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

California posts information about unclaimed property on a public website. Bolt made claims in 2011 and 2012 in the name of his company, Situs Cancer Research Center,. Bolt created fraudulent donation agreements which purported to transfer the unclaimed assets from their lawful owners to Situs. In some instances Bolt created fictitious employees of the companies and signed their names; in others he forged the signatures of actual people. He also fabricated notary stamps and used interstate mail and wire systems to transmit the fraudulent documents to California. The assets transferred to Situs totaled approximately $2,400,000. Bolt bought cars and real estate with funds from the Situs bank account. In another scheme, Situs similarly acquired unclaimed funds from a trust account ($108,251.78) held by the state of Nevada, which were a woman's life savings. Bolt pled guilty to wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343; mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341; and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence of 100 months, calculated by applying an enhancement for the use of sophisticated means and concluding that an upward departure was warranted based on the inadequacy of his criminal history category under the guidelines. View "United States v. Bolt" on Justia Law

Robl and Homoly formed the Company to develop real estate. Robl held a 60% share and Homoly held 40%. Steve Robl was the tax matters partner; his wife, accountant Vera Robl, assisted with financial records; Homoly was a project manager. From 2006-2011, the Company operated at a loss. Robl periodically advanced money. The operating agreement required the consent of both members before “creation of any obligation or commitment of the Company, including the borrowing of funds, in excess of $10,000; [and] . . . . Any act which would cause a Member, absent such Member’s written consent, to become personally liable for any debt or obligation of the Company.” Vera notified Homoly that the Company needed “to make a capital call or increase loans on existing inventory,” that Robl had “put in $71,500 so if you go the route of capital call, your share to get caught up would be $47,666.” Homoly responded, “I would prefer the money from Robl to be considered a loan ... If Steve would rather me put in a capital call, however, I will … write the check.” In 2011, Robl sued for breach of contract, seeking $172,617.61. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that Homoly did not personally guarantee any loan. The Eighth Circuit reversed. The record showed that the parties genuinely dispute whether Homoly authorized Robl’s loan and personally guaranteed repayment. View "Robl Constr., Inc. v. Homoly" on Justia Law

Responding to a report of an assault that was no longer in progress, Sheriff's Deputy Olson shot and killed Capps. Capps's parents sued Deputy Olson for using excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Deputy Olson alleges Capps was charging towards him with a weapon at the time of the shooting. Capps's parents allege Deputy Olson shot Capps in the back when Capps was unarmed. Deputy Olson moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, holding that outstanding questions of fact precluded a grant of qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Deputy Olson had fair and clear warning at the time of the shooting that the use of deadly force against a suspect who did not pose a threat of serious bodily injury or death was unconstitutional. View "Capps v. Olson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(A) and (D); abusive sexual contact of a child, 18 U.S.C. 1153, 2244(a)(1) and (5), and 2246(3); abusive sexual contact while registered as a sex offender, 18 U.S.C. 2260A. The charges concerned three female victims. At the pretrial hearing, the district court found all six of the government's Rules 413 and 414 witnesses' testimony to be relevant, but conducted the Rule 403 balancing test, which considers whether its potential prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value, and only admitted testimony that defendant pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact in 1998 for having sexual contact with his 12-year-old female cousin. Defendant committed similar sexual abuse acts against similarly-aged victims. The court, however, denied defendant's attempt to introduce evidence of a molestation suffered by one victim on the theory that the victim may be attributing the actions of someone else to defendant. The court concluded that accepting this argument could open the door to wholesale interrogation of child victims about prior molestations. The Eighth Circuit affirmed his convictions, rejecting arguments that the court erred by improperly coaching the government's counsel and admitting excess propensity evidence. View "United States v. Never Misses A Shot" on Justia Law

In 2004, Streambend signed agreements to purchase two units in a Minneapolis residential condominium development, Ivy Hotel + Residences. Completion of the units was delayed, two additional floors were added without proper disclosure, and earnest moneys were removed from the trust account to pay construction costs without Streambend’s permission. Mechanics liens were filed in 2008 and not removed. Streambend requested return of its earnest moneys in 2009, but, defendants claimed the deposits were non-refundable. Streambend sued, alleging state law contract, fraud, and statutory claims and violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA), 15 U.S.C. 1703(a)(2). The initial defendants were the developers, their real estate agent, and the title company, as escrow and disbursing agent. The district court dismissed ILSA claims against the developers for failure to plead fraud with the required specificity; granted summary judgment dismissing the ILSA claims against the title company on the merits; and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding refusals to permit Streambed to re-add a party whose prior dismissal on the merits was not challenged in an earlier appeal and to permit further amendment of the complaint. View "Streambend Props. II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC" on Justia Law

Washington, an African-American, began working for American Airlines in 2002, when American acquired the company for which Washington had worked since 1974. Washington applied for the position of Machinist in 2007, but was not promoted after the company’s examiner concluded that Washington failed to complete satisfactorily complete a qualifying test. Four other applicants, all Caucasian, tested with a different examiner before Washington; all were successful. The sixth applicant, also Caucasian, was tested by Washington’s examiner after Washington’s examination and failed. Washington was tested for more than four hours, but the examiner terminated the examination when he concluded that Washington removed the bushing he was machining from a lathe before he had finished. Washington claims that employees laughed and made disparaging comments. The company’s Manual provides that an employee “may have a witness of his choice present” during the exam. Washington had requested a union witness. A subject matter expert witnessed Washington’s exam, but no union witness was present. Washington exhausted administrative remedies and sued. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of American. Washington had not demonstrated that American was motivated by race (42 U.S.C. 1981; Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e) or that race was a “contributing factor” under the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 213.010. View "Washington v. American Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Smart Candle sells light-emitting diode flameless candles and commercial lighting systems internationally. Excell sued under the LanhamAct alleging that Smart Candle’s use of the trade name and trademark “Smart Candle” infringed rights that Excell had over use of that name and trademark. Selective insured Smart Candle during the period in which the Excell suit commenced, but disclaimed coverage, based on exclusion any injury “arising out of the infringement of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property rights” that “does not apply to infringement in your ‘advertisement’ of copyright, trade dress or slogan.” Excell won its suit. Selective sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify. Smart Candle counterclaimed breach of contract, arguing that Selective had not conducted “reasonable investigation of Excell’s Claims” including “a review of Smart Candle’s website . . . or any of Smart Candle’s advertising before denying coverage.” The district court granted Selective summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that no reasonable jury would conclude that Excell was suing for slogan infringement and that Selective had no duty to investigate “beyond the four corners of the complaint” to determine whether other facts could trigger Selective’s duty to defend or indemnify. View "Selective Ins. Co. v. Smart Candle, LLC" on Justia Law

From 2004 until 2010, Grandison delivered cocaine in the Kansas City area for Johnson, a national drug distributor. Johnson testified Grandison delivered 525 to 675 kilograms of cocaine during this period by obtaining the cocaine at truck stops from smugglers, loading 30-gallon drums of cocaine into the trunk of her car, and storing the cocaine at her home until Johnson told her to make a delivery. After her indictment, initial appearance, and arraignment, Grandison applied for jobs at the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS, stating, under oath, she was not currently charged with any federal crimes. Grandison was convicted of conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846, and sentenced to 360 months imprisonment. The court applied a two-level enhancement because Grandison held drugs in her home, U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(12), resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment (level 42, category I). The Eighth Circuit vacated her sentence, noting that the government conceded that the court should not have applied the enhancement because the enhancement took effect two years after Grandison ceased her illegal activity; the error affected Grandison’s substantial rights. View "United States v. Grandison" on Justia Law

Menard operated a store in a building subleased from Wal-Mart. In 2006, Menard entered into a Purchase Agreement (PA) with Dial; Clauff signed as a managing member of Dial. Menard planned to build a store and wanted to be relieved of its obligations under the sublease. Menard and Dial agreed that Dial would assume responsibility for the sublease after Menard opened its new store. With Wal-Mart’s consent, DKC (Chauff's other LLC) and Menard executed an Assignment. Clauff purported to sign as a member of DKC. DKC did not file Articles of Organization until later. Clauff and Menard claim, but neither provided evidence, that DKC adopted the Assignment after the company formed. Menard remained secondarily liable. Menard opened its new store in 2008. When the Sublease expired in 2011, Wal-Mart was owed more than $700,000. Menard paid $350,000 and sued Dial, DKC, and Clauff. The district court granted summary judgment, finding Clauff liable under Nebraska Revised Statute 21-2635: "[a]ll persons who assume to act as a limited liability company without authority to do so shall be jointly and severally liable for all debts and liabilities of the company." The Eighth Circuit reversed for determination of whether common law or section 21-2635 preclude Clauff's argument that his liability may be avoided because DKC adopted the contract and commenced performance. View "Menard, Inc. v. Clauff" on Justia Law

In 2006, Robinson opened Paideia Academy, a non-profit charter St. Louis charter school. State and federal monies, disbursed through the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, exclusively funded the school, and were restricted to operating kindergarten through eighth grade. Robinson directed $242,533 from Paideia to develop a pre-kindergarten child care center. Robinson also worked, beginning in 1990, purporting to inspect parking meters. On weekly timesheets, he always recorded 40 hours, regardless of holidays, and even after parking meter services were outsourced. In 2009, the FBI investigated his “employment,” interviewing former Parking Division employees and watching Robinson’s car. They reasonably suspected that Robinson did not inspect meters. The agents installed, without a warrant, a GPS device on his car while parked on a public street. Tracking confirmed that Robinson did not inspect meters. The government charged Robinson with Paideia-related wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343; two Paideia-related counts of federal program theft, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(A); and five parking-related counts of federal program theft. The district court denied Robinson’s motion to suppress the GPS evidence, motion to sever counts 1-3 from counts 4-8, and Batson objection to the jury’s composition. At trial, the court rejected his challenges to certain testimony and parking-related jury instructions. The court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment and awarded $419,333 in restitution. The Eighth Circuit affirmed View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law