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

John Doe filed a putative class action against SSM Health Care Corporation in Missouri state court, alleging that SSM shared private health information with third-party marketing services without authorization, violating Missouri law. Doe claimed that SSM's MyChart patient portal transmitted personal health data to third-party websites like Facebook. The lawsuit included nine state law claims, such as violations of the Missouri Wiretap Statute and the Computer Tampering Act.SSM removed the case to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Doe moved to remand the case to state court. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri rejected SSM's arguments, ruling that SSM was not "acting under" a federal officer and that Doe's proposed class was limited to Missouri citizens, thus lacking the minimal diversity required under CAFA. The district court remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that SSM did not meet the criteria for federal officer removal because it was not acting under the direction of a federal officer. The court also held that the proposed class was limited to Missouri citizens, which destroyed the minimal diversity necessary for CAFA jurisdiction. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand order. View "Doe v. SSM Health Care Corporation" on Justia Law

Monsanto Company, Pharmacia, LLC, and Solutia, Inc. (collectively, "Monsanto") filed a lawsuit in St. Louis County Circuit Court in Missouri against Magnetek, Inc., General Electric Co. ("GE"), Paramount Global, KYOCERA AVX Components Corporation, Cornell Dubilier Electronics, Inc., and The Gillette Company LLC (collectively, "Defendants"). Monsanto alleged that it continues to incur substantial costs to defend against PCB lawsuits that should be borne by Defendants and sought to enforce written agreements obligating Defendants to defend, indemnify, and hold Monsanto harmless in all currently pending and future PCB lawsuits.GE removed the action to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Monsanto’s motion to remand, finding that GE's removal was untimely. GE appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the parties had waived Missouri Supreme Court Rule 54.13(c)’s personal service provision and expressly agreed that January 31, 2023, was the effective date for service of process. The court determined that the 30-day removal period began on the agreed effective date of service, not when GE signed the acknowledgment and waiver of service of process or when Monsanto filed the document. Consequently, GE's notice of removal was filed within the 30-day period, making the removal timely.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s order of remand and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court declined to address whether GE satisfies the government contractor requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), as this issue was not addressed by the district court. View "Monsanto Company v. General Electric Co." on Justia Law

Jason Kertz applied for social security disability benefits in October 2019, citing disabilities including PTSD, back and leg problems, and sleep apnea, with an onset date of March 16, 2018. His initial claim was denied, and an SSA administrative law judge (ALJ) also found him not disabled after a hearing. The SSA Appeals Council upheld this decision in February 2021. Kertz then hired attorney Nicholas Coleman to represent him in federal court. Coleman and Kertz agreed on a contingent-fee arrangement of 25% of any past-due benefits awarded.Coleman filed a civil action in the Eastern District of Arkansas, which resulted in the court remanding the case to the SSA for further proceedings. The district court awarded Coleman $5,426.08 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). On remand, the ALJ issued a Fully Favorable Decision in December 2022, finding Kertz disabled since the alleged onset date. The SSA notified Kertz of his entitlement to $96,349.00 in past-due benefits, withholding 25% as potential attorney fees. Coleman then sought 25% of the past-due benefits as per the contingent-fee agreement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted Coleman’s motion for attorney’s fees in part, awarding $10,667.50 instead of the requested $24,087.25. The court found that the full 25% fee was not reasonable given the circumstances, including the limited time Coleman spent on the case and the lack of substantive court review due to the unopposed remand.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the fee award, as it appropriately considered the reasonableness of the fee in light of the services rendered and avoided a windfall to the attorney. View "Kertz v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Jason Potter was charged with drug trafficking offenses after police seized drugs from his vehicle during a traffic stop. The stop occurred following an investigation at a motel in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, where police were conducting surveillance due to reports of drug activity and stolen vehicles. Potter and his associate, Daniel Dryden, were arrested after leaving the motel. An inventory search of Potter’s car, conducted after it was towed, revealed methamphetamine. Potter moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, and Potter was convicted and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Potter’s motion to suppress the evidence. A jury subsequently found Potter guilty on both counts of drug trafficking. The district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment. Dryden, who pleaded guilty, received a 36-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the timing of the traffic stop did not make the seizure unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as officers had probable cause based on an outstanding arrest warrant. The court also found that the inventory search of Potter’s car was reasonable and conducted according to standardized police procedures. Additionally, the court rejected Potter’s claim of vindictiveness in sentencing, noting that the district court provided valid reasons for the disparity between Potter’s and Dryden’s sentences. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied Potter’s appeal. View "United States v. Potter" on Justia Law

Larenzo Burnett pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. During sentencing, a dispute arose regarding whether Burnett’s prior conviction under Iowa Code § 708.6(2) was a "crime of violence," which would increase his base offense level. The probation office recommended the increase, but Burnett objected. The parties reached a sentencing agreement where Burnett withdrew his objection and stipulated that the prior conviction was for a crime of violence. The district court imposed a sentence of 99 months and 14 days in prison.Burnett later filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Burnett had not asked his attorney to file a notice of appeal within the 14-day period allowed by rule. Consequently, the court denied Burnett’s motion to vacate his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Burnett needed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced his defense. The court found that Burnett’s defense counsel testified credibly that Burnett never requested an appeal. The district court’s credibility determination was not clearly erroneous, as it was based on the observation of witness demeanor and the consistency of the testimony. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that there was no clear error in the finding that Burnett did not ask his attorney to file a notice of appeal. View "Burnett v. United States" on Justia Law

Four elderly sisters were accused of defrauding the United States by falsely claiming benefits under two federal programs. Each sister pled guilty to one count of conspiracy, preserving the right to appeal two pretrial rulings: the denial of a motion to suppress evidence and the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment for untimeliness.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the sisters lacked standing to challenge the search of a property because they had no possessory interest in it. The court also found that even if the search was unconstitutional, the affidavits supporting the search warrants still provided probable cause. The motion to dismiss the indictment was denied because the court held that the statute of limitations for mail fraud begins on the date of mailing, not the date of the last overt act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, agreeing that the affidavits were sufficient to support the search warrants even without the contested information. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, stating that the aiding and abetting mail fraud charges were filed within the five-year limitations period. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motions, as the alleged disputes of fact were immaterial to the legal conclusions.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, upholding the convictions and sentences of the four sisters. View "United States v. Charles" on Justia Law

Marcus Todd, a state employee in Minnesota, alleged that a union violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by deducting union dues from his paycheck without his consent. Todd joined the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees in 2014 and authorized dues deductions. In 2018, a new authorization card was allegedly signed electronically with Todd's name, which he claims was forged. After the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, Todd attempted to resign from the union and stop dues deductions, but the union continued until May 2021, citing an annual opt-out period.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Todd's federal claims, stating that he voluntarily agreed to the dues deductions before Janus and was contractually bound to the opt-out period. The court also found that the union did not act under color of state law regarding the alleged forgery and dismissed Todd's claims for prospective relief as moot. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Todd's state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Todd's claims failed due to the lack of state action, as the union's actions were based on private agreements, not state statutes. The court referenced Hoekman v. Education Minnesota and Burns v. School Service Employees Union Local 284, which established that private agreements for dues deductions do not constitute state action. The court also found that the alleged forgery did not establish state action, as it was a private misuse of state law. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Todd v. AFSCME" on Justia Law

Douglas Turner was convicted of possession of child pornography. He appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that his statements during a May 2018 interrogation should have been suppressed because he was subjected to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. At the time of the interrogation, Turner was an inmate and was interviewed by an FBI agent and a Bureau of Prisons investigator about a cell phone found in his bunk.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied Turner's motion to suppress, concluding that he was not in custody during the interview. The court found that Turner was informed he did not have to answer questions and was not in custody, and that the interview was conducted in a non-coercive manner. A jury subsequently convicted Turner, and the district court imposed a sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal determination on "custody" de novo. The appellate court held that Turner was not in custody for purposes of Miranda during the interview. The court noted that Turner was informed he did not have to answer questions, the interview was conducted in a non-coercive environment, and Turner was returned to his normal prison life afterward. The court concluded that a reasonable inmate in Turner's position would have felt free to terminate the interview and return to his housing unit. Therefore, the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed, and the judgment was upheld. View "U.S. v. Turner" on Justia Law

F.B. and M.B. filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their minor child, L.B., under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and School failed to comply with procedural standards and requirements mandated by the Act's implementing regulations. L.B. had ADHD and reduced vision, and her parents claimed that the school initially provided necessary accommodations but later failed to do so after a change in school administration. This led to L.B. receiving failing grades and eventually being expelled from the school.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the case, holding that Section 504 does not create a private right of action for claims based solely on an alleged failure to comply with procedural standards and requirements of the implementing regulations. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring their claims. The court found that the plaintiffs' alleged injury, L.B.'s expulsion, was not fairly traceable to the school's failure to comply with the procedural regulations of Section 504. Additionally, the court determined that the relief sought by the plaintiffs would not redress their alleged injury. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "F.B. v. Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and School" on Justia Law

In January 2021, an individual wearing a black sweatsuit and a face mask robbed a Steak 'n Shake restaurant, holding the manager, Richard Payne, at gunpoint and taking money from the safe and cash registers. Payne identified the robber as Jonathan Davis, a former employee, based on his attire. Davis was later arrested wearing a similar outfit, and a red iPhone was seized from him. Davis claimed he was at a hotel talking to his girlfriend during the robbery. Investigators obtained a search warrant for the phone, which revealed incriminating evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Davis's motion to suppress the phone evidence, finding the warrant supported by probable cause and applicable under the good-faith exception. The court also denied Davis's motion to strike Juror No. 40, who had been a victim of a similar crime, and excluded defense testimony about a car Davis received as a gift after the robbery, deeming it irrelevant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also upheld the decision to retain Juror No. 40, finding no abuse of discretion and rejecting the implied bias argument. Lastly, the court affirmed the exclusion of the defense testimony regarding the car, agreeing that it was not relevant to the case.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err in its rulings and affirmed the judgment, maintaining Davis's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law