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

This case involves Aaron Norgren and his father, Joseph Norgren, who worked for the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). Both men filed Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against DHS, as well as First Amendment retaliation and compelled speech claims against the DHS Commissioner, Jodi Harpstead. These claims stemmed from the denial of the Norgrens' religious exemption requests to workplace trainings on racism and gender identity. The lower court dismissed their complaints for failure to state a claim.Aaron Norgren argued he was denied a promotion due to his protected activities. The court found that Aaron plausibly established his case and reversed the dismissal of his Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. However, his First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of Commissioner Harpstead's personal involvement in the alleged discriminatory practices.Joseph Norgren's Title VII discrimination claim was dismissed as he did not plausibly allege that he was constructively discharged or that Commissioner Harpstead was personally involved. His First Amendment retaliation claim was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.Both Norgrens' compelled speech claims were dismissed. The court ruled that while the trainings advanced expressive messages that the Norgrens objected to, there was no evidence they were forced to affirmatively agree with any of the statements in the trainings or were threatened with penalties if they expressed their own viewpoints.Therefore, the court reversed the dismissal of Aaron's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims and affirmed the dismissal of the remaining claims. View "Norgren v. Minnesota Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered the appeal of Osseo Area Schools (the District) against the ruling of the district court, which held that the District had denied A.J.T., a student with a disability, a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A.J.T. suffers from a rare form of epilepsy, causing seizures that prevent her from attending school before noon. Consequently, her parents had requested the District to provide evening instruction, which was refused.The district court found that the District's refusal to provide A.J.T. with evening instruction resulted in her making de minimis progress overall and even regressing in some areas, such as toileting. The court also determined that A.J.T. would have made more progress had she received evening instruction. On these grounds, the court concluded that the District had failed to provide A.J.T. with a FAPE.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court rejected the District's argument that the IDEA's scope was limited to regular school hours, noting nothing in the IDEA suggested such a limitation. Furthermore, the court agreed with the district court's assessment of A.J.T.'s limited progress and regression in toileting. After considering the evidence, the court concluded that the District's refusal to provide evening instruction, based solely on administrative concerns, resulted in A.J.T.'s minimal progress and denied her a FAPE. View "Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 v. A.J.T." on Justia Law

Christine M. Nordgren's parental rights were terminated in a Minnesota state court. Instead of appealing this decision, she filed a federal lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Hennepin County, and various other parties involved in her case, alleging a range of constitutional, federal, and state claims. She sought multiple forms of damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. The district court dismissed all federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. Nordgren then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the district court interpreted as a request to reconsider and amend her pleadings, and denied it. Nordgren appealed this decision.The Hennepin County defendants moved to dismiss Nordgren's appeal as untimely, arguing that she did not appeal the judgment in a timely manner and that the district court's order denying her motion for reconsideration was not separately appealable and did not extend the appeal period. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with the defendants, determining that Nordgren's motion did not qualify as an appealable motion under Rule 59(e), which is designed to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. As such, the appeal period began on the date the judgment was entered, and Nordgren's notice of appeal, filed beyond the 30-day appeal period, was untimely.Therefore, the Court of Appeals dismissed Nordgren's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Nordgren v. Hennepin County" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed two cases where the district courts did not impose a $5,000 special assessment fee mandated by the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act on defendants Jason Wesely and Jesus Diaz-Figueroa. The Act stipulates that non-indigent individuals convicted of sexual exploitation of a child must pay this fee, but both defendants were deemed indigent.The Court of Appeals assessed the financial situations of both defendants. In Wesely's case, the court upheld the original decision, concluding that the district court did not err in recognizing Wesely's indigence. At the time of sentencing, Wesely had minimal assets and was facing uncertain future income, largely due to prison time and potential suspension of his military disability benefits.In contrast, the appellate court reversed and remanded the district court's decision regarding Diaz-Figueroa. At the time of sentencing, Diaz-Figueroa had a net worth of approximately $120,000, even when accounting for court-ordered restitution. Given his positive net worth, the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court's finding of Diaz-Figueroa's indigence was clearly erroneous. Thus, the court concluded that Diaz-Figueroa was not indigent and should have been required to pay the $5,000 special assessment. View "United States v. Wesely" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard an appeal brought by DRE Health Corporation, a personal protective equipment (PPE) wholesaler, against a district court's decision to deny its motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) with Anhui Powerguard Technology Company, a Chinese PPE manufacturer. Anhui had filed a breach-of-contract action alleging that DRE Health failed to pay for over $9 million in fulfilled purchase orders.The crux of the case revolved around an agreement between the parties where Anhui agreed to reduce DRE Health's debt in exchange for the latter's promise to purchase additional shipments of gloves. This agreement stipulated that future disputes would be subjected to binding arbitration, but the court had to determine whether this stipulation was conditional on DRE Health's completion of initial payments.The court, applying the series-qualifier canon of contract interpretation and Missouri law, determined that the prefatory phrase in the agreement, “AFTER THE INITIAL PAYMENT OF $1,970,000.00 USD,” served as a condition precedent to all the obligations enumerated in the agreement, including the agreement to arbitrate. As DRE Health had not completed the initial payment, there was no contract between the parties to arbitrate.The court thus affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the parties did not agree to submit their dispute to arbitration. View "Anhui Powerguard Tech Co, Ltd v. DRE Health Corporation" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was asked to determine whether Arkansas Code § 23-92-604(c), also known as Act 1103, was preempted by federal law. Act 1103 prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from limiting the ability of healthcare providers, who are eligible for drug pricing discounts under the Section 340B Program, to contract with outside pharmacies for drug distribution.The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) sued the Commissioner of the Arkansas Insurance Department, arguing that Act 1103 was unconstitutional because it was preempted by the Section 340B Program and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, under theories of field, obstacle, and impossibility preemption.The court, however, disagreed with PhRMA's arguments. The court found that Act 1103 did not create an obstacle for pharmaceutical manufacturers to comply with 340B, rather it assisted in fulfilling the purpose of 340B. The court also found that Act 1103 did not make it impossible for drug manufacturers and wholesale distributors to comply with the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) Program under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.Therefore, the court held that Act 1103 was not preempted by either the Section 340B Program or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. As such, the court affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of the Intervenors and against PhRMA. View "Pharmaceutical Research and Mfrs of America v. McClain" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court's judgment in favor of a police officer who filed a lawsuit against the city of Omaha and the chief of police of the Omaha Police Department. Katherine Belcastro-Gonzalez had filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment by a coworker in 2010, and in 2017, she discovered that her complaint wasn't adequately investigated. She alleged that her subsequent applications for promotions were denied due to her complaints about sex discrimination. A jury found in favor of Belcastro-Gonzalez and awarded her $700,000 in damages. The lower court also awarded her attorney's fees.The city appealed, arguing first that the district court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment. The appeals court held that it could not review this decision after a trial on the merits. The city should have raised these issues in a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. The city also argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence from proceedings before the Nebraska Employment Opportunity Commission. However, the appeals court found that the admission of this evidence was not an abuse of discretion. The city's last argument was against the size of the attorney’s fees award. The appeals court found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the fee, including fees incurred during the administrative proceedings. View "Belcastro-Gonzalez v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

This case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involves a dispute between Midwest Medical Solutions, LLC and Exactech U.S., Inc. This is the second time the case has come before the court. The initial appeal by Midwest was regarding a summary judgment in favor of Exactech, which was based on the district court's interpretation of a non-compete clause in the parties' Sales Agreement. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, finding the clause unambiguous, and remanded the case for further proceedings.In the latest appeal, Exactech contends that the district court erred by denying its motion for leave to replead two counterclaims. Exactech had initially included these counterclaims in its pleadings but later removed them, believing they had been rendered moot by the district court's order interpreting the disputed contract language in Exactech's favor. Exactech attempted to reintroduce these counterclaims after the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment. The district court denied Exactech's motion to amend its pleadings, citing Exactech's lack of diligence in adhering to scheduling deadlines and the absence of changed circumstances that would justify its delay.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Exactech's motion to amend, as Exactech had failed to establish good cause for amending the scheduling order. The court noted that Exactech had voluntarily chosen not to replead these counterclaims in its amended pleadings, and that this decision could not be considered a changed circumstance. The court further noted that Exactech could have pleaded these counterclaims in the alternative, rather than omitting them entirely. View "Midwest Medical Solutions, LLC v. Exactech U.S., Inc." on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the defendant Nolan Ryan Morin, who had pleaded guilty to a false-statements charge, a class D felony, faced the revocation of his supervised release multiple times. After his initial violation of supervised release, he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. After two more violations, his supervised release was revoked and he was sentenced to 18 months' and then 24 months' imprisonment, respectively.Morin appealed his most recent 24-month revocation term of imprisonment, arguing that the "all or part" clause in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), which governs the revocation of supervised release, requires a sentencing court to credit previous revocation terms of imprisonment up to a maximum of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the underlying offense. In Morin's case, he claimed that the total length of all revocation imprisonment he may serve based on his false-statements conviction was capped at 3 years, and as he had already served 30 months on his first two revocations, the district court was only authorized to impose a maximum of 6 months on the present revocation.The Eighth Circuit disagreed with Morin's interpretation. The court held that the "all or part" clause imposed a per-revocation limit and did not require the court to consider or aggregate prior revocation terms of imprisonment. Moreover, the court opined that the clause expanded the sentencing court's authority by removing the limitation that a prison term imposed could never be longer than the term of the revoked supervised release. Thus, the court affirmed the 24-month term of revocation imprisonment Morin received as it was authorized by statute. View "United States v. Morin" on Justia Law

In August 2020, Machele Goetz filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and plan. She owned a residence worth $130,000 and claimed a $15,000 homestead exemption under Missouri law. It was agreed that if the trustee liquidated the residence on the date of the petition, the estate would have received nothing net of the exemption, the lien, and the sale expenses. On April 5, 2022, the bankruptcy court granted Goetz’s motion to convert her case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7. Between the Chapter 13 filing and the date of the conversion order, Goetz’s residence had increased in value by $75,000, and she had paid down a further $960.54 on the mortgage.Goetz moved for the bankruptcy court to compel the trustee to abandon the property, arguing that the residence was of “inconsequential value and benefit to the estate” under 11 U.S.C. § 554(b). The trustee resisted Goetz’s motion, asserting that the bankruptcy estate in a converted case includes post-petition, pre-conversion increase in equity. The bankruptcy court agreed with the trustee, and this decision was affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the court held that the post-petition, pre-conversion increase in equity in Goetz’s residence is property of the converted Chapter 7 estate. The court reasoned that, under the plain text of 11 U.S.C. § 348(f)(1)(A) and § 541, the equity in Goetz’s residence was property of her converted estate because it was property of the estate that she owned on the date of her petition and which she retained at conversion. The court rejected Goetz's arguments that this result punishes the good-faith debtor who attempts a Chapter 13 plan, pays down their mortgage, and then converts to Chapter 7. Instead, the court held that the Code’s values are not monolithic and balance multiple, often competing interests. View "Goetz v. Weber" on Justia Law