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

Stacy Ryan filed suit against Streck, Inc. and Connie Ryan, alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and multiple violations of Nebraska law in connection with Streck's redemption of Stacy's stock. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion to dismiss because Stacy did not plausibly plea that defendants' wrongful actions caused her loss. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment. However, the district court erred in denying Stacy's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. Therefore, the court remanded for further consideration of the motion to alter or amend presented newly discovered evidence warranting alteration of the order dismissing her breach of contract claim. View "Ryan v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the City was not immune from a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit in a putative class action alleging that the City's policy or custom of automatically issuing arrest warrants was unconstitutional. In this case, the City automatically issues an arrest warrant whenever someone ticketed for violating its traffic and vehicle laws fails to pay a fine or appear in court. The court held that municipalities, unlike States, did not enjoy a constitutionally protected immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; the court rejected the City's contention that it enacted or maintained the contested practices as an arm of the State; and the court rejected the City's contention that it was also immune from suit since all of the individuals the complaint identified as participating in the contested practices were personally immune from suit. The court has long held that a municipality may be held liable for its unconstitutional policy or custom even when no official has been found personally liable for his conduct under the policy or custom. View "Webb v. City of Maplewood" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment orders in an action where creditors were attempting to collect on judgments against Vertical and Defendant Reuter by levying assets now belonging to Reuter's wife. Leaving aside the question whether creditors have made a sufficient showing to justify piercing the corporate veil, the court held that creditors' tenancy-by-the-entirety theory failed under Missouri law. In this case, no reasonable jury could conclude that there was clear, cogent and convincing evidence that Reuter and his wife participated in the tortfeasor partnership as a married couple, and thus summary judgment in their favor for the claims seeking to pierce the corporate veil and reach the assets that once belonged to them as a married couple was proper. In regard to plaintiff's alternative theory, the court held that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that Reuter did not own 50 percent of the Trust as a settlor, and thus creditors' allegation that he fraudulently transferred his share to his wife necessarily failed. View "Cutcliff v. Reuter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of bank robbery, holding that the district court did not err by failing to suppress an in-court identification. The court explained that, even if the district court erred in not conducting a reliability analysis under Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), defendant's arguments failed because the error was not plain under current law where the courts were divided as to whether a reliability analysis was required to admit an in-court identification. View "United States v. Shumpert" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former MLB player, filed suit alleging violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-25, after an audit revealed that officers from over thirty departments had accessed his information more than 125 times. After the issuance of the Eighth Circuit's opinions in McDonough v. Anoka County, 799 F.3d 931 (2015), and Tichich v. City of Bloomington, 835 F.3d 856 (2016), plaintiff conceded that only his claims against the City of Bloomington and the City of Shakopee were timely and plausible. With respect to these claims, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss because plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to show an impermissible purpose by defendants. View "Berenguer v. Anoka County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 180 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant's prior conviction for aggravated assault on a family member in violation of Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 5-26-306(a)(3) was a violent felony for purposes of sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Therefore, defendant had three prior violent felony convictions and could be sentenced under the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to the Act. View "United States v. Pyles" on Justia Law

Smoky II filed a breach of contract suit against the city when it did not receive payment from the city on invoices related to curtailed energy (wind energy that was not actually produced because the producer was directed to reduce production). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the parties' contract provided that the city could be billed for economic curtailments; the district court did not err in holding the city liable for certain charges that it found to be "timely-billed;" the plain language of the Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement (REPA) supported the district court's interpretation of the meaning of "Emergency Curtailment;" the trial evidence clearly supported the district court's rejection of the city's theory regarding over-allocation of energy; and Smoky II waived the issue of substantial performance. View "Smoky Hills Wind Project II v. Independence, Missouri" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial in part of the University's motion to dismiss an action alleging violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The district court refused to dismiss the Title IX claims on the basis of sovereign immunity. The court agreed that the University waived its sovereign immunity under the Remedies Equalization amendment by accepting federal funds. View "Fryberger v. University of Arkansas" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's federal sentence should be consecutive to the undischarged portion of his state sentence. The court also held that defendant waived his argument that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because he raised the argument for the first time in his reply. View "United States v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's federal sentence should be consecutive to the undischarged portion of his state sentence. The court also held that defendant waived his argument that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because he raised the argument for the first time in his reply. View "United States v. Benson" on Justia Law