Free Newsletter
8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 16, 2023
Minnesota Lawyer//August 17, 2023
Administrative
Copyright Infringement
AWCPA; Finishing Uncompleted Building
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its complaint. Plaintiff was an architectural firm hired to design a building. Plaintiff obtained copyright protection under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act for its technical drawings and the building. The building’s owner later filed for bankruptcy, and the uncompleted building was sold to the mortgagee, which in turn assigned the building to defendant. After defendant began completing construction, plaintiff filed suit. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff had failed to allege any copying and that its claims were barred by res judicata.
Where the bankruptcy court’s order directed the sale of the building free and clear of plaintiff’s copyright, plaintiff’s infringement claims failed as a matter of law.
Loken, J., concurring: “In addition, I would affirm the district court’s rulings that the Building owner’s right to alter or destroy the building granted in the AWCPA includes a bona fide purchaser’s right to complete the unfinished Building, and that completion of the Building did not “copy” the Building by creating an unauthorized derivative work.”
Judgment is affirmed.
Electricity Supplier
Challenge to Denial of Rate Increase; Motion to Intervene
Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc., appealed the denial of its motion to intervene in the present action. Plaintiff, an electricity supplier, filed suit against defendant Arkansas Public Service Commission to challenge the commission’s denial of plaintiff’s request for approval of a rate increase. The commission denied the increase at AEEC’s urging. The district court denied AEEC’s motion to intervene in the action. On appeal, AEEC appealed the denial of intervention as of right.
Where any “injury” that would result from plaintiff winning its challenge would be felt by all Arkansas residents, not just AEEC members, and where the commission’s interest in defending against plaintiff’s suit was aligned with AEEC’s interests, there was no error in denying its intervention where it failed to show that the commission could not adequately protect AEEC’s interest.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Practice
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act
Jurisdiction; Indian Tribes
Where appellant challenged a tribal court’s exercise of jurisdiction in a custody matter involving his minor daughter, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act does not apply to Indian tribes, and the tribe was not required to enforce a North Dakota court order concerning custody of the child.
Judgment is affirmed.
Res Judicata
Stop Work Order
Where appellant brought an action for damages incurred while a stop work order was in place concerning its property development, the district court correctly found that the defense of res judicata was timely asserted and that it applied, and the order granting summary judgment is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Rights
§1983
Excessive Force; State Created Danger
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. De’Angelo Brown was a passenger in a car involved in a car chase with police. Brown was shot and killed when officers tried to stop the car. Plaintiff, Brown’s estate, sued the police department and the officers involved, asserting claims of excessive force and state-created danger. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on grounds of qualified immunity and because Brown had not been “seized.”
Where the driver of Brown’s vehicle led police on a high-speed chase, ran over an officer’s leg, and was veering towards other officers, the police acted reasonably in deploying deadly force. In addition, it was the driver, not police, who put Brown in the dangerous situation.
Judgment is affirmed.
§1983
Medical Treatment by Unlicensed Personnel; Unsanitary Conditions of Confinement
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his §1983 action alleging claims based on medical treatment by unlicensed prison staff and on unsanitary prison conditions.
Although plaintiff failed to state a claim based on medical treatment rendered by unlicensed staff, he stated a sufficient claim for alleged respiratory conditions caused by mold exposure during his detention, which plaintiff had advised prison officials about.
Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Adverse Summary Judgment
Inmate Action
Where an Arkansas inmate challenged an adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se civil rights action, there was no basis for reversal.
Judgment is affirmed.
Pretrial Custody
Deliberate Indifference; Disability Discrimination
Where a plaintiff, who was held in pretrial custody, sued a county official alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of confinement and disability discrimination, the deliberate indifference claim failed because no reasonable jury could find that the jail deliberately disregarded the paralyzed plaintiff’s serious medical needs, and the conditions of confinement claim also failed because nothing in the record showed a pervasive or widespread custom or practice at the jail, but triable issues remained on the plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the ADA, so the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Judgment is affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Shooting of Dog
Unconstitutional ‘Seizure’; Municipal Liability
Plaintiffs sued a police officer and the officer’s department after the officer shot plaintiffs’ dog during an encounter. Plaintiffs argued that the officer committed an unconstitutional “seizure” by shooting their dog and that the department’s policies and customs led to the officer’s conduct. The district court granted defendants summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity.
Where the dog charged the officer in an aggressive manner after plaintiffs failed to control the dog, the officer’s decision to fire at the dog to protect himself and his colleague was reasonable under the circumstances.
Judgment is affirmed.
Title IX Claim
Deliberate Indifference; Student Sexual Assault
Where a college board of trustees appealed a jury verdict finding that it acted with deliberate indifference after a female student was sexually assaulted, uncontradicted evidence showed that the school acted promptly after learning of the assault, and the school’s actions were extensive and substantive and directed to protect and assist the plaintiff, and the evidence did not show a causal connection between the school’s actions and the sexual assault, so the judgment in favor of the student is reversed and remanded to enter judgment in favor of the school and to vacate the award of attorney fees.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Whistleblower Claim
First Amendment; Discovery Rulings
Where a terminated police officer sued the city and various officials claiming free speech and Whistleblower Act violations, the plaintiff did not file a motion to compel the continuation of a deposition that was cut short and did not show that the shortened deposition was prejudicial, and the plaintiff failed to show an abuse of discretion from the district court’s discovery rulings, and the court also did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for further discovery before granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the judgment is affirmed because the summary judgment record showed that the plaintiff was not engaging in First Amendment protected speech when he gave a video of a police pursuit to a fellow officer, and a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of proof to show that his report was made in good faith to support an Arkansas whistleblower claim.
Judgment is affirmed.
Contracts
Pipeline Easements
Breach of Contract; Arbitration Clause
Defendant appealed the district court’s ruling on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Defendant entered contracts with landowners to secure easements for defendant’s natural gas pipeline. Several landowners filed a class action suit alleging defendant breached the contracts by damaging their crops without compensation. Defendants moved to compel arbitration for landowners whose easement contracts contained arbitration provisions. The district court ruled that those landowners had agreed to arbitrate some but not all their claims. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in not sending all issues to arbitration.
Where the issues carved out by the district court for continued litigation were integral to the issues that had been referred to arbitration, the district court erred in allowing plaintiffs whose contracts contained an arbitration clause to continue litigating some of their claims in court instead of completely dismissing them from the action in lieu of arbitration.
Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Criminal Law
Assault of a Federal Officer
Investigation of State Crimes; Assistance of Other Officers
Defendant appealed his convictions for assault on a federal officer and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, after defendant got into an altercation with state law enforcement officers that ended with defendant pointing a rifle at the officers. On appeal, defendant argued that the lead officer, who was deputized to a federal task force, was investigating a state law offense and thus the assault statute did not apply. Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence showing that other officers had assisted the lead officer.
Where the officer had also received a tip about possible possession of automatic weapons, the officer was engaged in investigation of a state law offense and a federal firearms offense as an ATF task force officer, and the other officers provided enough supplemental help to prove that they were assisting the lead officer in the performance of his official federal duties.
Judgment is affirmed.
Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs
Supervised Release; Sex Offender Treatment Obligation
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed the revocation of his supervised release. Defendant was sentenced to supervised release following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs. The district court imposed sex offender treatment as a special condition of defendant’s supervised release because he had recently been released on a sex offense conviction. However, defendant refused sex offender treatment on grounds that it was unrelated to his drug charge and had his supervised release revoked. Defendant appealed that revocation and began supervised release, again failing to abide by terms of his release because he believed they did not pertain to his drug offense. The district court imposed another revocation sentence.
Where the district court could impose conditions of supervised release that related to a defendant’s prior offenses, there was no abuse of discretion in requiring defendant to participate in sex offender treatment as a condition of his supervised release from a drug conviction since defendant had prior sex offenses.
Judgment is affirmed.
Drug Conspiracy
Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug conspiracy, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. On appeal, defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where defendant’s challenge fell within the scope of his appeal waiver, the court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Indictment of Investigating Officer; Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After pleading guilty being a felon in possession of a firearm, defendant moved to withdraw his plea after learning that the detective who testified at his suppression hearing had been indicted for crimes relating to an on-duty shooting, claiming that the failure to disclose this information affected his decision to plead guilty and his ability to litigate his suppression motion.
Where the detective’s indictment would have only marginally improved defendant’s chances of succeeding on his suppression motion, there was no error in denying defendant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea.
Judgment is affirmed.
Guilty Plea
Withdrawal; Sentencing
(1) Where a defendant appealed her conviction for aiding and abetting kidnapping, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment is affirmed over her challenges to the jury instructions and evidence.
(2) Where a defendant in a kidnapping case appealed his conviction for being a prohibited person in possession of firearms, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and the court properly denied a request for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction at sentencing.
Judgment is affirmed.
Illegal Procurement of Naturalization
False Statements; Materiality
Defendant appealed her conviction for illegally procuring her naturalization by making false statements during the application process. On appeal, defendant argued that the government had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her false statements were material or made “under oath.”
Where the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that defendant’s application statements were made to obtain an immigration benefit for her spouse, who was unable to obtain visas to enter the U.S., her false statements were material, and it was standard procedure to place applicants under oath during naturalization interviews.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession of Firearm by Felon
Admission of 911 Calls; Running Sentence with State Sentence
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. On appeal, defendant challenged the admission of 911 calls and argued that the district court committed procedural error by failing to run his sentence concurrent with a potential state sentence.
Where the 911 calls were relevant to prove that defendant possessed a weapon, there was no error in admitting the recordings despite the highly shocking nature of the call that was also prejudicial to defendant. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was insufficient likelihood from the mere filing of state charges to create an “anticipated” state sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession of Firearm by Felon
Motion to Suppress Evidence; Armed Career Criminal
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sentence imposed by the district court after it designated him an armed career criminal. Defendant argued that his detention was unreasonable because it was motivated by mistaken identity and thus any evidence discovered during his detention was inadmissible.
Where the totality of the circumstances led police to reasonably believe that the target of their investigation was in the surveilled vehicle, defendant’s detention was reasonable and evidence obtained therefrom was admissible. Defendant was also correctly designated an armed career criminal because his vehicular hijacking conviction qualified as a crime of violence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Career Offender; Sentencing Enhancements
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute. Defendant challenged his designation as a career offender and the district court’s imposition of sentencing enhancements for possession of a dangerous weapon and reckless endangerment in the course of fleeing from law enforcement.
Where defendant’s arguments in support of his challenge to his career offender designation were barred by circuit precedent, there was no sentencing error where there was sufficient evidence to prove that defendant possessed a gun and recklessly endangered police officers attempting to arrest him by fighting with them and trying to grab one of their tasers.
Judgment is affirmed.
Racketeering
Underlying Activity; Cross-Reference
Defendants appealed the sentences imposed following their guilty plea to racketeering conspiracy and other charges related to their activities with a street gang. Defendants argued that the trial court erred in treating assault with a dangerous weapon as an underlying racketeering activity, applying an attempted murder cross-reference, and applying a three-level increase for an aggravating role.
Where the district court relied on attempted murder, not assault with a dangerous weapon, as the underlying racketeering activity, there was no error in applying the cross-reference. However, there was insufficient evidence to prove that one defendant aided and abetted attempted murder. The district court otherwise did not err in sentencing defendants.
Judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Violation of Conditions; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release, arguing that there was insufficient evidence for the district court to find that he had violated the conditions of his release.
Where the evidence was enough for the district court to find that defendant violated at least one of the conditions of his supervised release, the district court did not err in revoking defendant’s release.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Career Offender; Offer-To-Sell Offense
Where three defendants challenged their sentences after pleading guilty to federal controlled substance offenses, the sentences of defendant Campos and defendant Watson are vacated and remanded because their prior offer-to-sell convictions did not qualify as predicate offenses for the career offender enhancement, and the government did not meet its burden on the enhancements of obstruction of justice and making a violent threat as to the third defendant, so her sentence is vacated to be resentenced on the existing record.
Vacated; remanded.
Sentencing
Revocation Sentence
Where a defendant appealed the imposition of sentence following the revocation of supervised release, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied the right to allocute, and the district court did not err in inferring that the defendant intended to use internet capable devices to connect to the internet, so the judgment is affirmed since the court also adequately explained its basis for an upward variance, and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sex Trafficking
Failure to Disclose Impeachment Material; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed his conviction on charges relating to his efforts to engage in sex trafficking of two victims. On appeal, defendant argued that the government failed to disclose impeachment material regarding one of the victims and that the district court erred in denying a mistrial when a government agent allegedly coached the victim regarding the impeachment evidence. Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence.
Where defendant learned of the impeachment material during trial and used it to impeach the victim, there was no Brady violation, and there was no need for a mistrial as defendant successfully impeached the victim using the material and any claims of coaching were speculative. The victims’ testimony also provided sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction.
Judgment is affirmed.
Supervised Release
Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where the sentence was within the Guidelines range and the district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors, the sentence was presumptively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
Unlawful Possession of Firearm as Felon
Prior Violent Felonies; Exclusion of Testimony
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. On appeal, defendant challenged the exclusion of plea hearing testimony that defendant contended was exculpatory. Defendant further challenged the constitutionality of his offense of conviction. Finally, defendant argued that the district court erred in sentencing him as an armed career criminal due to three prior “violent felony” convictions.
Where the excluded plea hearing testimony was not against the witness’s penal interest and the witness had a motivation to lie and suffered from credibility issues, there was no error in excluding the testimony at trial, and defendant was not prejudiced by the district court’s finding, without a jury, that defendant’s prior felonies were committed on different occasions.
Judgment is affirmed.
Domestic Relations
Petition for Return of Child
Hague Convention; Child’s Home
Defendant appealed the district court’s grant of plaintiff’s petition to have the parties’ child, L.T., returned to Japan. In October 2021, defendant flew from Japan to Missouri with L.T. Plaintiff subsequently petitioned for L.T.’s return to Japan. The district court concluded that L.T. was “at home” in Japan before defendant removed the child, and accordingly granted plaintiff’s petition.
Where there was no evidence that defendant had been coerced into living in Japan and where the unclean hands doctrine did not apply to petitions under the Hague Convention, the district court did not err in concluding that Japan was L.T.’s habitual residence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Education
School Districts
IDEA; Removal
Where a school district challenged a judgment that found that it had violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by not meeting the needs of a student with severe neuropsychiatric conditions, the parents of the student could remove the case to federal court after the school district asked the state court to overturn the hearing examiner’s decision, and the parents showed that the school to which the student transferred was an appropriate placement, so they were entitled to recover their expenses and the school tuition.
Judgment is affirmed.
Employer-Employee
Wage and Hour Claims
Rounding Off Time; Reasonableness of Sentence
Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, their employer. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that they were underpaid for years due to defendant’s timekeeping policy that rounded off time at the beginning and end of shifts. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, finding the evidence showed that the rounding policy had a largely neutral effect.
Where plaintiff’s expert evidence raised a genuine dispute that defendant’s rounding policy did not average out over time, the district court erred in granting summary judgment.
Judgment is vacated and remanded.
Negligence
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Hepatitis C Infection; Jury Instructions
Where a plaintiff claimed that he contracted Hepatitis C by participating in blood draws during the defendant’s research program, the jury instructions on the res ipsa loquitor claim were not erroneous, and the jury verdict in favor of the defendant is affirmed because the plaintiff also did not show error in the admission of the defendant’s expert witness testimony.
Judgment is affirmed.
Torts
Product Liability
Choice of Law; Application of Foreign Law
Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant. Plaintiffs traveled from Missouri to Coahuila, Mexico to stay with family due to plaintiff Nicolas Rey’s visa issues. Although plaintiffs planned for plaintiff Jessica Quinn to travel back to Missouri with plaintiffs’ children while Rey obtained a U.S. visa, plaintiffs eventually decided to travel back from the border to Coahuila. However, they suffered a rollover accident that paralyzed Rey. The district court concluded that, under Missouri’s choice of law rules, Coahuila law applied to plaintiffs’ complaint and dismissed their negligence and moral damages claims.
Where plaintiffs were not surprised by defendant’s decision to seek application of Mexican law, defendant had not effectively waived its choice of law motion, and the district court correctly applied Missouri’s presumption in favor of the place of injury where Missouri did not have a stronger connection to the case.
Judgment is affirmed.
Product Liability
Surgical Mesh; Exclusion of Expert Testimony
Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendants. Defendants manufactured the surgical mesh device implanted into plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit alleging she suffered injuries due to the device. After excluding plaintiff’s expert’s opinion on specific causation, the district court granted defendants summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligent design claim.
Where the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider an untimely supplemental declaration from plaintiff’s expert, there was no error in concluding that the expert had failed to submit a sufficient opinion on specific causation.
Judgment is affirmed.
Related Content
Top News
- Appeals court takes up transgender health coverage case
- Court upholds sex-with-minor report submitted by man’s therapist
- Federal judge rules for students with disabilities in age-cutoff case
- Justices remand Duluth dispute
- Legal education for incarcerated students expands
- Hamline prof dismissed over Muhammad image can proceed with lawsuit
- Supreme Court backs woman’s false-reporting conviction
- Pot smell not enough for search
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Recent cellphone ruling recalls high court cases
- The Unfrazzled Lawyer: Supercharge your unfrazzled lawyer efforts
- Understanding the proposal to extend overtime
- Perspectives: Pill case may be a bitter one for abortion rights
