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

This case arose after the City of Redfield and Quam entered into a construction contract and issues arose regarding the subsurface ground conditions. On appeal, Quam challenged the district court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration for contract disputes between Quam and the City. The court concluded that the district court properly found that no agreement to arbitrate was made between the parties and, therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Quam's motion to compel.View "Quam Construction Co., Inc. v. City of Redfield" on Justia Law

Noel Bisges represented debtor in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. United States Trustee Nancy Gargula moved to reopen the case after it was closed because she learned that debtor possibly failed to disclose in her bankruptcy petition that she owns horses. On appeal, Bisges challenged the district court's decision upholding the bankruptcy court's denial of Bisges's motion to dismiss and the imposition of sanctions against him. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where there is insufficient evidence of bad faith by Gargula. Further, the court saw no clear error in the bankruptcy judge's findings that Bisges advised debtor to omit from her bankruptcy petition a payment to her mother and Bisges violated 11 U.S.C. 707(b)(4)(C) by attaching to the bankruptcy petition schedules that significantly differed from the schedules that debtor had signed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "Bisges v. Gargula" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants alleging that defendants breached a contract for legal services, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The district court granted defendants' motion to transfer the legal malpractice suit to the District of Nebraska. The district court subsequently denied plaintiffs' motion to retransfer and concluded that plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. Plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that, because the malpractice occurred exclusively in the District of Nebraska, there was no error in concluding that the Southern District of Iowa was an improper venue. Further, this issue is governed by the Nebraska, the transferee forum, choice-of-law principles. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment applying Nebraska's legal malpractice statute of limitations in ruling that plaintiffs' claim was time-barred.View "Steen v. Murray" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a mixture containing methamphetamine and use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. Defendant contended that the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations and failed to advise him of the maximum sentence for the drug trafficking crime. Defendant did not object to any purported Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 errors at the district court. The court concluded, under plain error review, that whether the district court's comments constituted improper participation in plea negotiations is a close call under Rule 11(c)(1). Assuming improper participation, defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for the Rule 11 errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his residence and the application of a sentencing enhancement. An officer had permitted defendant's girlfriend to reenter the residence to get dressed. After officers located the assault rifle in plain view, the girlfriend consented to a search of the house. The court concluded that the girlfriend's consent was sufficient to justify a warrantless search, and the rest of the evidence seized pursuant to the consent search was properly admitted against defendant. The court concluded, however, that defendant's conviction for attempted second degree burglary in Missouri does not constitute a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing. The court's decision concerning section 924(e) does not address the separate question of whether defendant qualifies as a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, given that the definition of "crime of violence" in U.S.S.G. 4B1.2 and its commentary specifically includes attempting to commit a crime of violence.View "United States v. Reid" on Justia Law

Debtors filed a pro se Chapter 13 bankruptcy in order to stop a pending foreclosure of their residential unit. On appeal, debtors challenged the bankruptcy court's order denying their motion for violation of an automatic stay, violation of a homestead exemption, violation of discharge, and creditor misconduct. Debtors also challenged the order dismissing their case and imposing a 180-day refiling. The panel concluded that debtors failed to provide the panel with transcripts of the relevant hearings pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006 and 8009(b). Even if the panel were able to ascertain from debtors' briefs on appeal what factual errors, if any, they assert the bankruptcy court committed, the panel was unable to review the bankruptcy court's orders where debtors failed to provide an adequate record of the bankruptcy court's decision. To the extent the panel can consider debtors' legal arguments without having been provided with their factual basis, none of those legal arguments have merit. Accordingly, panel affirmed the orders.View "Carlson v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for supplemental security income where the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled because he could perform jobs a vocational expert (VE) identified in response to a hypothetical posed by the ALJ. The court agreed with plaintiff that the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict between the physical limitations described by the ALJ in his hypothetical and the requirements of the jobs the VE identified, as listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.View "Moore, Jr. v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Hong Kong, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of withholding of removal. Petitioner claimed that she suffered past persecution based on her membership in a particular group, "Chinese daughters [who are] viewed as property by virtue of their position within a domestic relationship." The IJ assumed that petitioner suffered past persecution on account of membership in the particular social group she identified, but concluded that the government had rebutted the presumption by showing a fundamental change in circumstances. The court denied the petition, concluding that substantial evidence supported the IJ's determination that petitioner's age was a fundamental change in circumstances such that her life or freedom would not be threatened if she returned to Hong Kong.View "Hui v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Minnesota inmate, sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied IFP status and dismissed the complaint because plaintiff had three strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The third case the district court relied on was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(2) after it was determined that the only named defendant was entitled to prosecutorial immunity. The court held that dismissals based on immunity are not among the types of dismissals listed as strikes in section 1915(g) and, therefore, the dismissal of this action is not a strike under section 1915(g). Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.View "Castillo-Alvarez v. Krukow" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and to launder money. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his evidentiary hearing, claiming that the government improperly refused to move to reduce his sentence for a previous conviction. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where defendant failed to make a substantial threshold showing that the government acted in bad faith by refusing to move for a sentence reduction under Rule 35(b). The court also denied defendant's motion for sanctions against the Assistant United States Attorney where defendant failed to establish that she displayed conduct unbecoming a member of the bar, and to recall the mandate. The court granted defendant's motion for judicial notice of the documents at issue.View "United States v. Marks" on Justia Law