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

Petitioner, a Kenyan citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's decision that petitioner had waived his application to adjust his status to that of lawful permanent resident and denial of his request for a continuance. In this case, the IJ explained to petitioner that in order to proceed, petitioner would have to pay a filing fee, get fingerprinted, submit an affidavit of support, and bring his wife to testify on his behalf at his next hearing. When petitioner showed up to his hearing ten months later, he had failed to do these things. The court exercised its discretion under 8 U.S.C. 1252 and denied the petition for review, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Choge v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, the law firm representing plaintiff's landlord in a suit for unpaid rent, alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e. Plaintiff claimed that the law firm had violated the act by swearing to an affidavit without personal knowledge of the facts. The court concluded that, absent an allegation that he actually did not owe rent, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the defendant's practice misled the state court in any meaningful way. In this case, plaintiff's complaint only indicates that a trial was had in which the state court received evidence before rendering a judgment on the underlying rent issue. Because plaintiff has not alleged a plausible violation of the FDCPA and his class claims were properly dismissed, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Janson v. Katharyn B. Davis, LLC" on Justia Law

About five hours prior to filing for bankruptcy, debtor received an income tax refund for her federal and state income taxes, including an earned income tax credit (EIC). The bankruptcy court exempted some of debtor’s 2012 income tax refund, but denied her claimed exemption of the EIC under Mo. Rev. Stat. 513.430.1(10)(a), requiring her to turn over the nonexempt portion. The court determined that the language of section 513.430.1(10)(a) does not exempt “public assistance benefit[s]” received by the debtor prior to filing for relief in bankruptcy court. In this case, the parties do not dispute that debtor received the EIC prior to filing for bankruptcy. Therefore, the district court correctly affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment. View "Dittmaier v. Sosne" on Justia Law

Spectra filed suit against the City, alleging that the City violated federal and Missouri law by requiring Spectra to comply with a local ordinance governing public rights of way. Determining that Spectra's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim is properly before the court, the court concluded that section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 253, does not authorize a private right of action for damages under section 1983. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Spectra's section 1983 claim. The court also concluded that the district court properly abstained under Colorado River, which permits federal courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction over cases where "parallel" state court litigation is pending, meaning that there is "a substantial likelihood that the state proceeding will fully dispose of the claims presented in the federal court." Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the City's first request for attorney fees and the City's renewed fee request. Spectra did not continue actively to pursue its section 1983 claim after the district court dismissed it, but simply reasserted it for the purpose of preserving its rights on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Spectra Commc'n Grp. v. City of Cameron, MO" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his disability discrimination and constructive discharge claims against SNS. The court concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable person would not have found his work environment intolerable. Therefore, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to SNS on plaintiff's claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 213. The court concluded that the fact that an employee is disciplined in accordance with an employment policy is not enough to prove a constructive discharge claim under the MHRA. In this case, while one of plaintiff's supervisors laughed when asked about plaintiff's future at SNS and another supervisor told plaintiff that "this" would continue if he did not resign, the evidence was insufficient to create a material factual dispute about whether plaintiff's work environment was intolerable. The court also concluded that plaintiff did not give SNS a reasonable opportunity to resolve any problems with supervisors and plaintiff admits that he never complained about his supervisors during his employment. Therefore, the district court properly granted SNS summary judgment on plaintiff's constructive discharge claim. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Cosby v. Steak N Shake" on Justia Law

Debtors appealed the bankruptcy court's confirming of their amended Chapter 13 plan. The court held that when a Chapter 13 debtor’s treatment of a creditor under one subsection of 11 U.S.C. 1322(b) falls within the contours of another subsection of that statute, all standards of both subsections must be satisfied. Specifically, the court examined whether the maintenance of regular payments for unsecured non-priority student loan debt by debtors in this case, while they paid substantially less to other unsecured non-priority debt, satisfied the requirements of Bankruptcy Code 1322(b)(1) and (b)(10). The court held that those requirements were not met. The court agreed with the bankruptcy court’s holding that debtors’ plan was unfairly discriminatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jordahl, Jr. v. Burrell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and national of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Petitioner claimed that the IJ and the BIA failed to consider evidence of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship his children would suffer if he were removed from the United States. The court concluded that petitioner's challenge to the agency’s weighing of the evidence in support of his claim for cancellation of removal is outside the court's jurisdiction to review. The court concluded, though the agency’s consideration of the particular hardship factors that petitioner believed decisive may have been perfunctory, that is insufficient to establish legal or constitutional error. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Lemuz-Hernandez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his civil action without prejudice. The district court construed plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as also seeking relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court then determined that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the request for Rule 60(b) relief because plaintiff had simultaneously filed a notice of appeal (NOA). The court concluded that the motion should be construed as seeking Rule 60(b) relief, but held that the district court was mistaken in believing that it lacked authority to rule on the motion, which was filed within 28 days of the district court’s order. The court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because plaintiff's NOA will not become effective until after the District Court has ruled on his request for Rule 60(b) relief. View "Smith v. Missouri" on Justia Law

Quality Ag filed suit contending that it owns a sidetrack by means of adverse possession due to its continuous possession of the sidetrack from August 25, 2000 to August 25, 2010. BNSF has stored equipment on the sidetrack since one of its trains derailed near it on August 3, 2010. The district court granted summary judgment to BNSF, concluding that the adverse possession claim by Quality Ag was insufficiently pled, that BNSF owns the sidetrack, and that the agreement alleged by Quality Ag lacked consideration. The court concluded that Quality Ag's claim of adverse possession fails since it did not exclusively possess the sidetrack for at least ten years. Because Quality Ag has not shown that it owns the sidetrack, its breach of contract claim also fails. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Quality Ag. Serv. of Iowa, Inc. v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding filed by debtor. Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the bankruptcy trustee’s objection to her claim of an exemption in certain real property and limiting the exemption to $155,675.00. The court concluded that debtor did not acquire the property in which she claims her homestead exemption within the 1215-day period preceding the filing of the petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 522(p)(1)(A), thus limiting her homestead exemption to $155,675.00. In this case, the trustee presented evidence from three sources to the effect that instead of recording the deed immediately after execution, Donn Bruess, debtor's father, left it with his attorney until he determined whether to go forward with that conveyance. Upon consideration of the trustee’s evidence, the bankruptcy court found that Donn Bruess had not surrendered control of the deed with the intent to irrevocably convey the property. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment. View "Bruess v. Dietz" on Justia Law