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

FMS and Comco entered into a Management Agreement obligating Comco to broadly indemnify FMS as well as reimburse FMS for reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. After Comco refused to indemnify FMS in the underlying lawsuit (the Brill litigation), FMS filed suit for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and other expenses. The court concluded that the district court correctly interpreted the indemnity provision as covering the Brill–FMS Litigation where the record does not support a finding that FMS committed any of the misconduct alleged by Brill. Even under a strict construction of the agreement, the court's decision in Harleysville Ins. Co. v. Physical Distribution Servs., Inc. forecloses Comco's argument where Harleysville held that a broad indemnity provision gave the indemnitor clear notice of an obligation to indemnify the indemnitee for future personal injury claims arising from the indemnitee's negligence. The court also concluded that the district court correctly limited FMS's recovery from Comco to the $87,350 FMS paid out of pocket. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Feed Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Comco Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress photographic identification evidence because the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. The district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the witness’s identification of defendant in the photographic lineup where the mere fact that defendant is the only individual pictured with a ponytail does not render the photographic lineup unduly suggestive. In this case, the show-up with a witness to the incident was not unduly suggestive and there is no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. House" on Justia Law

Bellingham filed a beach of contract claim against BancInsure after BancInsure denied coverage for loss that BancInsure claimed was not caused by employee-caused loss exclusions, exclusions for theft of confidential information,nor exclusions for mechanical breakdown or deterioration of a computer system. The district court granted summary judgment to Bellingham. The court concluded that no Minnesota case precludes application of the concurrent-causation doctrine to financial institution bonds. The court found that Minnesota courts would adhere to the general rule of treating financial institution bonds as insurance polices and interpreting those bonds in accordance with the principles of insurance law. Furthermore, the court rejected BancInsure’s argument that the Bond imposes a higher standard-of-proof than the concurrent-causation doctrine. Bellingham still had to show that its loss was directly caused by the fraudulent transfer, and the application of the concurrent-causation doctrine did not interfere with that requirement. The court also rejected BancInsure’s argument that the parties successfully drafted around the concurrent-causation doctrine in the Bond. As a matter of law, the Bond’s reference to “indirectly” is not a sufficient invocation of the “anti-concurrent causation” provision, and thus the Bond at issue in this matter does not contain such a provision. Finally, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the efficient and proximate cause of the loss was the illegal transfer of the money and not the employees' violations of policies and procedures. In this case, the overriding cause of the loss Bellingham suffered remains the criminal activity of a third party. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "State Bank of Bellingham v. BancInsure, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a medical doctor certified in internal medicine, filed suit against Mayo after he was terminated. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim under Minnesota's Vulnerable Victims Act, Minn. Stat. 626.557, subdiv. 3(a), where plaintiff failed to report the violations at issue and his conclusory allegations do not show compliance with the internal reporting procedure; the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's defamation claim where Mayo's motive and occasion for making the allegedly defamatory statements were proper and the criticisms were based on reasonable care; the court rejected plaintiff's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. 1395dd(b)(1), claim because EMTALA claims do not apply to patients who are stabilized, and plaintiff had already stated that the patient at issue had been stabilized; assuming without deciding plaintiff established prima facie cases under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. 181.932, subdiv. 1, and EMTALA or that he engaged in protected conduct under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h), Mayo established legitimate non-discriminatory grounds for the termination and plaintiff failed to establish that his employment termination was pretext for retaliation or motivated solely by his reports of Minnesota Whistleblower Act, EMTALA, or False Claims Act violations; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the district court's order striking his overlength 51-page declaration, and in denying plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion to defer summary judgment for additional discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Alaa E. Elkharwily, M.D. v. Mayo Holding Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, all owners of residential properties, filed suit against General Mills alleging that General Mills caused the chemical substance trichloroethylene (TCE) to be released onto the ground and into the environment. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of this contamination, TCE vapors migrated into the surrounding residential area, threatening the health of the residents and diminishing the value of their property. The district court certified a proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court concluded, however, that individual issues predominate the analysis of causation and damages that must be litigated to resolve plaintiffs' claims. Therefore, the court determined that this matter is unsuitable for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class. Because the class lacks the requisite commonality and cohesiveness to satisfy Rule 23, the court reversed the certification order and remanded. View "Ebert v. General Mills, Inc." on Justia Law

A.H. and Renna Yi, both minors, were passengers on a school bus that collided with a pickup truck, causing them serious injuries. A.H. and Yi's parents, on behalf of the minors, filed suit in Missouri state court alleging, among other things, that the brakes were defective. Midwest Bus, the retail seller of the bus, originally was a party to each action, but was omitted from subsequent amended complaints. The jury found in favor of all remaining defendants and the state trial court entered judgment. The minors also each filed suit against Midwest Bus in federal court in diversity actions under Missouri law. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal on the alternative ground that their claims are barred by collateral estoppel, as oppose to res judicata, because the jury unambiguously decided that their injuries were not caused by improper installation of automatic slack adjusters (ASAs) on the bus, and that the ASAs were not the cause or a contributing cause of the crash. View "A. H. v. Midwest Bus Sales, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against various municipalities and their employees under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-25, alleging that these employees had improperly accessed her personal data on different occasions. On appeal, defendants that were denied qualified immunity challenged the district court's judgment. The court concluded that defendants' entitlement to sovereign immunity hinges on factual questions regarding the circumstances under which they accessed plaintiff's personal information. The record does not foreclose the possibility that the officers accessed plaintiff's data for a purpose not permitted by the DPPA. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to reassess this factual dispute in the context of an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Mallak v. Runde" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that both the government and the district court correctly recited some of the purposes for which evidence of prior convictions may be used, but the district court did not analyze the purpose for which the evidence was being offered in this case. Mere recitation of FRE 404(b) without an accompanying case-specific analysis risks couching criminal propensity in terms of knowledge, intent, or lack of mistake. Nonetheless, the court concluded that any error in admitting defendant's prior convictions was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion allowing defendant's post-arrest statement to be admitted for impeachment purposes; the statement was not offered as non-hearsay substantive evidence; and the statement was admitted under FRE 806 for the limited purpose of supporting the credibility of the declarant. Use of a prior consistent statement to rehabilitate the credibility of a witness who has been impeached by a prior inconsistent statement is appropriate when the statement contextualizes, clarifies, or amplifies the meaning of the witness’s testimony or inconsistent statement. The district court’s careful attention to the admission of the rehabilitation evidence presented supports the conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting all of the proffered evidence for both parties regarding the credibility of the co-conspirator statements. Finally, there was no Brady violation associated with the government's failure to disclose the photograph at issue. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his 188-month sentence. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his felony drug-trafficking convictions in 2001, 2004, and 2008 from Illinois. The court held that the district court did not err in classifying defendant's 2001 Illinois drug conviction as a "serious drug offense," as he was convicted of an offense "for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the company for interest she claimed it owed her on a payout it made on a policy. The company counterclaimed, asking for its money back because it had paid plaintiff by mistake and so plaintiff was not entitled to the payout in the first place, let alone interest. The district court granted the company summary judgment on plaintiff's claims and granted her summary judgment on the company's counterclaim. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that fraudulent concealment tolled the limitations period and held that the district court correctly found that plaintiff's claims were untimely. In regard to the cross-appeal, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the company's counterclaim failed because it neglected to discover all of the relevant facts, where the company has a perfectly straightforward claim for restitution in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "DeCoursey v. American General Life Ins." on Justia Law