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

Plaintiffs, owners of shares of Wal-Mart, filed suit against the corporation's directors and officers, alleging that they violated state and federal law by permitting and then covering up pervasive bribery committed on behalf of Wal-Mart’s Mexican subsidiary, Wal-Mex. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 required plaintiffs to explain why they did not first ask the board of directors to cause the corporation to pursue the suit itself because the shareholders sought to enforce rights belonging to Wal-Mart. Plaintiffs claimed that it would have been futile to go to the board first. In this case, the specific facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint do not give rise to a reasonable inference that Wal-Mart’s board of directors learned of the suspected bribery by Wal-Mex while the alleged bribery was being covered up and the internal investigation quashed. Therefore, the allegations do not establish “with particularity” that the threat of personal liability rendered a majority of Wal-Mart’s 2012 board incapable of fairly considering whether to pursue the corporate causes of action the shareholders seek to enforce in this case, as required by Rule 23.1 and Delaware’s heightened pleading threshold for derivative lawsuits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cottrell v. Duke" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Siemens, her former employer, alleging unlawful discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. Plaintiff, an African American, was terminated as part of a reduction in force. The district court granted summary judgment to Siemens. The court concluded that the district court did not err by proceeding to the McDonnell Douglas analysis because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, does not show a genuine issue of material fact as to Siemens’ liability under a cat’s paw theory. Under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the court concluded that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding of pretext as to the actual decisionmaker. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cherry v. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of her term of supervised release after serving a prison sentence for committing disaster benefits fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from a probation officer with respect to an Arizona investigation of a fraudulent money transfer. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in admitting the record from Navy Federal Credit Union to Veridian Credit Union that identified the $4,000 transfer to defendant’s account as likely fraudulent. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to find that she committed wire fraud, failed to answer questions truthfully, and failed to notify her probation officer of a change in employment. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Protsman" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two charges arising from an armed bank robbery that resulted in the death of a bank security guard, moved to vacate his death sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 on several grounds. The district court denied petitioner's motion and this court granted a certificate of appealability on one question: whether petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury. The court concluded that counsel’s failure to argue for an extension of the law to forbid the jury procedures in petitioner’s case did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where, considering the state of the law at the time of trial concerning whether a jury was properly characterized as "anonymous," it was not professionally unreasonable for counsel to forego an objection to the district court’s procedure for identifying the jurors. Furthermore, where a movant unsuccessfully attacked counsel’s performance for failing to anticipate Apprendi v. New Jersey, no evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve the claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Allen v. United States" on Justia Law

After a halfway house resident, Angenaldo Bailey, seriously injured plaintiff when he broke into her house, plaintiff filed suit against the City of Ames, several Ames police officers, the Center, John McPherson (the Center’s manager), the State of Iowa, and John Baldwin (the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections). On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for McPherson, Baldwin, the Center, and the State. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that there is no evidence in the record that McPherson knew about Bailey’s history of abusing plaintiff or her telephone call to the Center on the afternoon of the shooting; McPherson cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for constitutional violations of a subordinate based on a respondeat superior theory; there is insufficient evidence to show that McPherson’s subordinates at the Center were deliberately indifferent to a known or obvious substantial risk of harm to plaintiff when they authorized Bailey to visit the Hy-Vee store; plaintiff has not established that McPherson or employees of the Center created a new danger to plaintiff or increased the danger that Bailey posed to her, because the danger to plaintiff existed before Bailey resided at the Center and would have continued to exist thereafter; plaintiff's claim against Baldwin failed for insufficient evidence where he had no personal involvement in the Center and cannot be held liable under a respondeat superior theory; and the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff’s claims against the State and the Center, because the State and its agencies are immune from suits for damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Montgomery v. City of Ames" on Justia Law

A class of plaintiffs filed suit against the Rams in the Twenty-Second Circuit Court in the city of St. Louis, alleging state-law violations that arose out of the Rams' relocation of their professional football team to Los Angeles, California. The Rams removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). Once before the federal district court, plaintiffs moved to remand to the state court based predominantly on a lack of minimal diversity necessary to support CAFA jurisdiction. On appeal, the Rams challenged the district court's decision to remand the case to the Missouri state court. The court concluded that the Rams properly removed the case to federal court by filing a notice of removal; the district court's refusal to consider postremoval evidence effectively denied the Rams the opportunity for jurisdictional discovery to establish their claim of federal jurisdiction; and the district court's refusal to consider postremoval evidence prejudiced the Rams by limiting their ability to prove their statutory right to a federal forum. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order remanding the case to the Missouri state court and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Pudlowski v. The St. Louis Rams LLC" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying her request to discharge her student loan for undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). The BAP concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that debtor has sufficient income to make the $42 student loan payment and the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in so finding. The BAP also considered other relevant facts and circumstances, concluding that debtor failed to prove that she lacks the present ability to make payments on her student loans and her claim of undue hardship must fail. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Hurst v. Southern Arkansas Univ." on Justia Law

Civic Partners appealed the bankruptcy court's order dismissing its chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Northwest Bank holds a mortgage against the Promenade and an assignment of rents to secure a promissory note executed by Civic Partners. The City also holds a mortgage against the Promenade to secure a promissory note executed by Civic Partners. Main Street leases and occupies the majority of the space in the Promenade. The BAP concluded that the original lease, not the amended lease, controls Civic Partners' relationship with Main Street. In keeping with its earlier rulings, the bankruptcy court did not consider the possibility that Civic Partners might be able to propose a confirmable plan predicated on the original lease. This is a relevant factor that should be given significant weight in determining whether to dismiss Civic Partners' chapter 11 case. Accordingly, the BAP reversed the bankruptcy court's order dismissing Civic Partners' chapter 11 bankruptcy case and remanded for further proceedings. View "Civic Partners Sioux City, LLC v. Main Street Theatres" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. The court concluded that the search was a valid probation search supported by reasonable suspicion. In this case, the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where defendant's outstanding warrants, missed probation appointments, and previous admissions by defendant indicating he was involved in illegal drug activity, along with statements from drug task force officers and others about defendant’s ongoing drug activity, gave his probation officer reasonable suspicion that defendant was breaking the law and violating his probation. Accordingly, the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriquez" on Justia Law

Capson filed suit against MMIC seeking a declaration that MMIC was the primary professional liability insurer for Karl J. Hasik, M.D., and that Capson was the excess insurer. MMIC counterclaimed and filed a third-party complaint against Dr. Hasik and others, seeking rescission of its insurance policy or, in the alternative, a declaration that MMIC had no obligation to defend or indemnify Dr. Hasik for two medical negligence cases that had been filed against him. The district court granted MMIC’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that Dr. Hasik’s and the hospital’s nondisclosure of the Wilson lawsuit (a medical malpractice suit filed by a patient against Dr. Hasik) was the equivalent of a false assertion. Therefore, the court held that the elements of equitable rescission were satisfied in this case. Dr. Hasik’s and the hospital’s nondisclosure of the Wilson lawsuit was the equivalent of a material representation that was false. MMIC was entitled to rescind the prior-acts coverage it had agreed to provide. The court further held that Iowa law does not preclude a judgment of rescission in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and dismissed the cross-appeal as moot. View "Capson Physicians Ins. Co. v. MMIC Ins. Inc." on Justia Law