Audrey Goldstein Fleissig

This diversity case involves a dispute between Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. (HFS) and the Hallbeck family over the early closure of a Hardee's franchise restaurant in Illinois under a five-year Renewal Franchise Agreement. HFS sued the Hallbecks for damages after the closure, prompting the Hallbecks to file an amended counterclaim alleging issues such as breach of contract regarding the Hardee's National Advertising Fund, violations of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unenforceability of post-termination restrictive covenants. The court ruled on HFS's motion to dismiss the counterclaim, denying the motion in part as to certain breach of contract claims in Count I that sufficiently stated plausible causes of action, granting it in part as to other portions of Count I that failed to allege a contract or damages, and granting dismissal of Count II as redundant or moot. The core reasoning was that the surviving claims met pleading standards under applicable contract law principles (whether Missouri or Illinois), while dismissed claims either lacked essential elements or sought relief already addressed in the main action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved members of the Westboro Baptist Church challenging a St. Charles County, Missouri ordinance that prohibited picketing within 300 feet of a funeral from one hour before to one hour after the event, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech, religious exercise, and assembly. The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the ordinance. The court reasoned that the ordinance was a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction in a traditional public forum, but following Eighth Circuit precedent in a similar case, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because the government's interest in protecting funeral mourners was outweighed by free speech protections, with the remaining preliminary injunction factors also supporting relief.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

In Loveland v. Astrue, the plaintiff sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability due to degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy and chronic alcoholism. The ALJ had found that the plaintiff was not disabled because, if she stopped abusing substances, she retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past work as a telemarketer. The district court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further consideration, concluding that the ALJ committed reversible error by sending an ex parte letter to the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist for clarification, by formulating an RFC unsupported by medical evidence in the record, and by improperly discounting the opinions of treating physicians.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

In this case, Darrin R. Meuir petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his Missouri state convictions for first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to prevent testimony about his prior convictions, call him as a witness to raise a duress defense, or request a duress instruction, as well as a due process violation because the trial court did not advise him of his right to testify. The U.S. District Court denied the petition in full. The court reasoned that the Missouri courts had reasonably applied the Strickland v. Washington standard to the ineffective-assistance claims, that Meuir had been advised of and knowingly waived his right to testify by remaining silent when counsel rested without calling him, and that no additional duty existed for the trial court to inform him of that right. The decision rested on the record showing Meuir understood his rights and the absence of prejudice from counsel's actions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns whether Auto Owners Insurance Company could pursue indemnity and breach of contract claims against Biegel Refrigeration based on an assignment of lease indemnity rights from Joseph Biegel's defendant ad litem after an employee injury lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant and denied the plaintiff's motion, ruling that the assignment was invalid. The core reasoning is that under Missouri law, a defendant ad litem serves only as a limited legal representative for the deceased in the underlying tort action and lacks authority to assign the deceased's separate contractual indemnity rights to the insurer.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a police officer who sued the City of Salisbury and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his employment was terminated in retaliation for speech questioning the mayor's alleged instruction not to arrest suspected drunk drivers, in violation of his First Amendment rights; he also asserted state-law claims for violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court reasoned that to prevail on the First Amendment claim, the plaintiff had to show he engaged in protected speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern (rather than pursuant to his official duties) that was a substantial or motivating factor in his termination, applying the framework from Garcetti v. Ceballos and Connick v. Myers, after which the burden would shift to the defendants to show they would have taken the same action regardless; the court also addressed the viability of the state-law claims under applicable Missouri statutes.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

This case involved plaintiffs Elton Thomas and Mamta Thakkar suing debt collector Consumer Adjustment Company, Inc. (CACi) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) after a CACi employee called their home, identified himself using the name of Thomas's brother, and requested contact information without disclosing the call's purpose or confirming location details as required. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on liability, with plaintiffs alleging improper third-party communications under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b), false or misleading representations under § 1692e, and related claims. The court granted plaintiffs' motion in part, finding CACi liable for violating § 1692c(b) because the call did not invoke or comply with the statutory safe harbor for location information and directly harmed the third-party recipient, who had standing to sue; it denied the motion as to the § 1692e claims due to factual disputes. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied in full.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Ana McDonald suing NextStudent Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for obtaining her and others' credit information without authorization and sending promotional letters that did not include a firm offer of credit. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that its letter served as an invitation to a multi-step process in which a firm offer could be extended orally to eligible callers. The court denied the motion, holding that the FCRA requires any firm offer of credit to appear in the initial written solicitation and does not allow access to consumer reports for the type of invitation sent here.

business & regulatory

This case involved a trademark dispute in which limousine service providers Carey Licensing and Carey International sued competitor Jack Erlich and his company for unauthorized use of the CAREY mark in advertising, websites, and reservations. The parties resolved the suit through a 2005 consent judgment that permanently enjoined the defendants from using the mark or similar terms in connection with their services, including domain names, and provided for attorney's fees and liquidated damages in case of breach. Plaintiffs later moved for contempt after discovering that defendants had registered the domain careylimousine.net and alleging improper hyperlinks in search results. The court found that defendants had violated the judgment by owning the domain name but held that mere ownership did not constitute infringement under the judgment's terms and that plaintiffs failed to prove defendants caused the hyperlinks or failed to remedy them promptly. Accordingly, the court granted the contempt motion in part, denied it in part, and awarded plaintiffs $500 in reasonable attorney's fees while declining to impose liquidated damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Spirtas Company claiming that Federal Insurance Company breached its directors and officers liability policy by refusing to defend and indemnify Spirtas in a lawsuit filed by MIG/Alberici LLC over alleged failures to perform under a demolition subcontract, including payment disputes with subcontractors. The court granted Federal's motion for summary judgment and denied Spirtas's partial summary judgment motion. The core reasoning was that the policy's exclusion for claims based on an insured organization's liability under a contract applied, as all of MIG's claims originated from Spirtas's contractual obligations and alleged breaches under the subcontract, with no independent basis for liability outside the agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute where Lion Petroleum of Missouri, Inc., a fuel supplier with a sublicense to use ConocoPhillips trademarks, sued Millennium Super Stop, LLC and Consolidated Energy Co., LLC for federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, and related claims after Millennium allegedly defaulted on a fuel supply contract and Consolidated continued supplying unbranded fuel. Consolidated moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 to add ConocoPhillips as a necessary party to the infringement claims, asserting that its absence prevented complete relief among the existing parties and exposed Consolidated to a risk of inconsistent obligations or multiple suits. The court granted the motion, concluding that trademark owners are generally necessary parties in infringement actions and that joinder was warranted here to address potential duplicate litigation, particularly given the allegations in Consolidated's counterclaim. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and was ordered to add ConocoPhillips as a party by January 19, 2007, or show good cause why joinder was not feasible.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a bi-racial student and her parents who sued a Missouri school district for alleged racial discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VI, along with related claims, and also sued the U.S. Department of Education and its Office of Civil Rights for failing to investigate their administrative complaint. The federal defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on the counts against them under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1986, 2000c, and Title VI. The court granted the motion, dismissing the first three counts for failure to state a claim and granting summary judgment on the Title VI count. It reasoned that there is no private right of action against a federal funding agency for its handling of an individual complaint, that sovereign immunity barred the claims absent a waiver, and that the Administrative Procedure Act and Federal Tort Claims Act did not provide relief here.

civil rightsfederal power

In this case, plaintiff Albert Bayard sued Behlmann Automotive Services under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act after the dealer failed to provide a written explanation for denying his application for credit at a 3.9% interest rate to finance a vehicle purchase, instead offering financing at 10.9%. The court found that Behlmann qualified as a creditor under the Act because it regularly arranged for credit extensions and was required to issue a written statement of reasons within 90 days of notifying the applicant of a counteroffer. The court granted the plaintiff injunctive relief requiring Behlmann to adopt compliance procedures, awarded $100 in punitive damages, and allowed for attorney's fees, reasoning that while the violation warranted some penalty, there was no evidence of actual damages or repeated noncompliance.

business & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved Missouri residents Clarence and Debra Bell suing Nevada-based Imperial Palace Hotel/Casino for negligence and loss of consortium after Clarence Bell slipped and fell in a puddle at the hotel in Las Vegas. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing insufficient contacts with Missouri, and for insufficient service of process. The court denied the service motion but granted dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the hotel's passive informational website—which allowed online reservations but was not used by the plaintiffs—did not amount to transacting business in Missouri or satisfy due process minimum contacts requirements for a tort occurring entirely in Nevada. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the court transferred the case to the District of Nevada where the defendant resides and the incident occurred.

proceduretorts & liability