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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin. The court held that the record supported the district court's conclusion that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his suitcase.Examining the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not clearly err in finding that a reasonable officer would have believed defendant understood that the officer was requesting to search his suitcase. Although the officer's Spanish may have been imperfect, -- he referred to defendant's suitcase as a "bolsa" -- the context of the interaction and defendant's response mean it was not clearly erroneous to find that a reasonable officer would believe defendant understood the officer's request. Furthermore, the relative ease with which the officer and defendant communicated using the translation application further supports the district court's finding that it was reasonable for the officer to believe defendant consented based in part on a request using the term "bolsa"—a translation produced by the application. Finally, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the video indicates that the officer clarified any confusion that may have existed as to the meaning of his request. In this context, a reasonable officer would expect a person to understand the question "¿permite?", or "May I?", as requesting consent to search the suitcase. View "United States v. Garcia-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and cooperated with the government. The court held that there was no plain error at sentencing, and that defendant was ineligible for relief under the First Step Act. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erroneously limited the factors that it considered in determining how much to reduce her sentence, holding that it is settled that the court was permitted to consider only assistance-related considerations. Furthermore, defendant has not established that the district court refused to consider any assistance-related consideration or that explicit consideration of her preferred factors is reasonably likely to have affected the sentence. Finally, the court held that defendant is not entitled to resentencing under the First Step Act, because her conviction was not entered on or after the date of enactment of the Act. View "United States v. Felicia Massey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to alter the distribution of attorney's fees set forth in a contingency fee sharing agreement between two law firms in a products liability case. The court noted that it is unusual for the courts to revise fee-sharing agreements between lawyers, negotiated at arm's length, based upon the perceived fairness of the agreements. However, the court explained that this was not a typical personal injury litigation matter, which the district court presided over for more than seven years.Reviewing the matter in light of the construct of the Minnesota Code of Professional Conduct, the court found that the district court correctly analyzed the proportionality prong of Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) and did not abuse its discretion in altering the fee agreement and awarding the Padden Firm 15% of the disputed fee. The court also held that the district court did not err in finding that the Padden Firm did not take financial and ethical responsibility for the case within the meaning of Rule 1.5(e). View "Padden Law Firm, PLLC v. Trice" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the school district's motion to dismiss in part and motion for summary judgment in an action brought under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees as time barred by the 90-day statute of limitations in Arkansas Code section 6-41-216(g), Arkansas's statutory framework for IDEA compliance. The court explained that the claim for attorneys' fees is ancillary to judicial review of the administrative decision. The court also held that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the school district where there is no genuine issue of material fact about whether the school district acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment with respect to plaintiffs' claim that their son was the victim of peer and teacher bullying. View "Richardson v. Omaha School District" on Justia Law

After C&W failed to remit employment taxes, the IRS assessed the balance owed against C&W's former's owner. C&W's former owner filed suit alleging that the IRS misallocated funds it had levied from C&W, leaving him personally liable for the outstanding taxes.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that because the owner argued that his payment was made in 2006 when the IRS allegedly misallocated levied funds, his attempted administrative claim in 2015 was more than two years after the tax was paid. Therefore, the owner's claim was untimely and the United States retains its sovereign immunity. View "Barse v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed judgments against DatabaseUSA for copyright infringement and Vinod Gupta for breach of contract. After Gupta founded Infogroup, he and the company entered a separation agreement. Then Gupta found DatabaseUSA two years later.The court held that a reasonable juror, based on the evidence at trial, could have found Infogroup owned a valid copyright; a reasonable juror could have concluded that DatabaseUSA copied the original elements of Infogroup's work; and, because of spoliation, DatabaseUSA's two arguments against copying fail. Finally, the court affirmed the $11.2 million award for the copyright infringement claim and the $10 million award for the breach of contract claim. View "Infogroup, Inc. v. DatabaseUSA.com LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err in determining that defendant was an armed career criminal based on his two Virginia drug convictions for offenses under Virginia Code Sec. 18.2-248. The court held that the statute is divisible, and the convictions are not broader than federal law and are serious offenses. Finally, the court held that defendant's claim that the Virginia statute has a broader mens rea requirement than federal law fails because the categorical approach does not require them to match. View "United States v. Vanoy" on Justia Law

D&G filed an antitrust suit against C&S, on behalf of all grocery retailers, alleging that C&S agreed with another grocery wholesaler, SuperValu, not to compete for customers in certain geographical areas. The jury returned a verdict in favor of C&S.The Eighth Circuit held that the jury instructions fairly and adequately submitted the issues and affirmed the judgment. The court explained that while it is true that an agreement to allocate either customers or territories could violate the Sherman Act, D&G's theory in this case melded the two. The court concluded that it was understandable and consistent with the evidence and arguments for the district court to instruct that D&G must prove that "C&S agreed that it would not compete with Supervalu for new customers in certain territories or geographic areas." Furthermore, the reference in the verdict form to "an Unwritten Agreement to divide territories and customers along geographic lines" is consistent with D&G's primary theory throughout the case—namely, that C&S and SuperValu agreed to allocate new customers in the Midwest to one company and new customers in New England to the other. Therefore, there was ample room under the jury instructions to find liability. Finally, the court was not convinced that the verdict form misled the jury. View "D&G, Inc. v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc." on Justia Law

After Cody Franklin died in police custody, his father, as administrator of his estate, sued the police officers who struggled with Franklin the night he died, and against the municipalities who employed them. The elder Franklin asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for excessive force, and claims under state law for battery and wrongful death. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the municipalities and all but two of the officers. Those officers filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. After review, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the officers with respect to the federal claims, and remanded. With respect to the state claims, the Court remanded for further proceedings, including a determination whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. View "Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas" on Justia Law

Marion Carter sued the Pulaski County Special School District for race discrimination under Arkansas state and federal laws. Carter taught at the Joe T. Robinson High School in the School District. She also coached the cheer and dance teams. In 2017, the school's principal recommended to the District Superintendent that Carter's cheer and dance duties not be renewed for the 2017-2018 school year, and that she be offered a teaching contract only. The principal cited: (1) lack of student participation in cheer and dance in the previous two years; (2) inappropriate cheer routines at sporting events; and (2) inappropriate behavior of cheerleaders during out-of-town travel. After a hearing, the District's School Board accepted the recommendation not to renew Carter's cheer and dance contract. The District filled the cheer position with an African-American woman, and eliminated all dance teams district-wide. The Eighth Circuit concurred with the district court's grant of summary judgment to the District on all claims. The Court found Carter's allegations were insufficient to defeat summary judgment. View "Carter v. Pulaski CO Special School Dist" on Justia Law