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

National Union was ordered to pay part of the costs Continental incurred to defend Valspar against several lawsuits. Valspar intervened and now appeals. The court concluded that National Union had a duty to defend Valspar and therefore has an equitable obligation to contribute to paying the costs of the defense. Neither Valspar’s agreement to pay National Union’s costs, Continental’s agreement not to recover defense costs from Valspar, nor Continental’s alleged failure to pay a small fraction of the costs defeats Continental’s right to contribution from National Union. These are distinct obligations. And National Union’s share of the defense costs paid by the insurers is unaffected by amounts paid by Valspar. Accordingly, the court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Continental Casualty Co. v. The Valspar Corp." on Justia Law

Parsons petitioned for review of the Board's order, concluding that Parsons engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (5), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), 29 U.S.C. 151-169. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Parsons violated the Act by unilaterally modifying its employee-break policy without notifying the Union or affording it an opportunity to bargain. The Board also reasonably rejected Parsons’s contentions that the 2012 Break Policy merely clarified the 2005 Break Policy and existing practice. Finally, the court rejected Parsons’s assertion that it was authorized to unilaterally change its employee-break policy because it lacked authority to bargain directly with the Union. The court denied the petition for review and enforced the Board's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Parsons Electric, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order enforcing the terms of an agreement he entered into with Western Thrift and Loan Corporation to settle a malpractice lawsuit. The court concluded that a district court may retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement when its order dismissing the case reserves such jurisdiction. Here, the district court's dismissal order expressly reserved ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement for forty-five days. The district court therefore had jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, because Western Thrift moved to enforce the settlement agreement within the forty-five day time period. The court also concluded that the record itself was sufficient to create a enforceable settlement agreement, even though the parties did not memorialize the agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Western Thrift and Loan Corp. v. Rucci" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found after his arrest. The court concluded, under the totality of the circumstances, that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. In this case, among other things, defendant was stopped within a few blocks of the wreck of a stolen car, roughly forty minutes after officers saw suspects flee the crime scene; defendant partly matched the description of at least one suspect; it was late at night; and the officer saw defendant emerge from an alley and walk away from the direction of the crime scene. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense where the district court found that defendant's possession had the potential to facilitate his use or sale of the methamphetamine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Quinn" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff did not meet the requirements for mental retardation in Listing 12.05C; that the ALJ characterized plaintiff's impairment as mild mental retardation at step two did not preclude the ALJ on this record from finding at step three that plaintiff did not exhibit deficits in adaptive functioning; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ash v. Colvin" on Justia Law

TCF filed suit against Market, alleging claims concerning the statutes of limitations for fraud, contract, and negligence. TCF had entered into a contract with Market under which TCF purchased Field Asset Verifications for Minnesota properties in 2002. The district court granted summary judgment for Market. The court held that the district court properly held that TCF discovered sufficient facts so that the limitations period for TCF’s fraud claims expired before TCF filed suit in September 2011. The court also held that the non-fraud claims accrued more than six years before TCF filed suit and that the limitations period was not tolled to prevent expiration prior to September 2011. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "TCF Nat'l Bank v. Market Intelligence, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 27 months in prison after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a downward variance, ultimately citing defendant’s multiple felony convictions and an outstanding warrant for failure to appear on a probation violation as the basis for its decision to deny the request and impose a within-Guidelines sentence. Further, the sentence imposed by the district court, on the low end of the properly-calculated Guidelines range, was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 24 months in prison after pleading guilty to one count of escape from a Bureau of Prisons facility. The court concluded that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's prior Minnesota convictions as not relevant conduct to his escape offense, and in including them in his criminal history score. Accordingly, because the district court did not err in calculating defendant's criminal history category, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Slaughter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983; and state law. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his retaliation claim. Because the court can resolve this appeal on other grounds, the court left for another day whether a defense based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies may effectively be waived. On the merits, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff has failed to establish direct evidence of retaliation. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the reasons given for his termination were pretextual. In this case, plaintiff failed to identify any causal connection between his desire to promote an African American staff member and his termination, and had therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Plaintiff does not dispute that defendants offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hutton v. Maynard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of social security disability benefits and supplemental security income. The ALJ provided valid reasons for discounting plaintiff's subjective complaints and the court held that the ALJ's less-than-fully credible determination is supported by substantial evidence; the ALJ's residual functioning capacity (RFC) is supported by substantial evidence; and the ALJ gave proper weight to plaintiff's treating physicians where the opinions were not supported by the record as a whole. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of benefits. View "Chaney v. Colvin" on Justia Law