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

Blake filed suit against CarVal and Lux, alleging tortious interference with Blake's contract to lease a barge and crane to a third party. The district court dismissed the complaint as time-barred. To determine the applicable limitations period the court looked to the choice of law rules of the forum state, which in this case is Minnesota. The court concluded that Alabama's interest in compensating Blake, a resident of that state, outweighs Minnesota's interest and favors the application of Alabama law. Therefore, the court concluded that the fourth choice of law factor favors the application of Alabama law. Since this is the only factor which favors either state's law, the district court did not err by applying Alabama law and dismissing Blake's claim as time barred. The court also concluded that Blake waived its argument that the district court should apply the "fairness exception" to Minnesota's borrowing statute; Blake has not satisfied the first requirement for invoking federal admiralty jurisdiction - the alleged tort occurred on navigable waters - and that laches does not apply; and there was no fraudulent concealment of facts and thus no basis to toll the two year limitations period. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Blake Marine Grp. v. CarVal Investors LLC" on Justia Law

Compart, a producer of breeding swine, filed a negligence suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq. Compart intended to export over three hundred pigs to China but China suspended all imports from Compart after it was notified by the United States government that the test results from a small set of the blood samples were "inconclusive" for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus (PRRSv). The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed, concluding that the discretionary function exemption precludes jurisdiction over Compart's negligence claims because the testing and reporting of Compart's swine was governed by discretionary governmental procedures and susceptible to policy analysis. View "Compart's Boar Store, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action alleging that Bi-State and Eager Road made false claims to receive federal public-transit funds through the Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration. The district court denied Bi-State’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the issue of Bi-State's immunity is not properly before the court. At no point during the proceedings before the district court did Bi-State claim that it was entitled to sovereign immunity. Bi-State’s motion for summary judgment argued only that it is not a “person” under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, and the district court’s denial of summary judgement addressed only that question. View "United States ex rel Fields v. Bi-State Dev. Agency" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of two conditions of supervised release requiring him to provide financial information to the Probation Office upon request and prohibiting him from incurring any new credit card charges or opening lines of credit without approval from the United States Probation Office. The court concluded that the record demonstrates that defendant's financial condition potentially has played a role in his criminal conduct. The court recognized that such conditions are not prohibition on behavior, but rather a monitoring device to complement other conditions. In this case, defendant faces an unpaid assessment and contribution to drug treatment costs, and the prohibition against incurring credit card debt or opening a new line of credit without Probation Office approval is reasonably related to the circumstances of the offense and deterring further criminal conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, finding that under these specific circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing these conditions. View "United States v. Hart" on Justia Law

Defendants Kenneth Ray Borders, Jon Dirk Dickerson, and Kyle Wayne Dickerson appealed their convictions for crimes involving stolen goods and vehicles. The convictions stemmed from defendants' participation in a conspiracy to steal commercial trucks, trailers, and cargo, and alter vehicle identification information. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances supports the single conspiracy finding where a jury could reasonably find a single conspiracy existed and each defendant a knowing member of it; there was sufficient evidence to convict Kyle for aiding and abetting the unlawful transportation of a stolen vehicle (Count 2), but insufficient evidence to convict Kyle for aiding and abetting the possession of stolen goods and vehicles (Count 18, 20, and 25); the court rejected defendants' evidentiary challenges; the district court did not commit plain error in applying the sentencing enhancement for the total loss exceeding $1 million under USSG 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), the "in the business" enhancement to Borders and Dickerson under USSG 2B1.1(b)(4), the "stolen vehicle" enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(4) and (14), the leader/organizer enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a), and the "sophisticated means" enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(10); and the district court did not give Borders a disparate sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Borders" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was terminated from UPS, he filed suit alleging race discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to UPS. The court affirmed, concluding that the totality of the evidence in this case does not support a finding of unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff has not put forth evidence to rebut UPS's contention that it fired him due to his conduct. The record shows that plaintiff cursed in the workplace, arguably threatened his supervisor, had multiple conflicts with other employees, and disagreed with company efforts to address the problems. Because plaintiff failed to present any evidence to establish that UPS's given reason for his termination was pretextual, the district court did not commit reversible error by concluding that plaintiff failed to show that a material question of fact remains as to pretext. View "Smith v. UPS" on Justia Law

Others First filed suit against the BBB, alleging tort claims for injurious falsehood based on alleged falsehoods contained in a news release, and for interference with business expectancy. The district court granted summary judgment for BBB. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the tortious interference claim where Others First failed to submit sufficient evidence to show that the BBB employed improper means to further its own interests; Others First failed to plead alleged defamatory statements with the particularity required by Missouri law; and the district court properly granted summary judgment dismissing Others First’s claim of injurious falsehood because all of the challenged statements were either true statements of fact or protected opinion, and properly granted summary judgment dismissing the tortious interference claim given the absence of wrongful defamation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Others First, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau" on Justia Law

In 1996, Dale Helmig was convicted of first-degree murder of his mother. In 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated his conviction and gave the State 180 days to retry him. The State declined to retry Helmig. Helmig then filed suit against law enforcement officers and Osage County, Missouri under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they violated his constitutional right to due process by not disclosing certain materially favorable evidence, fabricating evidence, and conspiring to misuse evidence. The court found no intent or bad faith on behalf of the officers to disclose Brady evidence to the prosecutor or the defense; Sheriff Fowler’s lack of testimony at trial about his limited knowledge of the report at issue when he was never asked about whether the report was or was not substantiated both fails to support a Brady claim and is protected by absolute immunity; and no reasonable juror could infer the existence of a conspiracy to deprive Helmig of a fair trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Helmig v. Fowler" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to possessing pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and then appealed his 108 month sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in reducing his sentence to the top of the amended Guidelines range. The court concluded that the district court adequately weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and examined defendant’s post-conviction conduct in determining his amended sentence; in this case, defendant nearly ran over an officer with his vehicle and drove his vehicle at extremely high rates of speed, putting lives in danger; the district court considered defendant's good post-conviction conduct; and the district court properly substituted the amended range while leaving all other guideline application decisions unaffected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Powers" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence after pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a dangerous weapon. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward under USSG 5K2.8 where defendant intentionally pushed the victim down the basement stairs, and after checking, left her there without help. The court concluded that defendant’s conduct was unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the victim. The court also concluded that the district court did not plainly err in departing upward under USSG 5K2.21, where defendant was aware of a serious risk of death to the victim when she pushed her down the stairs and left her immobilized with no medical assistance. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward under USSG 4A1.3, and the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brave Bull" on Justia Law