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

Plaintiffs, twenty-three professional football players, filed a putative class action against the NFL, claiming that films produced by NFL-affiliate NFL Films violated the players’ rights under the right-of-publicity laws of various states as well as their rights under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125. Twenty plaintiffs settled, but appellants elected to opt out of the settlement and pursued individual right-of-publicity and Lanham Act claims. The district court granted summary judgment for the NFL. Applying the three Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp. factors, the court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the films are expressive, rather than commercial speech and that the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 301(a), therefore preempts appellants’ claims. The court also concluded that appellants' claim of false endorsement under the Lanham Act fails as a matter of law because appellants provide no evidence that the films contain misleading or false statements regarding their current endorsement of the NFL. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dryer v. National Football League" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a government investigation of Mountain Pure's bottling facility. Mountain Pure and its employees filed suit against defendants, government agents, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting Defendants Roberts and Spradlin summary judgment on Mountain Pure's excessive force claim, nor did the district court err in granting the agents summary judgment on Mountain Pure's claim alleging unlawful seizure of its property. In regard to the individual employees' arguments that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against them on their claims alleging unlawful detention, unlawful seizure of their property, and excessive force, the court concluded that: the detention of the employees during the execution of the search warrant was reasonable where detaining the employees prevented them from fleeing in the event that incriminating evidence was found and ensured that they would be present to assist with the completion of the search such as by opening locked file cabinets to avoid the use of force, and detention of the employees in the break room was not particularly intrusive; the length of the detentions here was reasonable given that the search took nearly twelve hours and the government had a legitimate interest in detaining the employees during the search; the employees' argument that qualified immunity should not apply in Roberts' and Spradlin's case is rejected where there is no evidence showing that the interrogations at issue prolonged the employees' detentions beyond a reasonable time; Roberts and Spradlin did not act unreasonably in detaining them incommunicado by denying them access to telephones; the district court did not err in concluding that qualified immunity barred the employees' claims alleging an unlawful seizure of their property; and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Roberts and Spradlin on Bush, Morgan, and Stacks' excessive force claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mountain Pure v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. The facts here indicate that the district court understood and properly applied the “facilitate” standard in finding that the firearm was used “in connection with” defendant's heroin possession. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Jarvis" on Justia Law

Affordable filed suit alleging breach of contract when Fannie Mae penalized Affordable for prepaying its loan after it was forced to sell its Jefferson Arms Apartments property to avoid condemnation. The district court found in favor of Fannie Mae. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the district court's findings that the city's letter threatening condemnation did not cause the seller to sell Jefferson Arms because he had already intended to sell the property before receiving it. Moreover, the district court's findings were not based on an erroneous view of the law. In this case, the district court determined that the seller was not credible and the sequence of events leading to the sale of the property suggests that he did not actually fear condemnation and had requested the city letter merely to gain a tax advantage. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in determining that the voluntary payment doctrine prevents Affordable from recovering on its breach of contract claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Affordable Communities of MO v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking damages from American Family for their individual insurance claims, and the district court later granted American Family's motion to dismiss. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend. Plaintiffs' motion to amend sought to change their theory of the case because the class action petition had challenged the contents of all American Family insurance policies in a declaratory judgment pleading while the proposed second amended petition claimed that American Family breached the contents of the insurance contract. Furthermore, the class action petition sought a class wide injunction, not individual damages, while the proposed second amended petition sought individual damages instead of a class wide injunction. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion because plaintiffs sought to change their theory of liability after their class action petition had been dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Adams v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendants Andrew Taylor and Victor Vickers were convicted of drug-related offenses. Taylor was also convicted of two counts based on a murder for hire conspiracy. The court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence to support Taylor's conviction of conspiracy to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana or over 5 kilograms of cocaine; Vickers' conviction for conspiracy to distribute less than 100 kilograms of marijuana; Taylor's conviction for aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine; and Taylor's convictions of conspiracy to commit murder for hire and possession of a machine gun in furtherance of a crime of violence. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Taylor's motion for a mistrial where the district court did strike the improper testimony regarding 24 wiretap recordings and an officer's testimony, and Taylor does not explain why this failed to cure any prejudice; there was a sufficient basis on which TFO Corbin could identify Taylor's voice and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting these recordings; any error in admitting Officer Woodward's testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and the court rejected Taylor's claim of cumulative errors where any errors committed by the district court were harmless. Finally, the district court did err in applying the murder cross reference in USSG 2D1.1(d)(1) where the murder at issue is not relevant conduct under USSG 1B1.3(a)(2) because it cannot be grouped with Vickers' offense of conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions, vacated Vickers' sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Busch filed suit against National Union after National Union denied coverage for Busch's expenditures to remediate mold in the condominium complex that it managed. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that Busch's payments for mold remediation are not covered under its policy with National Union because its legal obligation to remediate the mold did not spring from "liability imposed by law." The court also concluded that the district court correctly concluded that Busch's maintenance or consent agreements do not trigger coverage under the 1994 policy because those agreements do not constitute a legal obligation to pay as damages for liability assumed by Busch under contract. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Busch Properties, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at USMCFP, filed suit alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to respond in a timely manner when the artery comprising his dialysis access port ruptured. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim where plaintiff provided no evidence showing that any delay in treatment had a detrimental effect; the district court did not err in denying plaintiff additional time for discovery; and the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "Jackson v. Riebold" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the IJ and BIA's denial of relief from removal based on asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that the BIA did not err in rejecting petitioner's claims of persecution on account of his membership in two family-based social groups: (1) male, gang-aged family members of murdered gang members, and (2) male, gang-aged family members of his cousin. Nor is “male, gang-aged members of the Institute” a cognizable social group under the relevant statute. Therefore, the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's claim for withholding of removal. The court also concluded that the BIA properly determined that petitioner does not qualify for relief under the CAT because the same documents petitioner relies on to demonstrate police-corruption in El Salvador, also identify government efforts to end gang violence, including a stimulus program to rehabilitate gang members. Certainly, El Salvador has struggled to protect against gang violence, but it has not acquiesced to gang violence. The court denied the petition for review. View "Aguinada-Lopez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Kyle Brown's widow, filed a wrongful death action against Kenneth Davis, Jr., William Davis, and WDL. Ken was driving the truck, that fatally hit Kyle, for his uncle William and WDL. The complaint asserted negligence based on Ken's driving and William's failure to block oncoming traffic. A jury returned a $3 million verdict for plaintiff and her two children. The court concluded that the district court correctly instructed on general negligence principles, and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that William had a legal duty to take appropriate precautions; the evidence of William's failure to stop traffic and of his misleading signal to Ken was sufficient for the jury to find that William failed to exercise ordinary care; there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that William acted negligently and caused the death of Kyle Brown; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for a new trial where defendants' counsel opened the door for the allegedly prejudicial statement by counsel for plaintiff, and the statement at issue was not unwarranted given the context, nor was it clearly injurious. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Brown v. Davis" on Justia Law