Carol E. Jackson

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a securities fraud class action brought by public pension funds against KV Pharmaceutical Company and three of its executives, alleging that the defendants made false or misleading statements in SEC filings about the company's compliance with FDA manufacturing regulations (cGMP) despite receiving multiple Form FDA 483 inspection reports detailing violations. The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, along with derivative control-person liability claims under Section 20(a). The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims, finding that the complaint failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court reasoned that the allegations of knowledge or recklessness based on the inspection reports and internal awareness were insufficient to meet the heightened pleading standard, and without viable primary violations, the Section 20(a) claims could not proceed.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved federal criminal charges against William A. Faller and Brandi M. Hutchings arising from an investigation into the suspected manufacture of methamphetamine using large quantities of pharmaceutical-grade pseudoephedrine. The district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation after evidentiary hearings on the defendants' motions to suppress statements and evidence, as well as the government's related motions. The court granted the motions to suppress only as to specific statements by Faller regarding PVC tubes and by Hutchings regarding pills from her purse, but denied the motions in all other respects, including all requests to suppress physical evidence obtained from searches of the property and a storage unit. The government's motions for admissibility of evidence were denied as moot. The decisions rested on findings that most statements were voluntary or obtained after proper procedures, that consent to searches was valid, and that the evidence was lawfully seized under the circumstances described in the testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a plaintiff suing a former priest and the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis for sexual abuse that occurred between 1979 and 1982 when the plaintiff was a minor, with claims against the priest for assault, battery, negligence, and emotional distress, and claims against the Archdiocese for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, entrustment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Archdiocese moved to dismiss the negligence-related counts against it under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing they were barred by Missouri law as interpreted in Gibson v. Brewer. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the claims for negligent entrustment and breach of fiduciary duty but allowing the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims to proceed. The reasoning centered on applying Missouri Supreme Court precedent that bars claims requiring courts to interpret religious doctrine or entangle with church governance under the First Amendment, while finding that the surviving claims could be adjudicated using neutral principles of tort law without such entanglement.

religious libertytorts & liabilitycriminal law

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which plaintiff World Wide Stationery Manufacturing Co. alleged that defendant U.S. Ring Binder's Insta-Clik ring binder mechanism infringed two of its patents: the '946 patent (claims 1, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 30) and the '685 patent (claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 13). The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the '946 patent, finding a genuine issue of material fact because the defendant had relied on improperly modified claim language regarding a spring element. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of the '685 patent, concluding after applying its prior claim construction that the Insta-Clik device undisputedly contained all required limitations, including a control structure with a hinge pin, spring, travel bar, lever/actuator, and related components that performed the claimed functions. The rulings followed the two-step infringement analysis of claim construction followed by comparison of the construed claims to the accused product, with no remaining factual disputes on the '685 claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act brought by Families for Asbestos Compliance Testing and Safety against the City of St. Louis for alleged violations of asbestos emission standards during the demolition of buildings for an airport expansion project. The court had previously found 99 violations on summary judgment but, after a bench trial on penalties and injunctive relief, dismissed the claim for lack of standing. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to establish that any violations were occurring or imminent at the time the complaint was filed, as required for citizen suits under precedents like Gwaltney, since all demolitions had ceased by then with no structures remaining.

environment

This case involved a patent infringement lawsuit brought by World Wide Stationery against U.S. Ring Binder over the '946 patent for a binder mechanism. The defendant counterclaimed that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, alleging that the plaintiff made false statements to the PTO about prior art and withheld a physical sample (the Horn Sample) embodying that art. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, ruling that the defendant failed to prove inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence. The core reasoning was that the Horn Sample was cumulative to the already-disclosed Horn Application and thus not material information that the plaintiff had a duty to submit to the PTO.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Manu Patel was convicted by a Missouri jury of three counts of first-degree assault and three counts of armed criminal action for hiring individuals to shoot Peter Patel and his wife in retaliation for an alleged rape. Patel filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising claims that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the full extent of its agreement with its primary witness and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by opening the door to admission of the witness's prior consistent statements. The district court denied the petition after de novo review, holding that the state courts' adjudication was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court found the undisclosed probation-revocation sentencing detail was not required Brady impeachment evidence and that counsel's calculated risk in cross-examination constituted sound trial strategy. The court also denied an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance claim because the existing record was sufficient.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a declaratory judgment action by plaintiff Lynn Mitzan seeking to recover the $1 million limits of a commercial general liability policy issued to the operator of the Curve Inn bar. The plaintiff had previously obtained a $10 million-plus judgment against the bar owner under Missouri's dram shop statute for serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron who later caused a fatal car accident. The insurer refused coverage based on the policy's liquor liability exclusion. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for the claim and did not render the policy illusory, as the policy provided coverage for other risks and the insured had declined to purchase separate liquor liability coverage.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Saint Louis University sued a tenured professor, Avis Meyer, alleging that his incorporation of a nonprofit entity using the name 'The University News, a Student Voice Serving Saint Louis University Since 1921' infringed the university's trademarks associated with its campus newspaper. The claims included federal and state trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, dilution, and misuse of a benevolent society's name under Missouri law. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on Counts I through VI, finding no evidence that he used the marks in commerce or in connection with any goods or services. Without such commercial use, the court reasoned there could be no likelihood of public confusion or dilution of the marks. The alternative motion regarding monetary damages was denied as moot, leaving only the injunctive relief claim under Count VII unresolved in the ruling.

business & regulatoryprocedure

KMOV-TV sued the Bi-State Development Agency (Metro), an entity created by a congressionally approved interstate compact between Missouri and Illinois, to obtain unredacted records of employee complaints and comments under the Missouri Sunshine Law after Metro provided only summaries and offered redacted versions for a fee. Metro moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that one state's open-records statute cannot be applied to the bi-state agency absent concurrence by the other compacting state. The court assumed the complaint's facts as true and examined precedents on interstate compacts, noting that unilateral imposition of Missouri law would burden the compact and that differences between the two states' records laws reflect distinct policy choices that one state may not force on the other. It concluded that the Sunshine Law does not apply to Metro without Illinois's agreement and therefore granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

free speechfederal powerprocedure

This case involved trustees of employee benefit funds and labor unions suing a Missouri corporation for failing to make required contributions to pension, welfare, and other funds under two collective bargaining agreements, as mandated by ERISA and the LMRA. The defendant was served but did not respond, leading to an entry of default. The court granted default judgment in part, awarding $128,454.83 total, including amounts for under-reported and delinquent contributions, liquidated damages, accounting fees, and attorney costs, based on affidavits and contract terms. It denied interest on one count due to insufficient information on the applicable rate under ERISA. The decision rested on the defendant's default making the complaint allegations true and ERISA's provisions for enforcing contribution obligations.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 filed by defendant MCI Communications Services against plaintiff's counsel after removal of a state-court complaint to federal court. The court determined that Rule 11 sanctions could apply because plaintiff's counsel continued to advocate the claims after removal by filing opposition memoranda, and found that the claims lacked legal merit and were not supported by a reasonable inquiry into existing law. The court rejected arguments that the sanctions motion was untimely or procedurally deficient, noting that the safe-harbor period was satisfied and that counsel had a continuing duty to ensure claims remained meritorious. It therefore granted the motion for sanctions, ordering defendant's counsel to submit a statement of fees incurred.

procedure

This case involves a dispute over U.S. Patent No. 5,926,792, which covers a computer system for administering stable value protected investments in corporate-owned and bank-owned life insurance plans. MetLife filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity after being accused of infringement by patent holder Bancorp; Bancorp later asserted a counterclaim for infringement. The court addressed MetLife's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. The court denied the motion, finding that expert testimony created genuine issues of material fact as to whether MetLife's system performed the patented calculations of market value versus book value and related credits.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Bernardine Berini, a long-time employee of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis who was terminated at age 53 after receiving poor performance reviews for analytical deficiencies and errors; she sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act alleging her discharge was due to age bias. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court found that Berini established a prima facie case on three elements but failed to show her performance met legitimate expectations or that the bank's stated reason of poor performance was pretextual, as there was no evidence of inconsistent explanations or age-based motive. The ERISA claim had already been dismissed earlier.

labor & employmentcivil rights