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

As long as the relator had direct knowledge of the true state of the facts, she can be an original source even though her knowledge of the misrepresentation was not first-hand. In this case, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of relator's qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733. The district court reasoned that information underlying relator's allegations had been previously disclosed. The court held that the district court misapplied circuit precedent on the meaning of "original source" because relator did not have to have direct and independent knowledge of Bayer's allegedly false communications to the Department of Defense. The district court did not reach other arguments raised by Bayer. Therefore, the court remanded for the district court to address these matters in the first instance. View "Simpson v. Bayer Healthcare" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, alleging claims related to the Township Board's decision to install a culvert and to refund leftover grant money to FEMA without holding public meetings. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity as to the First Amendment retaliation claim where the district court concluded that the facts viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs established that the individual defendants retaliated against plaintiffs for exercising their First Amendment rights; affirmed the denial of qualified immunity as to the First Amendment association claim where the district court concluded that the individual defendants violated Plaintiff Mary Lee's right to freedom of association by excluding her from Township Board meetings despite her elected role as Township Board Clerk; and reversed the denial of qualified immunity as to the First Amendment right to petition claim where there was no First Amendment right to participate in a non-public government meeting as a member of the public. In regard to the cross-appeal, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the free speech claim. View "Lee v. Driscoll" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband filed suit against numerous defendants, alleging that police officers had improperly accessed their private information in the State's driver's license database. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the former Grand Rapids assistant chief of police and Grand Rapids. The court held that plaintiff had Article III standing to bring her Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721, claim; the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply in this case because any delay by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety was not attributable to Grand Rapids or the assistant chief; plaintiff did not make a "mistake" in the ordinary sense of the word when she intentionally sued "John Doe" while knowing that he was not the proper defendant; and thus the amended complaint did not relate back as substituting the assistant chief for John Doe as defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). View "Heglund v. City of Grand Rapids" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for four insurance companies in an action filed by UnitedHealth, seeking indemnity and defense costs for underlying litigation settlements under its professional liability excess insurance policies. The court held that the district court properly concluded that UnitedHealth failed to present sufficient evidence as to how the settlement should be allocated between covered and non-covered claims; it was not enough under Minnesota law for UnitedHealth to show simply that its $350 million settlement included a covered claim of an unspecified amount; UnitedHealth failed to provide non-speculative evidence to allocate the $350 million settlement between the potentially covered AMA suit and non-covered Malchow suit; and the court declined to disturb the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Insurers on the matter of defense costs in the AMA litigation. View "UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Executive Risk Specialty Ins." on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment denying debtor a discharge of his debts. The panel held that the bankruptcy court's finding that debtor failed to make timely installment payments was based on his procrastination, rather than the inclement weather, was not clearly erroneous; debtor's argument under Article 2 of Iowa's uniform commercial code failed because the parties' agreement was not subject to it; even if the parties' agreement were subject to Article 2, the settlement agreement's default provision was not a liquidated damages clause; and the panel rejected debtor's remaining issues that were not raised before the bankruptcy court. View "Charles Gabus Motors, Inc. v. Tirrell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for tenant in a suit filed by landlord for breach of a terminated lease agreement and waste under Iowa law. The court held that, under section 26.01 of the lease agreement, the sole remedy was lease termination. Therefore, landlord could not recover the alleged contract damages. Furthermore, landlord's claim for waste failed because the parties expressly contracted for that liability in sections 6.06 and 26.01 of the lease. View "Davenport Chester, LLC v. Abrams Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for conspiracy to defraud the government and money laundering. The court held that defendant's double jeopardy claim failed or was barred by his guilty plea; the district court did not clearly err when it found that defendant's incarcerated victims were vulnerable and applied an enhancement under USSG 3A1.1; the district court did not impermissible double-count when it imposed a two-level increase for ten or more victims, and when it imposed an 18-level increase for intended loss based on the 770-plus social security numbers used to file the fraudulent tax returns through Minnesota companies; the district court reasonably sentenced defendant based on a greater amount of loss; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that at least some of defendant's conduct in Florida was not relevant conduct to the Minnesota conspiracy and thus declined to run defendant's sentences concurrently. View "United States v. Pierre" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for twelve counts of mail fraud and five counts of failure to pay employment taxes. The court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges; denied exercising its discretion to recognize any plain error in the prosecution's comments attacking defendant's testimony during closing remarks; denied defendants motion for acquittal because his unauthorized actions demonstrated a pattern designed to conceal his use of company funds to pay his personal debt; and held that the cumulative effect of any errors here did not substantially affect defendant's right to a fair trial. The court also held that the district court did not commit procedural errors by applying offense enhancements based on the use of sophisticated means under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(C); the endangerment of financial security under USSG 2B1.1(b)(16)(B)(ii)(I); and the obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1. View "United States v. Melton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for MJ Optical in plaintiff's suit alleging that she was the victim of sex discrimination, age discrimination, and a hostile work environment. The court held that plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action and thus her claims for disparate treatment on the basis of sex failed. Likewise, plaintiff's claim of age discrimination failed because she could not maintain a claim for disparate treatment on account of her age. Finally, plaintiff's hostile work environment claim failed because she did not indicate in a timely manner the complained-of conduct was unwelcome. View "Blake v. MJ Optical, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a felon. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the search. In this case, defendant, the unauthorized-driver-once-removed, with only indirect permission from the authorized driver to drive the vehicle, did not have standing to challenge the search of the vehicle. The court also held that the district court did not err by assessing additional criminal history points under USSG 4A1.1(e) based on defendant's Missouri conviction for armed criminal action. Furthermore, defendant's 360-month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court clearly addressed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law