimes, Gossman's relatives filed suit against officers and the city, alleging various federal and state law claims under the United States Constitution, the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa tort law.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers and the city, holding that, collectively, the officers' observations were enough to support the belief that criminal activity might have been afoot; the officers' first attempt to detain Gossman was also supported by reasonable suspicion; an officer's decision to release his canine to subdue the struggling Gossman and keep him from leaving was not unreasonable; police reasonably believed that Gossman posed a serious threat to their safety when he drew a gun; and the officers' use of deadly force was justified and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the district court properly disposed of the state law assault and false arrest claims. View "McElree v. City of Cedar Rapids" on Justia Law