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

Plaintiff filed suit against her insurer, Allied, after Allied refused to pay a claim she submitted under her policy's underinsured motorist (UIM) endorsement. In this case, Allied only owed coverage when the tortfeasor met the definition of a UIM by having a policy with a limit of liability that is less than $50,000. The driver who caused the accident that injured plaintiff had a $100,000 limit of liability, the sum for which plaintiff settled her claim. Therefore, under the plain terms of the policy, the other driver did not qualify as underinsured. The court rejected plaintiff's claims to the contrary and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Allied. View "Burger v. Allied Property & Casualty Ins." on Justia Law

The trustee for PCI and eight associated special-purpose entities (SPEs) filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the aftermath of Thomas Petters' Ponzi scheme. The bankruptcy court consolidated the bankruptcy estates of PCI and the SPEs “for all purposes substantive and administrative.” Lenders to PCI and the SPEs appealed. The district court dismissed, holding the Lenders did not have standing to appeal the consolidation order because they were not “persons aggrieved.” The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to estop the trustee from asserting that the Lenders are not persons aggrieved; having held that the persons aggrieved doctrine survives the 1978 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, the court declined to reconsider the doctrine; and the district court did not err in dismissing the Lenders under the persons aggrieved doctrine. In this case, the Lenders’ interests here are not central to the bankruptcy process, and allowing them to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order would completely undermine the rationale behind the standard and bring bankruptcy proceedings to a grinding halt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Opportunity Finance, LLC v. Kelley" 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 err in applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the sentencing guidelines because defendant had used the weapon in connection with a felony offense - exhibiting a weapon capable of lethal use under Mo. Rev. Stat. 570.030.1(4) - even if the gun was not functional. Although the court agreed with defendant's reasoning that, because the gun was not functional, it did not meet the Missouri statute’s requirement that the weapon be readily capable of lethal use, the court concluded that the argument was foreclosed by previous decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dixon" on Justia Law

The Estate of Robert Jason Johnson, who was killed in a motorcycle and car accident, filed suit against the St. Louis Board of Police, various police board officials, and three police officers, alleging civil rights violations stemming from the police’s handling of the accident. The district court dismissed the police board and the police board officials from the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the three police officer defendants. The court concluded that, because the record contains no evidence that defendants materially falsified the accident report or failed to conduct a constitutionally-required investigation, the district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on the substantive due process claim. The court's conclusion that the accident report was not materially false is also sufficient to dispose of the estate’s claims for violation of the Equal Protection Clause and conspiracy to violate civil rights. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for sanctions where the district court viewed both parties partially at fault, and considered the dispute at issue to be a scheduling matter better resolved by the parties themselves than by the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "A.J. v. Tanksley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against ATK and several of its employees for race, gender, and age discrimination after the company terminated her employment for elbowing another employee in the back. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of any protected class status because she did not show that ATK treated any similarly situated employees in a disparate manner; plaintiff also did not establish a prima facie case by showing that ATK failed to follow its own policies when investigating the elbowing incident; and even assuming that plaintiff had established a prima facie case, ATK articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for firing her. Furthermore, the district court also correctly concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claim was not substantiated where she did not prove a causal connection between her follow up email and her termination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Blackwell v. Baker" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 72 months in prison. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the victim's prior grand jury testimony as a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A); because the victim's 911 call and recorded statements occurred with sufficient contemporaneity to the assault and evidence reliability, the district court did not err in admitting them under the present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Rule 803(1); and, even assuming that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), any such error was harmless because the district court adequately explained its overall sentence applying 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors.. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dean" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. On appeal, defendant challenged his 100 month sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err by applying a four level enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense because defendant's violation of Iowa Code 724.4(1) was based on the same conduct underlying his federal offense pursuant to the court's decision in United States v. Walker. Walker held that a violation of section 724.4(1) would support the application of such an enhancement because a defendant does not automatically commit the Iowa felony when he violates the federal offense. Because the district court misstated the guideline range, however, it did not actually vary downward as intended. The court agreed with the parties that this was plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Terrell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Brentwood after he was terminated, alleging race discrimination. A jury awarded plaintiff $1 in nominal damages. Plaintiff then sought equitable relief in the form of reinstatement and front pay. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that reinstatement was neither possible nor practical where the jury made no findings as to whether plaintiff had in fact violated the safety rules or whether his plant manager's trust concerns were genuine, and that plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence that he was entitled to front pay. View "Olivares v. Brentwood Indus." on Justia Law

The utility and its insurers filed suit against BendTec for negligence, alleging that its pipes were the source of grit and had been improperly cleaned. The district court granted summary judgment to BendTec. The court affirmed the judgment, agreeing with the district court's conclusion that the negligence claim was barred under the two year limitations period in Minn. Stat. 541.051 since the installation of the turbine was an improvement to real property. Because the two year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. 541.051 applies and the subdivision 1(e) exception does not, and plaintiffs did not file this lawsuit within the limitations period, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to BendTec. View "Associated Electric & Gas Ins. v. BendTec, Inc." on Justia Law

North Memorial and MNA, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), referred a grievance to arbitration. The district court subsequently granted in part MNA's motion to vacate the arbitral award. The arbitrator addressed whether North Memorial violated the CBA when it refused to regularly schedule the Grievant with no weekend work. The district court imposed a prospective remedy on the parties. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded the arbitrator was without authority to issue a prospective remedy because his decision exceeded the scope of the submission presented to him by the parties. Reading the plain language of the issue as set out in the decision, the court did not believe that the arbitrator was even arguably acting within the scope of his authority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Minnesota Nurses Association.v. North Memorial Health Care" on Justia Law