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

After the sheriff's department decided not to reinstate plaintiff, she filed suit against the county alleging retaliation and sex, pregnancy, and disability discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of her claims and held that her Title VII claim failed because she did not plead any facts showing that another candidate was similarly situated or went through a reinstatement process. Because her state claim mirrored her Title VII claim, it likewise failed. View "Jones v. Douglas County Sheriff's Department" on Justia Law

In an action arising out of a fee dispute between a law firm and two clients, the action was removed to federal court and then the unpaid-fees claims proceeded to arbitration. The district court granted the firm relief from the stay and issued an order dividing the counterclaims into two categories: those the clients could raise in arbitration and those they could not.Determining that it had jurisdiction, the Eighth Circuit held that the clients' counterclaims were within the scope of what the parties agreed to arbitrate and the counterclaims seeking something else -- like money from the firm -- were not. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment, with one exception. The court held that the district court should not have decided that the clients terminated the relationship, because the arbitrator should decide the issue. View "Meierhenry Sargent LLP v. Williams" on Justia Law

CMI, a purchaser and reseller of mortgage loans, filed suit against Platinum, an originator and seller of mortgage loans, alleging that Platinum breached a contract by failing to repurchase seven allegedly defective loans after CitiMortgage demanded repurchase by sending multiple notices to Platinum for each loan. The Eighth Circuit reversed and held that CMI adequately and substantially complied with the contract, which neither specified a form of notice nor indicated that the prescription of a time for cure had to be contained within the notice. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Platinum Home Mortgage, Corp." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing a petition to vacate petitioner's sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, and denied the Government's motion to remand. The court held that petitioner's Illinois robbery convictions were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act's force clause, and thus petitioner could not prevail on the merits of his claim even if he could show that his original ACCA sentence relied on the residual clause. Furthermore, the court did not read Walker v. United States, 900 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2018), to require a remand that serves no practical purpose, either because the parties concede the sentencing record will shed no light on the question, or because the merits make clear that a movant is not entitled to relief. View "Dembry v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City in an employment discrimination suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The court held that plaintiff was not entitled to return to the Senior Accountant position because he did not return to work prior to the expiration of his Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave; there was no medical reason why plaintiff needed to be reinstated to his former position; and thus he failed to show that returning to his original position was a reasonable accommodation.The court also held that plaintiff's request that he be allowed to work from home was not a reasonable accommodation in light of his testimony that he could work at City Hall but that it "would have been easier" to work from home; plaintiff failed to make a facial showing that he could perform the essential functions of the job remotely; plaintiff failed to show that the City eliminated his position because of his disability or that the City terminated him because of his disability; there was no genuine issue of material fact that the City engaged in anything but a good-faith interactive dialogue; and his retaliation claim failed. View "Brunckhorst v. City of Oak Park Heights" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Merck after she suffered cardiovascular injuries allegedly from taking a medication called Vioxx. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims. The district court held that plaintiff's claims accrued prior to September 2001 and thus her September 29, 2006 suit was time-barred. In Missouri, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is five years after the cause of action accrues.The court held that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the evidence was such that a reasonably prudent person was on notice of a potentially actionable injury before September 29, 2001. The court predicted that the state supreme court would conclude that mere knowledge in the medical community of a possible link between Vioxx and heart problems did not, as a matter of law, place a reasonably prudent person in plaintiff's position on notice of a potentially actionable injury. View "Levitt v. Merck & Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of mail and wire fraud and sentence of 87 months in prison. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his scheme to promote the creation of a Hmong homeland by accepting money from donors.The court held that the district court did not err in preventing defendant from raising a public authority defense at trial because he failed to show even apparent authority. Furthermore, the district court did not err by precluding him from presenting an entrapment by estoppel defense. The court also held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination was not violated; defendant's right to compulsory process under the Sixth Amendment was not violated; and the court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Finally, the court held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion and explicitly considered sentencing disparities. View "United States v. Seng Xiong" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order holding that CRP has an unenforceable judicial lien against the real property of debtor and avoiding that lien under 11 U.S.C. 522(f)(1). The court held that, under Missouri law, CRP's notice of foreign judgment did not give rise to a lien on debtor's exempt homestead property because he owned it jointly with his spouse. The court held that the foreign judgment created a cloud on title under Missouri law sufficient to constitute a charge against or interest in debtor's property under the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the cloud on title created by CRP's recording of its judgment fastened an existing, but presently unenforceable lien on the property. Accordingly, the court held that application of section 522(f) would clear the cloud on title to debtor's property and thus the bankruptcy court properly granted debtor's motion to avoid the lien. View "CRP Holdings, A-1, LLC v. O'Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on the one year statute of limitations period. The court held that it was reasonably debatable whether the holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), regarding the Armed Career Criminal Act extends to the former mandatory guidelines and thus petitioner could not benefit from a renewed limitations period under section 2255(f)(3). In this case, the right petitioner asserted: a right under the Due Process Clause to be sentenced without reference to the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) under the mandatory guidelines, was not dictated by Johnson. View "Mora-Higuera v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 because it was time-barred. The court held that the motion was untimely because Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), did not newly recognize the right petitioner asserted: a right under the Due Process Clause to be sentenced without reference to the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) under the mandatory guidelines. View "Peden v. United States" on Justia Law