The case involves Robert Carr suing Anheuser-Busch under ERISA after his claim for severance benefits was denied due to alleged willful misconduct. Carr filed a motion to compel the production of certain documents that the defendant withheld under attorney-client and work-product privileges. The court examined the documents in camera and determined that the fiduciary exception to the privileges applied to an October 2009 email concerning plan administration duties, requiring its production, but not to December 2009 emails related to the merits of the plaintiff's individual claim after the decision to deny benefits had been made, which could remain withheld.
This case involves a dispute over coverage under a title insurance policy issued to a bank for loans on a condominium development project. The plaintiff insurer, successor to the original issuer, seeks declaratory judgments that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify the defendant assignee against mechanics' liens or claims of unmarketable title. The defendant asserts counterclaims for declaratory relief, breach of contract for failure to defend and indemnify, and tortious interference arising from the insurer's handling of the defense and alleged withholding of information by retained counsel. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims, finding that the defendant had pleaded sufficient facts to state plausible claims under Missouri law regarding the policy obligations, attorney-client relationship, and resulting damages.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
The case involved members of the Westboro Baptist Church who challenged a St. Charles, Missouri ordinance (Code § 131.50) that prohibited picketing within 300 feet of a funeral, enacted to protect grieving families' privacy while allowing speech at a distance. Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the ordinance violated their First Amendment rights and Missouri's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and they sought a preliminary injunction. The district court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the ordinance during the litigation. The decision relied on Eighth Circuit precedent in Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, which indicated that such time, place, and manner restrictions on funeral protests are likely unconstitutional, that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored preserving constitutional rights pending a merits determination.
In this case, software developers sued a freight management company and related parties for allegedly copying, modifying, and selling unauthorized versions of their proprietary Management Software, asserting federal copyright infringement along with state-law claims including conversion, civil conspiracy, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Missouri Computer Tampering Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the copyright claim as barred by the three-year statute of limitations and to dismiss several state claims as preempted by the Copyright Act. The court denied dismissal of the copyright claim, reasoning that the complaint alleged continuing infringements after the initial discovery in 2007, so acts within the three years before filing remained timely. It granted dismissal of the conversion, conspiracy, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment claims because they were based on the same unauthorized use protected by copyright and lacked qualitatively different elements, but denied dismissal of the computer tampering claim, which required proof of an extra element not equivalent to copyright infringement.
The case arose from the suicide of pretrial detainee Derek Estes in the St. Charles County Detention Center, with his mother Tina Teague suing the county, its jail supervisor, and several John Doe corrections officers. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a known suicide risk and failure to train or supervise, plus a state-law wrongful death and negligence claim, alleging that officials ignored Estes's drug intoxication, expressed suicidal tendencies, and audible distress signals. On the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court dismissed the § 1983 claims for the plaintiff's personal losses and against the supervisor for lack of personal involvement, but otherwise denied dismissal, holding that the remaining allegations plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment violation and that public-duty and official-immunity defenses could not be decided on the pleadings.
This case is a proposed class action by participants in KV Pharmaceutical's employee profit-sharing plan, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA by the company and various officers and directors for allowing plan assets to be invested in KV common stock during a period of alleged corporate misconduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motions to dismiss as to individual defendants Kanterman, Chibnall, and Hermelin, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing these individuals were plan fiduciaries with discretionary authority over investment decisions, and it denied other pending motions as moot.
