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

Plaintiffs, 92 investors in a Ponzi scheme called the British Lending Program (BLP), filed suit against PNC, alleging, among other things, (1) violations of Missouri's Uniform Fiduciaries Law (UFL); (2) aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duties; (3) conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties; and (4) conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that PNC's predecessor, Allegiant, conspired with and aided Martin Sigillito in his scheme to defraud investors when it served as custodian for the self-directed IRAs of those who chose to invest in the BLP at its inception. The court granted summary judgment to PNC, concluding that even if the court overlooked plaintiffs' failure to cite any legal authorities in support of their RICO and common-law claims, those claims fail on the merits. In this case, the evidence is insufficient to establish a reasonable fact dispute as to whether Allegiant, PNC's predecessor, objectively manifested an agreement to participate in criminal activity with Sigillito, had a meeting of the minds with Sigillito, or substantially assisted or encouraged Sigillito's conduct. The court also rejected plaintiffs' UFL claim, concluding that no evidence exists that Allegiant processed any transaction with actual knowledge that Sigillito was breaching his fiduciary duties, and the evidence fails to show that Allegiant acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Aguilar v. PNC Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, inter alia, excessive force after a police officer, Robert Hinman, shot him. The district court granted summary judgment to Officer Hinman, Chief Stuart Thomas, and the City of Little Rock. The court noted the tragic nature of the events where plaintiff was trying to defuse a situation where his former schoolmate had pulled out a gun and pointed it at a crowd. Plaintiff was in possession of the gun because he had taken it away from his schoolmate. Plaintiff was shot several times and is now paralyzed from the neck down. The court held that Officer Hinman's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and the district court did not err in granting his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. In this case, the officer instructed plaintiff to stop but plaintiff did not hear him, plaintiff continued to run toward another officer with the gun in plaintiff's hand, and plaintiff was two to three feet from the other officer before Officer Hinman fired his gun. Because the court concluded that Officer Hinman did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, the court rejected plaintiff's claims against Chief Thomas and the City. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Malone v. Hinman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Civic Center and the City after his lease for a concession stand was terminated and his property was seized. Plaintiff alleged municipal liability based on the decision of the policymaker. The court explained that the district court must identify the final policymaker in accordance with South Dakota state law and local Rapid City ordinances. Because the district court failed to do so in this case, the jury rendered a verdict against defendants that lacked a legally sufficient basis. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's ruling on the Civic Center's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, vacated the jury's verdict, and remanded for a new trial. View "Soltesz v. Rushmore Plaza Civic Center" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony. In this case, the district court found that the gun facilitated possession with intent to distribute, and thus defendant possessed the firearm in connection with the heroin possession. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Wells Fargo, alleging claims related to Wells Fargo's practice of automatically ordering and charging fees for drive-by property inspections when customers fell behind on their mortgage payments. In this appeal, movant challenges the district court's orders denying his motion to join a trespass claim to the class action and approving the class action settlement. The court concluded that the district court properly denied movant's motion because the trespass claim does not share common questions of law or fact to the class. The court also concluded that, because two of the Van Horn factors weighed in favor of approving the settlement and two were neutral, the settlement agreement was fair and reasonable. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion. The court rejected movant's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Njema v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Department of Corrections and related parties after he injured himself while using industrial equipment in the workshop of a Minnesota correctional facility. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims for violations of his civil rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and for negligence of prison employees. At issue are plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against the individual defendants based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that, even assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff's assignment to operate the beam saw with no safety guards and no formal training presents an objective risk of serious harm, plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that officials were deliberately indifferent to that risk. In this case, the allegations fail to create the inference that officials had actual knowledge of those safety risks at the time in question. The court further explained that the absence of safety equipment or procedures and an awareness of similar injuries fail to show the officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm posed to plaintiff by the beam saw. Therefore, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's claim that he is entitled to discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kulkay v. Roy" on Justia Law

The government sought to revoke defendant's supervised release based on his possession of cocaine and for sexual assault. Defendant challenged the district court's refusal to redact or amend certain paragraphs in the Supplemental Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The court found that the district court followed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 in ruling on the disputed PSR paragraphs covering allegations. The court concluded that, because Rule 32 does not compel exclusion of the PSR paragraphs, the district court correctly refused to redact them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schrader" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from a class action settlement where Life Time agreed to pay $10-15 million to settle claims that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. Objector challenges the district court's order awarding class counsel $2.8 million in attorney's fees and expenses. The court concluded that the district court's analysis was thorough, its findings were amply supported, and it did not abuse its significant discretion by electing to use the percentage-of-the-benefit method to calculate the fee award or by determining that an award of $2.8 million in attorney’s fees and expenses was reasonable. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by including approximately $750,000 in fund administration costs as part of the "benefit" when calculating the percentage-of-the-benefit fee amount; nor did the district court abuse its discretion by allowing class counsel themselves to determine how to allocate the total $2.8 million attorney's fee award without further judicial oversight or approval. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Thut v. Life Time Fitness, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury and child abuse. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding prior-acts evidence of a child abuse incident involving his wife and another child because the evidence does not tend logically to prove any element of the crime charged and is not an integral part of the immediate context of the crime charged. Furthermore, defendant failed to establish the required non-propensity purpose. Finally, the court concluded that the district court's limit on defendant's cross-examination of his wife was reasonable and there was no Confrontation Clause violation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Timothy White Plume" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of conspiring to distribute, distributing, and aiding and abetting the distribution of heroin; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Specifically, defendant argued that the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial by filing an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s decision to exclude the DNA evidence. The court weighed the Barker factors and concluded that defendant has not proved that the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court explained that, given that only twelve and a half months of the pretrial delay was attributable to the government, defendant's failure to show the government was at fault for pursuing the year-long interlocutory appeal or the delay caused him prejudice is fatal to his claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law