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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the county in a dispute regarding Argonaut's duty to defend the county against a civil rights lawsuit.Under Missouri law, the court held that Argonaut had a duty to defend the county. The court explained that the duty to defend is analyzed by comparing the language of the policy with the allegations in the complaint, and if the complaint alleges facts that merely give rise to a potential claim within coverage, the insurer has a duty to defend. In this case, the county procured insurance to shield itself against, among other things, possible constitutional claims against its officers and agents during the performance of their law enforcement duties. Therefore, there was a covered wrongful act under the policy during the time the policy was in effect. View "Argonaut Great Central Insurance Co. v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied petitions for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal (No. 18-1531) and denial of his motion to reopen and reconsider (No. 18-3164).The court affirmed the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal, holding that the decision to grant cancellation of removal was a discretionary act by the Attorney General that this court may not review. Furthermore, petitioner had no right to due process in the purely discretionary remedy of cancellation of removal because no constitutionally cognizable liberty interest arose from it, and his claim that the actions of ICE violated his due process rights in his agency proceeding were unavailing. Finally, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claim that the BIA erred in weighing the many factors regarding petitioner's moral character and the relevant hardships.The court also affirmed the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider, holding that petitioner's claim failed because, if the BIA had reopened the case, the issue was whether petitioner was entitled to cancellation of removal–a form of discretionary relief that he has no constitutionally protected interest in receiving. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it declined to reopen and reconsider this case. View "Rodriguez v. Barr" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that defendants deceived plaintiffs into believing their products were approved by the FDA. After the district court remanded the case back to state court, the Eighth Circuit granted defendants' petition for review under 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1), limiting review to the issue of federal question jurisdiction.The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case, because plaintiffs rely explicitly on federal law throughout their pleadings and their prayer for relief invokes federal jurisdiction where it seeks injunctive and declaratory relief that necessarily requires the interpretation and application of federal law, including the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Therefore, based on the allegations in the complaint and relief sought, the court found that a federal issue surrounding the state law claims is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Morgan Stanley filed suit under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to confirm an arbitration award against defendant. After defendant did not respond, the district court entered judgment in favor of Morgan Stanley. Then the district court entered an order granting in part Morgan Stanley's motions to appoint a receiver under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66 and to enter a charging order under Rule 69(a) and Minn. Stat. 322C.0503. Defendant appealed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver under Federal Rule 66 to exercise extraordinary investigative powers to determine whether Morgan Stanley's substantial judgment can be paid within a reasonable time. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a general receiver over his interests in the LLCs. In this case, Morgan Stanley's motion for a charging order under Minn. Stat. 322C.0503 properly relied on Federal Rule 69(a) and state law, while its motion for a receiver relied on the district court's federal equitable powers under Rule 66. View "Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for transportation of pornography and receipt of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the government to introduce independently downloaded child pornography videos which matched the hash values, name, length and thumbnail images of files deleted from defendant's phone and SD card as the videos were relevant to establishing that defendant knowingly downloaded child pornography; the district court did not err by admitting a summary exhibit of videos; even if the exhibit made conclusions or assumptions, its admission was harmless; admission of child erotica images was permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and even if its admission was error, the error was harmless; and there was no error in limiting the jury instruction regarding child erotica. View "United States v. Fechner" on Justia Law

Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 191.227.1 permits health care providers to charge patients who request their medical records a "search" fee when there are no responsive medical records to be found. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action and dismissed movants' appeal of the denial of their motion to intervene as moot. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that CIOX's practice of charging a fee for unsuccessful records searches violated the Missouri statute. View "Graham v. CIOX Health, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's final order of removal following her appeal of the IJ's removal order denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that petitioner's Minnesota drug convictions constituted grounds for removal and rejected petitioner's claim that the statute was overbroad and indivisible. The court lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's claim that she was not subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The court also held that the criminal alien bar precluded the court's review of the BIA's decision on petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal. In this case, petitioner did not qualify for the extraordinary circumstances exception to the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application, and the court lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's claim that she suffered persecution as a member of a protected group. The court also held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to terminate the removal proceedings, and petitioner's remaining claims were rejected. View "Villegas Rendon v. Barr" on Justia Law

After the United States simultaneously prosecuted and removed defendant, he sought to dismiss the indictment. Defendant argued that the Executive Branch violated his rights under the Bail Reform Act (BRA) and the Constitution by simultaneously proceeding with prosecution and removal.The Eighth Circuit held that the BRA and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) co-exist, and that Subsection 3142(d) of the BRA does not conflict with removal under the INA. The court explained that the subsection regulates a "judicial officer," not an Executive Branch official, like an ICE agent; it requires the judicial officer to provide notice and ten-day detention, so immigration officials may detain a non-citizen defendant who poses a risk of flight or danger, but does not mandate that immigration officials detain then and only then; and, if immigration officials do detain then, the subsection does not state that the judicial officer or prosecution must dismiss criminal charges. Furthermore, if the immigration official does not detain within ten days, the non-citizen defendant shall be treated in accordance with the other provisions. The other provisions of the BRA do no preclude removal under the INA. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments to the contrary. View "United States v. Pacheco-Poo" on Justia Law

After plaintiff's fingers were severely injured by a machine that uses a hydraulic clamp to crimp metal tubes, he filed suit against Addition, the machine designer's successor. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Addition, holding that plaintiff failed to provide facts showing that the machine was inherently dangerous or improperly guarded at the time it entered the stream of commerce. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a material issue of fact as to his strict liability claims.In regard to his products liability claims, the court held that plaintiff failed to offer evidence that the danger of a tube forming machine to the user's hand was anything but "open, obvious, and apparent." Therefore, the defect was not latent under Missouri case law, and thus not a material issue of fact regarding his negligence claim. View "Farkas v. Addition Manufacturing Technologies, LLC" on Justia Law

After a car accident killed the insured, her mother, and her son, the trustee sought underinsured motorist coverage for the son, who was not named as an insured on the policy. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to State Farm.The Eighth Circuit had jurisdiction over the appeal because the notice of appeal designated the correct judgment and the parties have addressed the merits of the judgment on the pleadings in their brief. On de novo review, the court held that the son was an insured on the mother's policy and thus was ineligible for excess insurance protection under the insured's policy. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Merrill" on Justia Law