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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Air Evac in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).The court agreed with the district court that Air Evac is a "carrier by air," and thus plaintiff's job as a flight paramedic was exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. In this case, Air Evac is not equitably estopped from asserting that the position is exempt, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiff's reliance on a letter to argue to the contrary was unreasonable because Air Evac had otherwise clearly and consistently communicated its overtime policy to plaintiff. Furthermore, the air-carrier exemption applies because Air Evac is a common carrier where Air Evac is willing to provide transportation services for hire to all within its definable segment and it does not discriminate within its segment. View "Riegelsberger v. Air Evac EMS, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts of Abusive Sexual Contact involving a child less than 12 years-old. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for acquittal; by admitting hearsay through a forensic interviewer's testimony and, even assuming that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony, any error was harmless; by failing to instruct the jury on specific intent; and by failing to grant a mistrial because members of the public wore clothing with the words "Bikers Against Child Abuse" where no motion was filed, no juror indicated they had seen the insignia, and there was no prejudicial impact.The court declined to reach the issues regarding the Speedy Trial Act and defendant's ability to testify in his own defense. Finally, the court held that the district court correctly rejected defendant's claim that because he is an Indian and 18 U.S.C. 1152 does not apply to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian. View "United States v. Gallardo" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to officers in an 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that the officers used excessive force against plaintiff after he led them on a high speed chase. In this case, the taser logs recorded that plaintiff was tased twice.In regard to the first tasing, where defendant admitted that he was not yet handcuffed, the court held under its precedent that it is reasonable for an officer to tase an uncuffed suspect who appears to be resisting arrest. In regard to the second tasing, the court held that the use of the taser in drive-stun mode was reasonable under the circumstances where there was a "tumultuous" struggle between plaintiff and the deputies. Furthermore, it makes no difference if one of the officers knew that plaintiff had a preexisting shoulder condition that made it difficult for him to comply with their commands. Therefore, if Deputy Dolleslager did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, then neither did Deputy Lubben by failing to intervene. The court also held that Deputy Tierney did not violate a clearly established right where plaintiff alleged that the officer used his knee as a weapon, the officers argued that no one's knee touched plaintiff's head, and a dash-cam video is equivocal at best. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "McManemy v. Tierney" on Justia Law

FEI, Crop Venture's successor-in-interest, filed suit alleging that the individual defendants took proprietary information they developed at Crop Ventures after they left the company and co-founded Farmobile (the corporate defendant). Specifically, FEI alleges that the individual defendants' behavior constituted a breach of explicit or implicit contracts with the company; defendants were obligated to assign to their employer the ownership rights of products they worked to develop; the individual defendants breached their duty of loyalty to their employer; and the individual defendants misappropriated trade secrets. The district court denied in full FEI's motion, and granted in part and denied in part Farmobile's motion.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that because no contract bound the parties during Defendant Nuss' term of employment, Nuss was not in breach of an explicit contract; FEI has not shown that any of the individual defendants was similarly "specifically directed" during their product-development process, so no implied contracts were created under the hired-to-invent doctrine; FEI failed to show the individual defendants breached their duty of loyalty to their employer; FEI cannot maintain a trade secret claim under the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act (NTSA) or the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA); and the remaining claims are unpersuasive. View "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment charging defendant with illegal reentry in the United States. The court held that an alien may not collaterally attack the underlying deportation order unless: (1) the alien exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the order; (2) the deportation proceedings improperly deprived the alien of an opportunity for judicial review; and (3) entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.In this case, defendant failed to meet his burden on any of the elements. Furthermore, even if defendant could collaterally attack the deportation order under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2115 (2018), his attack fails. Therefore, the immigration court had jurisdiction over defendant's deportation proceedings and the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Aquilar Escobar" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. The court held that the district court did not commit clear error in denying the Batson challenge where the reason proffered for the challenged strike was that the juror appeared disinterested and was very hard to engage; the district court did not err by denying the motion to dismiss the indictment and allowing each side an opportunity to explore the circumstances of the pre-trial investigation; the district court did not err when it denied defendant's claim based on the elicitation of false testimony; even if the prosecutor acted improperly at trial, the court cannot find that these actions—considered separately or together—prejudiced defendant to such an extent as to render his trial fundamentally unfair; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; and defendant's 240 month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Marlon Iron Crow" on Justia Law

MPAY, a Massachusetts corporation that develops and owns payroll-processing software that it licenses to its customers, appealed the district court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction against appellees. MPAY claimed that it was entitled to such relief based on its copyright-infringement and trade-secrets-misappropriation claims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that appellees demonstrated that their copying, disclosure, and possession of the source code were authorized by the Software Development and License Agreement that MPAY signed with its business partner. Therefore, MPAY has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its copyright infringement or trade-secrets-misappropriation claims, and the district court did not err in so concluding. The court also held that MPAY's assertion, that the district court erroneously concluded MPAY's harms were compensable with money damages and so were not irreparable, lacked merit. Furthermore, the balance of the equities and the public interest do not favor an injunction. The court remanded for further proceedings on the question of whether the contractors wrongfully sublicensed use of the software. View "MPAY Inc. v. Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action seeking both a declaration that the State of Missouri's grand jury secrecy laws are an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech as applied to her and an injunction preventing their enforcement. Plaintiff was a grand juror serving on the grand jury that considered whether to bring criminal charges against a former police officer in the death of Michael Brown.The court explained that it need not settle whether plaintiff's proposed speech is covered by the First Amendment or whether plaintiff waived her speech rights by swearing an oath to keep grand jury matters secret. The court held that, because Missouri's grand jury secrecy laws survive even the most exacting scrutiny, plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. As applied to plaintiff, the court held that section 540.320 of the Missouri Revised Statutes is narrowly tailored to serve Missouri's compelling interest in preserving the functioning of its grand jury system. View "Grand Juror Doe v. Bell" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing a false tax return, he unsuccessfully tried to withdraw his plea. The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that defendant failed to show fair and just reasons why he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea where the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded, based on the totality of the circumstances, that defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; his plea did not lack a factual basis supporting the conviction; and the Government did not breach the plea agreement by failing to recommend a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility.The court also held that the Klein conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. 371 was not void for vagueness; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to continue his sentencing or to bifurcate the sentencing and restitution proceedings; there was no error in the district court's order of restitution; and the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1. View "United States v. Flynn" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's final order affirming the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that she was persecuted because of her family membership.The court held that petitioner's financial resources, rather than her family membership, was the central reason for the persecution; the Board did not err in concluding that petitioner's first group -- membership in the Fuentes family -- is not cognizable; petitioner failed to prove past persecution on account of her membership in two other particular social groups -- Salvadoran female heads of households and vulnerable Salvadorean females; and, having failed to establish past persecution, petitioner is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Consequently, petitioner cannot meet the higher standard of proof for withholding of removal. View "Rodriguez Fuentes v. Barr" on Justia Law