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

In the Original Action, Michelle Pratt filed a class action on behalf of residents of Autumn Hills against Collier and two other entities, alleging that two wells supplied by Autumn Hills contained contaminated water. Barbara Williams was later substituted as a class representative. The state court awarded plaintiffs $70,085,000 for medical monitoring, and $11,952,000 for the loss in value to their homes. Williams then filed an equitable garnishment action in state court against the Insurers and Collier pursuant to Missouri Revised Statute 379.200. The district court ultimately entered a consent judgment in favor of Collier. The court concluded that the consent judgment was a final judgment and the court had jurisdiction over the appeal of the consent judgment; Williams has not waived her right to appeal the consent judgment where Williams' consent to entry of judgment against her represented consent to the form, rather than the substance, of the judgment; and the judgment on the pleadings was not a final order, and thus Williams did not file her notice of appeal out of time. The court also concluded that because Williams brought this action on behalf of a class previously certified under a state-law analogue to Rule 23, the action was necessarily “filed under” Rule 23 or a state-law analogue, even though the complaint omits explicit reference to such a rule. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings to the Insurer because the Insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify Collier for the claims asserted in the Original Action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co." on Justia Law

JEI filed suit against its liability insurance carrier, U.S. Specialty, alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaratory judgment related to U.S. Specialty's refusal to indemnify JEI for settlement of the underlying suit brought by a former JEI director. U.S. Specialty argued that the underlying suit was excluded from coverage based on the language in the directors' and officers' liability insurance policy. The district court granted summary judgment for U.S. Specialty. The court concluded that application of the insured vs. insured exclusion in this case demonstrates that U.S. Specialty does not owe coverage to JEI; the exclusion applied to Cheryl Sullivan, an insured person under the policy, and her two daughters; U.S. Specialty need only show that the exclusion clause applied to the suit as brought and it has done so; the allocation clause does not restore coverage for any part of the underlying suit where the allocation clause speaks generally to any claim brought with covered and uncovered matters; and the insured vs. insured exclusion speaks directly to lawsuits brought with the participation of insured persons. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of U.S. Specialty. View "Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

PCMA filed suit seeking a declaration that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., expressly preempts section 510B.8 of the Iowa Code. Iowa Code 510B.8 regulates how pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) establish generic drug pricing, and requires that certain disclosures on their drug pricing methodology be made to their network pharmacies as well as to Iowa’s insurance commissioner. The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for PCMA on the issue of express preemption, concluding that section 1144(a) of ERISA expressly preempts section 510B.8 because section 510B.8 applies to only those PBMs who administer prescription drug benefits for plans subject to ERISA regulation, and specifically exempts certain ERISA plans from its application. View "Pharmaceutical Care Management v. Gerhart" on Justia Law

The district court sentenced defendant to 22 months imprisonment to be followed by 1 year of supervised release, imposing three special conditions of supervised release. Special Condition 4 prohibits defendant from owning or having pornographic materials, Special Condition 5 allows a probation officer to search or monitor his computer and electronic devices, and Special Condition 6 prohibits defendant from having contact with any children under the age of 18 without prior written consent of the probation officer. The court concluded that Special Condition 4 is appropriately tailored to defendant's circumstances in light of his original sex offense and the district court's finding of a pattern of inappropriate behavior towards minors; Special Condition 5 is reasonably necessary to monitor whether defendant is violating the pornography restriction and to monitor whether defendant is violating the restriction concerning his contact with minors; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing Special Condition 6 where the district court made individualized findings, including adding language directing supervised visitation to defendant's biological and legally adopted children. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schultz" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon, he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), based on his four qualifying prior felony convictions. The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for second-degree battery under Arkansas state law qualifies as a violent felony. The court rejected defendant's contention that physical injury is not the equivalent of physical force, and that a defendant might cause physical injury without using physical force. Because defendant acknowledges two qualifying prior convictions, the battery offense counts as the third and the court need not address the fourth offense for terroristic threatening. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Winston" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment for the Department of Labor and declared that debtor's debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4). Debtor appeals. The Department had obtained a pre-bankruptcy judgment against debtor in district court. The district court found that, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., that debtor breached his fiduciary duty when the company of which he was CEO failed to remit funds withheld from its employees' paychecks for their health insurance plan. The BAP concluded that a trust res was created in this case because the trust was created when the employer withholds wages for payments to a plan providing benefits to employees; debtor had fiduciary responsibilities with respect to funds that had been withheld from wages for payment to HealthPartners; and debtor committed defalcation when he knowingly failed to remit employee contributions and instead knowingly used those funds to pay for other corporate expenses. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "U.S. Department of Labor v. Harris" on Justia Law

After the bankruptcy court held that a Minnesota property tax refund under Minn. Stat. Ann. 290A.04 is not exempt under Section 550.37 (Subd. 14) of the Minnesota statutes as “government assistance based on need,” following this panel’s decision in Manty v. Johnson, debtor appealed. The BAP rejected debtor's claim that Johnson was implicitly overruled by the Eighth Circuit's subsequent opinion in In re Hardy. The BAP concluded that Hardy in no way alters the ruling in Johnson. The BAP explained that the amendments to the federal Additional Child Tax Credit statute discussed in Hardy have no bearing on the Minnesota property tax refund statute at issue here and in Johnson. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Hanson v. Seaver" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of kidnapping, and three counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The court concluded that the district court did not err by instructing the jury on assault resulting in a serious bodily injury; even if the instruction was erroneous, it was not plain error because it did not affect defendant's substantial rights; the district court did not err by ruling that it would admit impeachment evidence of his prior conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury if defendant testified because, by not testifying, defendant failed to preserve his claim in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Luce v. United States; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of kidnapping where he beat the three victims and locked them in a crawl space. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lussier" on Justia Law

ACI was the company that manufactured and supplied roofing materials used in the construction of the high school building at issue here. The District filed suit against ACI, alleging that the building’s roof was not watertight and that ACI had failed to repair or replace the roof. The district court granted ACI's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the false representation claims where the District did not plead any false representation. The court rejected the District's claim that it's allegations related to ACI's assurances that it would repair or replace the roof, because such assurances relate to a future event. Under Arkansas law, generally, a misrepresentation must relate to a past event or a present circumstance. The court also concluded that the district court properly dismissed the fraud and constructive fraud claims for failure to plead actual reliance by the District on ACI's alleged misrepresentations. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment for ACI on the remaining breach of warranty, breach of contract, and negligence claims because Arkansas's statute of repose bars the District's claims. Finally, the court rejected the District's argument that the statute of repose was tolled while ACI tried to repair the roof where there is no evidence that ACI fraudulently concealed the roof’s deficiencies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Star City School District v. ACI Building Systems, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant seeks to appeal an order denying his motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with three counts of Hobbs Act robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951, and one count of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The court explained that these four counts were originally brought against defendant in a 2010 indictment, but were dismissed as part of a plea agreement in which he agreed to cooperate with law enforcement. Therefore, jeopardy did not attach during any of the pretrial proceedings and defendant has failed to present a colorable double jeopardy claim. Likewise, defendant has failed to present a colorable claim for collateral estoppel. Without a final judgment, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the merits of whether the government violated the plea agreement. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law