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

Oliver was manager and part-owner of PSC. Oliver and PSC sought to refinance property on Lake Superior. Meecorp required additional collateral. Oliver identified 14 other income-producing properties and his interest in each. The sum of the “Oliver values” was more than $1 million. Gandolf, owned by Oliver and PSC, supplied: cash-flow projections, the value of Oliver’s interests, member-control agreements, certificates of good standing, and Schedule K-1s for Gandolf-owned LLCs associated with each property. Gandolf did not supply the deeds of ownership. Meecorp concluded that Oliver, individually, could not pledge adequate collateral for a loan of $1.32 million, having no direct interest in the properties. Meecorp requested that Gandolf, as owner of the remaining governance rights and the 100% owner of the financial rights, pledge its interests in the LLCs. Oliver, as Gandolf’s representative, signed the pledge. Meecorp delivered the funds. Oliver and PSC defaulted. Meecorp learned that neither Oliver nor Gandolf’s LLCs owned the pledged properties; Gandolf’s LLCs were general partners in undisclosed limited partnerships that owned each property. Undisclosed limited partners owned up to 99.99% of the equity in the properties; limited-partnership organizational documents prohibited the general partners (LLCs) from pledging their interests without consent. Meecorp sued. The district court granted Meecorp summary judgment on its breach-of-the-note claim against PSC and its breach-of-guaranty claim against Oliver, awarding $2,366,191.88, and entered judgment against Gandolf for breach-of-the-guaranty and against Gandolf, Oliver, and PSC for fraud. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Meecorp Capital Mkts., LLC v. Oliver" on Justia Law

DEA officers believed Gunnell was selling methamphetamine and asked Springfield Sgt. Meyer to “develop probable cause” to stop Gunnell and search his person and his motorcycle. Meyer contacted K-9 Officer Tjelmeland and asked him to be available in the surveillance area with his drug dog, Raider. Gunnell was seen placing a blue bag in his motorcycle’s saddlebag. Meyer followed Gunnell for almost a mile. Meyer testified that Gunnell was traveling 41 or 42 miles per hour, at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. Meyer stopped Gunnell’s motorcycle and asked for identification. Other officers arrived. Gunnell did not have his driver’s license, so the officers took his information, ran his name through the system, and learned that Gunnell did not have a motorcycle designation and that there were no warrants for his arrest. Meyer asked for consent to search Gunnell’s person and motorcycle. Gunnell declined. Meyer conducted a pat-down and placed Gunnell in handcuffs. Tjelmeland arrived with Raider, who alerted near the saddlebag. Tjelmeland and Meyer searched the motorcycle. The bag contained approximately one pound of methamphetamine, baggies, and digital scales. The court denied Gunnell’s motion to suppress. He was sentenced to 240 months. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Gunnell" on Justia Law

Atterberry and his co-defendant came in contact with law enforcement seven times over two years through traffic stops, the execution of search warrants, and a controlled buy. Each time, officers seized methamphetamine; more than 54 grams of methamphetamine were seized over the two-year period, with more than $20,000 in cash. The government presented evidence that this amount of cash translated to 496 grams of methamphetamine. Atterberry admitted obtaining a quarter- to a half-pound of methamphetamine twice per week for the previous two years. DEA also interviewed Zeugin, who likewise estimated she and Atterberry purchased between a quarter- and half-pound twice per week over a two-year period. Atterberry pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with the intent to distribute, methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and 851, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, sections 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 851. After assessing other sentencing enhancements, the district court found Atterberry’s sentencing Guidelines range was 360 months to life. Acknowledging that much of its drug-quantity determination was based on estimates, however, the court imposed a sentence of 240 months. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. . View "United States v. Atterberry" on Justia Law

PIC sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether PIC was required to defend and indemnify its insured, LSi, a computer and technology company with respect to a lawsuit filed by Hodell, concerning business software developed and sold by LS. The district court found LSi did not have coverage under either of its consecutive policies with PIC because it did not provide notice of Hodell’s claims or potential claims to PIC as required. There were regular email references to possible legal action as early as March, 2007. On November 21, 2008, Hodell filed suit against LSi. On December 8, 2008, LSi first notified PIC of Hodell’s claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of PIC, reasoning that a claim was made while the 2007 policy was in place, but LSi did not properly give notice under that policy. View "Philadelphia Cons. Holding Corp. v. Hodell-Natco Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Gibson, an African-American male, was hired by the IRS on January 1, 2008, as a full-time seasonal tax examiner, subject to completion of a one-year probationary period. Gibson's work leader was an African-American female. Gibson's first-level supervisor was Butler, an African-American female; Gibson's second-level supervisor was Hunter, an African-American female. Gibson's third-level supervisor was Vermillion, a Caucasian female. In his unit, there were 32 employees; 18 were probationary. Of the 18, four were African-Americans, 12 were Caucasian, and two were Hispanic. Six were female and 12 were male. Gibson was the only African-American male. During his probation, Gibson was observed to not be editing entire bundles of returns, mislabeling bundles, recording working hours he was not present, and improperly altering a government document. Butler prohibited Gibson from working overtime. Gibson claimed he was being unfairly targeted by Butler. Gibson's work product, subject to 100% review, revealed an unacceptable error rate. In April, Gibson delivered a letter to Jones, titled "Sexual Harassment, Retaliation, Harassment, and Creating a Hostile Environment, by Manager Ms. Felecia Butler." Hunter reported that the letter’s allegations were unfounded. Vermillion terminated Gibson based on Gibson's failure to attain successful performance during his probation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the IRS, rejecting race and sex discrimination and retaliatory termination claims. View "Gibson v. Geithner" on Justia Law

During a fight in 2007, Delonais stabbed Addai's friend. Addai stabbed Delonais, who died as a result of his injuries. Addai was convicted of class AA felony murder, ND Code 12.1-16-01(1)(a). At trial, Addai's attorney called as a witness the attorney of another individual who had been involved in the stabbing investigation, to testify regarding alleged tampering with evidence and obstruction of the Delonais murder investigation. Before testifying, Lange explained that he was uncomfortable testifying because there could be topics that were protected by attorney-client privilege or not public knowledge. Asked to testify about his client's criminal file, he objected and advised the court that the file was sealed. The trial court closed the courtroom. Addai's counsel stated he did not "have a problem with this" and the court allowed Addai's attorney to question the witness further regarding the restricted information. After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, Addai sought habeas relief, arguing that courtroom closure during his state court trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel consented to the closure. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly denied Addai's petition. View "Addai v. Schmalenberger" on Justia Law

Ali is a native of Somalia and member of the Tumal clan, which he describes as a "minority clan" that is "small and weak" compared to other Somali clans. In 2009, Ali arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border and applied for admission to the U.S. Ali provided a sworn statement to a DHS officer, testifying that members of the Hawiye clan persecuted him in 2003 and 2009. After a "credible fear interview," DHS commenced removal proceedings, alleging that Ali had willfully misrepresented material facts to procure entry and was removable under sections 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Ali filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied Ali's applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review. Ali's inconsistent testimony and lack of corroborating evidence provided the requisite "significant evidence" to support the IJ's adverse credibility determination. View "Ali v. Holder" on Justia Law

After the 1998 merger of NationsBank and BankAmerica formed Bank of America, shareholders filed class actions alleging violations of securities laws. The cases were resolved when the court approved a $490 million global settlement, overruling an objection by NationsBank class representative Oetting that allocating $333.2 million to those classes was inadequate because their claims had greater merit than the claims of the BankAmerica Classes. After a 2004 distribution and a court-ordered second distribution of $4.75 million to NationsBank claimants in 2009, $2,440,108.53 remained. In 2012, class counsel for the NationsBank Classes moved to terminate the case with respect to those classes, to award class counsel $98,114.34 in attorneys’ fees for work done after the 2004 distribution and to distribute cy pres the remainder of the “surplus settlement funds” to charities suggested by class counsel. The district court granted the motion over Oetting’s objections and ordered “that the balance of the NationsBank Classes settlement fund shall be distributed cy pres to the Legal Services of Eastern Missouri.” The Eighth Circuit vacated and reversed; a further distribution to the classes is feasible, and LSEM is unrelated to the classes or the litigation and is an inappropriate “next best” cy pres recipient. View "Oetting v. Green Jacobson, P.C." on Justia Law

In 1990, Magee was hired as a professor at Hamline University School of Law. She became tenured in 1994. In 2009, Magee was charged with felony state tax violations. While her case was pending, Hamline placed her on a leave of absence and relieved her of teaching responsibilities. In 2011, a jury found Magee guilty of four misdemeanor counts of failure to file state tax returns. The convictions were upheld on appeal. After the dean initiated her termination, a faculty committee voted in favor of discharge. Magee was terminated on July 21, 2011. Magee filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. In 2013, Magee served a second lawsuit, alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, which “offers relief when racial discrimination blocks the creation of a contractual relationship, as well as when racial discrimination impairs an existing contractual relationship,” The district court dismissed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that because Magee’s section 1983 claim in Magee I and the section 1981 claim “arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions,” the section 1981 claim should have been raised in Magee I and was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.. View "Magee v. Hamline Univ." on Justia Law

After series of problems arising between Dr. Fatemi and other program residents and coworkers at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), including reported failure to comply with regulatory standards that require a complete history and physical evaluation in the medical record prior to surgery or within 24 hours of admission, the UAMS program terminated Fatemi, a female second-year neurosurgery resident. Fatemi sued UAMS and several of its employees, asserting, among other things, gender discrimination. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Fatemi's arguments concerning pretext. While there was an atmosphere of contentiousness and discord between Fatemi and her coworkers during her residency, there was no evidence that the discord was the product of intentional gender discrimination. A reasonable jury could come to only one conclusion on gender discrimination after considering all the undisputed material facts, and considering the few disputed facts in Fatemi's favor. She lost her place at UAMS because of her many professional shortcomings as a resident, not because she is a woman. View "Fatemi v. White" on Justia Law