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

Defendant appealed his conviction of disaster fraud and making a false statement. Defendant had submitted an online application for disaster assistance for a residence in Joplin, Missouri that he had never lived at or signed a lease for. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of disaster fraud and making a false statement. View "United States v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Fastpath, an Iowa corporation, filed suit against Arbela, a California services and software corporation, for breach of a mutual confidentiality agreement. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Arbela where the nature, quality, and quantity of Arbela's contacts with Iowa were not sufficient to demonstrate purposeful availment of the forum state. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Technologies Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering his adopted special needs son, appealed the district court's denial of post-conviction relief based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. Petitioner contended that he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel because counsel inadequately advised him about whether to disclose the location of the boy's body and then disclosed the location of the body during the bond review hearing. The court concluded that the state court did not render a decision that was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established law where counsel's actions reflected a legitimate trial strategy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Boss, Jr. v. Ludwick" on Justia Law

After a fatal accident, plaintiffs filed suit against the tractor-trailer driver, the truck driver's employer (Fresh Start), the company that leased the tractor, the husband and wife who owned Fresh Start, and the company that owned the two trailers the tractor was pulling (FedEx). The district court granted FedEx's motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that the district court applied the proper standard under Nebraska law, carefully considered the control factor, and concluded that there was no evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Fresh Start was FedEx's employee; because FedEx was not acting as a motor carrier, it had no duty - nondelegable or otherwise - to require that the driver observe his Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) duties by reason of 49 C.F.R. 390.11; plaintiffs failed to establish a negligent entrustment claim where there was no evidence that FedEx was aware of facts permitting a reasonable jury to find that it knew or should have known that the driver was not a properly certified driver; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' untimely motion for leave to amend their complaint. View "Harris, et al. v. FedEx National LTL, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, CEO of Roxio, Inc., filed suit against Best Buy and Napster for breach of contract. The contract dispute arose out of Best Buy's refusal to pay plaintiff a performance award under an Award Agreement. The district court considered only the pleadings and matters embraced therein. The court held that the district court's reliance upon the Award Agreement did not convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court need not address plaintiff's subsequent argument that the district court erred by failing to defer the motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(d) to allow him to conduct meaningful discovery. Further, plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim was foreclosed by the language of the Award Agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Gorog v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the EPA seeking to impose emission-control technology on NSP's Sherco power plant. NSP moved to intervene but the district court denied the motion. The court concluded that NSP has sufficient Article III standing to intervene. Moreover, NSP's interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties and, thus, NSP is entitled to intervene as a right under Rule 24(a). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to enter an order granting NSP's motion for leave to intervene as of right. View "National Parks Conservation, et al. v. Northern States Power Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, both individually and as the administrator of Bradley Gladden's estate, filed suit against officers and the police chief, alleging that the officers violated Bradley's rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-101 et seq., as well as committed the tort of wrongful death under the Arkansas Wrongful Death Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-62-101 et seq. Bradley had requested that the officers give him a ride to his sister's house in the next county because he was intoxicated, but the officers instead left him at an isolated off-ramp at the county line, which was the edge of the officers' jurisdiction. The officers instructed Bradley to seek help at a nearby factory. Bradley ended up dying of hypothermia a half-mile from the drop-off, in the opposite direction of the factory. Where the Fourteenth Amendment generally does not give private citizens a constitutional right to police assistance, the court concluded that plaintiff could not establish that a special relationship existed because Bradley accepted a ride from the officers and was sober enough to make this decision rationally; and Bradley cannot avail himself of the constitutional right to police assistance based on a custodial relationship with the state. The court also concluded that Bradley's official capacity claims failed where, assuming that it was the Police Department's custom to give rides to persons in its jurisdictions, plaintiff could not demonstrate an affirmative duty of care. Consequently, plaintiff's state law claims also failed. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity, in granting official immunity to all defendants, and dismissing the state-law claims. View "Gladden, Jr. v. Richbourg, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Mellon, seeking to represent a class of Arkansas homeowners facing non-judicial foreclosures by Mellon. After plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to remand to state court and then granted Mellon's motion to dismiss, the district court awarded Mellon costs despite Mellon's failure to file a verified affidavit substantiating the costs. The court concluded that 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1)'s one-year removal limitation is inapplicable in this case based on 28 U.S.C. 1453(b). Therefore, Mellon was not required to remove this class action within one year of plaintiff's original complaint. Because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the only named plaintiff was a citizen of Arkansas at the time of commencement and removal, and no defendant is a citizen of Arkansas, this class action falls within the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1332(a). Plaintiff's challenge to the district court's dismissal of his complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) was foreclosed by the court's decision in Rivera v. JPMorgan Chase Bank. Finally, the district court legally erred in awarding costs to Mellon where Mellon provided no affidavit substantiating the costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to remand and dismiss the case, but reversed the award of costs and remanded with instructions. View "Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, falsely accused of rape and jailed for seventeen days, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County and police officers. Plaintiff alleged that the officers failed to account for certain evidence defendant claimed was exculpatory, both in investigating the claim and in drafting an affidavit used to obtain an arrest warrant. The court concluded that the officers' decision to focus on other investigative leads rather than pursue tenuous, circumstantial, and potentially biased testimony from bar patrons neither shocks the conscience nor indicates recklessness; the officers' reaction to the investigator's suspicion of the photos of the victim demonstrated the even-handedness of their investigation where they soon called in a forensic nurse and then confronted the victim; and plaintiff's remaining allegations of reckless failures on the part of the officers was without merit. Further, plaintiff failed to show any omissions in the affidavit that demonstrated that the officers were reckless. Without a constitutional violation by the officers, there can be no liability for the county. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, which found no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers committed any constitutional violations. View "Hawkins v. Gage County, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant was not entitled to a justification defense and the district court did not clearly err in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6) based on its finding that defendant possessed the firearm in connection with another felony. Further, defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robison" on Justia Law