Catherine D. Perry

In this case, plaintiff Ronald Johnson, an African-American member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1, sued the union after being expelled for working for a contractor that had a contract with a rival union rather than Local 1. Johnson alleged in Count I that the expulsion violated his rights to union speech and assembly under 29 U.S.C. § 411, and in Count II that it constituted racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because white members were not similarly disciplined and the union had encouraged hiring non-African-American members. The court granted the union's motion to dismiss Count I, reasoning that Johnson had not alleged any protected union activity such as discussing union matters or attending meetings. The court denied the motion as to Count II, finding that Johnson's factual allegations of disparate treatment and racial motivation were sufficient to state a plausible claim. The decision applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards to evaluate the sufficiency of the complaint.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves Stephanie Woods' appeal of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability due to manic depression and paranoid schizophrenia. The district court reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's decision upholding the denial and found that the ALJ's assessment of Woods' residual functional capacity was not supported by substantial evidence. The court reversed the decision and remanded the case because the ALJ improperly discounted the consistent medical opinions of Woods' treating physicians regarding her limitations in maintaining a work schedule due to her bipolar disorder. The ALJ's reliance on Woods' daily activities and ability to handle one-time stresses did not adequately justify disregarding those opinions.

healthcare

In Flynn v. AT & T Yellow Pages, plaintiff Richard Flynn, an African-American artist over age 55, sued his former employer after being terminated in 2007, alleging racial and age discrimination, failure to promote, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under federal and Missouri law. The employer had fired Flynn following an investigation that uncovered his extensive personal use of his work computer to create and sell comic books, download hundreds of music files and videos, and surf the internet during work hours, in violation of the company's Code of Business Conduct that he had agreed to annually. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that the undisputed facts established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination and that Flynn failed to show any similarly situated younger or non-minority employees were treated differently or that the stated reason was pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a dispute between Automation Service, a company that remanufactures used process control equipment made by Emerson, and defendants including Emerson, Factory Mutual Insurance, and FM Approvals. Automation alleged that Emerson's refusal to enter an OEM agreement prevented it from obtaining FM safety certification, and that Emerson's advertisements claiming superior safety for its own remanufactured products violated antitrust laws, the Lanham Act, and Missouri laws on tortious interference and defamation. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the federal and state antitrust claims, finding that Automation failed to plausibly allege monopoly power or a properly defined relevant market. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the Lanham Act and state-law claims, concluding that Emerson's statements about its own products could support those causes of action. The court also granted an unopposed motion to intervene by Fisher Controls.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned members of the Westboro Baptist Church who challenged three successive versions of a Manchester, Missouri city ordinance that restricted picketing and protesting within 300 feet of funerals or burial services. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First Amendment free speech rights. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring all versions of the ordinance unconstitutional and permanently enjoining its enforcement. The core reasoning was that the ordinance was a content-based restriction on speech that failed to satisfy applicable First Amendment standards for such regulations.

free speechcivil rights

In Taylor v. American Airlines, Inc., former TWA flight attendants sued their employer American Airlines, its parent AMR, and their union the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, challenging the 2001 seniority integration agreement that placed them at the bottom of the seniority list after the merger and alleging resulting harms from furloughs and route reductions. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and brought claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of fair representation, and fraudulent misrepresentation under the Railway Labor Act and state common law. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, ruling that the state-law claims were preempted by the RLA, the RLA claims were untimely under the six-month limitations period because plaintiffs had notice of potential breaches by 2003 at latest, and no claim was stated against AMR. The core reasoning was that the disputes required interpretation of collective bargaining agreements and related documents, matters exclusively reserved for RLA arbitration procedures, and that no new violations restarted the limitations clock.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case arose from a 2005 private airplane crash in Indiana that killed the pilot and three passengers, leading to wrongful death suits by their next of kin against the engine manufacturer (Lycoming/Avco/Textron) and the maintenance company (Western Skyways). Plaintiffs alleged negligence, strict liability, and misrepresentation based on a defective fuel clamp design and improper maintenance that allegedly caused an in-flight fire, while defendants pointed to pilot error and raised affirmative defenses. The court denied most summary judgment motions because genuine issues of material fact remained on the core liability claims, but granted summary judgment on the misrepresentation claims and pain-and-suffering damages as failing as a matter of law, dismissed certain plaintiffs who were not proper parties under Indiana law, granted summary judgment on most non-party fault defenses, and ruled on multiple Daubert motions by excluding some experts while limiting others. These decisions applied Indiana law on liability and damages in this diversity case and followed federal standards for expert admissibility under Rule 702 and Daubert.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Nabholz Construction Corporation sued Steven and Jennifer Beck in federal court to enforce personal guarantees on two promissory notes totaling over $1.1 million that the Becks had signed for loans to their company Stocker Construction. The Becks moved to dismiss or stay the federal action under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, pointing to an ongoing parallel state court case in Jefferson County involving the same notes, related bank loans, and crossclaims by the Becks against Nabholz. The district court determined that the federal and state proceedings were substantially similar and that exceptional circumstances justified abstention, including the risk of piecemeal litigation and the greater progress already made in state court. It therefore stayed the federal case pending resolution of the Becks' state-court crossclaims rather than dismissing it outright.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over payments made under a homeowner's insurance policy following a fire that damaged the insured residence. The plaintiff and her former husband were both named insureds on the policy, but after their divorce, the ex-husband received the residence and the insurance company made payments to him, a mortgagee, and service providers rather than splitting payments with the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, reasoning that the policy's terms allowed payments to those legally entitled to receive them, including based on the separation agreement that awarded the property to the ex-husband and divided personal property, and that the plaintiff had not made a separate claim for her losses.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

In this insurance dispute, Cossetta Grobe sued Vantage Credit Union, Hartford Life, and others after Hartford denied accidental death benefits for her husband's death from prescribed methadone, citing a policy exclusion for losses resulting from medical treatment of sickness or disease. The court denied Grobe's motion to remand the case to state court, finding that Vantage had been fraudulently joined because there was no reasonable basis to hold it liable for the claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, or vexatious refusal to pay. The court also granted motions to dismiss all claims against Vantage and Hartford, concluding that the policy language unambiguously excluded coverage for the death and that the remaining claims therefore failed as a matter of law. Claims against the other defendants were allowed to proceed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Advanced Software Design Corporation against Fiserv, Inc., alleging that Fiserv's Secure Seal check authentication system infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,792,110, which covers a process for enhancing the security of negotiable instruments such as checks by encrypting selected information with key data to generate a control code printed on the instrument, followed by decryption and validation upon presentment. The district court granted Fiserv's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The court reasoned that the patent claims require performance of both the encryption/printing steps and the decryption/validation steps as interdependent parts of a single process, but Fiserv only sold the software and performed validation in limited third-party instances without also performing or controlling the encryption and printing steps. The court dismissed the invalidity counterclaim without prejudice and denied the remaining motions as moot or without merit.

business & regulatoryprocedure

John Bartis, a car salesman, sued his former employer after being fired on the same day he told his supervisor he would no longer sign weekly time sheets containing a provision stating that extra hours were voluntary and unpaid. He brought claims for retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri wrongful-discharge law, alleging the termination punished him for objecting to what he viewed as unlawful wage practices. The district court granted the employer's motion to dismiss, concluding that an internal complaint to a supervisor does not qualify as protected activity under the FLSA's anti-retaliation clause, which covers only the filing of complaints, instituting proceedings, or testifying. The court further held that the facts did not fit Missouri's narrow public-policy exceptions to at-will employment.

labor & employment

U.S. Cellular sued the Village of Marlborough after the village denied its application to build a cell phone tower on a McDonald's lot and refused a variance from setback requirements, claiming violations of the Federal Telecommunications Act, the Constitution, and Missouri law. The village moved to dismiss the complaint. The court dismissed the claims that the village effectively prohibited wireless services or discriminated against providers under the TCA, finding the facts pleaded negated those allegations, but denied dismissal on claims that the village's decisions lacked substantial evidence, as well as the constitutional due process and state law claims, because sufficient facts were alleged to proceed. The ruling was based on the complaint's allegations regarding the application process, denial reasons, and procedural history, including appeals to the Board of Adjustment.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

In this case, Dr. Cynthia Haines, a medical writer working as an independent contractor, sued VeriMed Healthcare Network after VeriMed's no-hire agreement with client The HealthCentral Network (THCN) led THCN to end its direct relationship with Haines. Haines brought federal and state antitrust claims alleging unlawful restraint of trade, plus state tort claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, and appropriation of name. The court dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice, concluding that the injury Haines asserted was not the type the antitrust laws were intended to remedy. It denied dismissal of the tort claims, finding the allegations sufficient to state claims for relief. The case proceeded on the remaining counts.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Advanced Software Design Corporation and Calin Sandru against Fiserv, Inc., alleging that Fiserv infringed two patents (Nos. 6,549,624 and 6,792,110) covering methods and apparatus for enhancing the security of negotiable instruments through encryption techniques. The parties presented disputes over the meaning of numerous claim terms during a Markman hearing, and the court addressed construction of some of those terms. The court decided to apply specific definitions to disputed terms in both patents, resolving those issues while deferring others for later resolution via summary judgment or jury instructions. Its reasoning relied on established claim construction principles from Markman v. Westview Instruments and related Federal Circuit precedent, prioritizing intrinsic evidence such as the claim language itself, the patent specification, and prosecution history to determine the ordinary meaning of terms to a person skilled in the art, without improperly importing limitations from the specification.

propertyprocedure

The case was a bankruptcy appeal concerning whether negative equity from a traded-in vehicle financed as part of a new car purchase qualified as a purchase money security interest under the hanging paragraph of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(*), protecting it from cramdown. The court decided that it did not, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling that the creditor held a secured claim only for the value attributable to the new vehicle and an unsecured claim for the negative equity amount. The core reasoning was that Missouri's version of the UCC does not treat the negative equity payoff as part of the price of the new collateral or create the required close nexus for a purchase money security interest, even though the debt was incurred within the 910-day period.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Andre Cole, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Missouri state court for stabbing Anthony Curtis to death during a home invasion related to a child support dispute, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising claims including insufficient evidence of premeditation, prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, ineffective assistance of counsel, a Batson violation in jury selection, and various other constitutional errors in the guilt and penalty phases. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied the petition, holding that several claims were procedurally barred and that the remaining claims failed on the merits because the state courts' decisions were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under AEDPA standards. The court granted a certificate of appealability on multiple issues but otherwise rejected all grounds for relief.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves motions by plaintiffs' counsel in 32 related cases within the multidistrict Genetically Modified Rice Litigation to remand each case from federal court back to state court. The district court has not yet decided the remand motions on their merits. Instead, to handle the motions efficiently and collectively, the court ordered plaintiffs' counsel to file by October 3, 2008, a single summary or chart in the main MDL case identifying each case's origin, parties and citizenship, the basis for remand, and whether any motion raises unique issues. Defense counsel must then file one response brief limited to 30 pages by October 15, 2008, with plaintiffs filing one reply limited to 15 pages by October 27, 2008.

procedure

This multi-district litigation involves U.S. rice producers suing various Bayer entities, including the German parent Bayer AG, for developing and mishandling a genetically modified rice strain that allegedly contaminated the domestic rice supply. Bayer AG moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing it was merely a holding company with no direct operations in the cropscience business. The court denied the motion, finding that Bayer AG's oversight and strategic control over its subsidiaries—including Bayer CropScience AG, which had conceded jurisdiction and was tied to the rice testing and development—established a sufficient relationship to support jurisdiction over the parent. The decision rests on the subsidiaries' contacts with the forum states and Bayer AG's role in directing the enterprise after acquiring and restructuring prior entities involved in the project.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves Chinese citizens Wei Wu and Xiaoyan Gu suing Ryder Truck Rental (a Florida citizen) and Da Hua Hu (a Canadian citizen) in Missouri state court on state-law claims. Ryder removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The court held that diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is absent because the statute provides no basis for federal jurisdiction in suits by foreign plaintiffs against a combination of U.S. and foreign defendants. The court therefore remanded the matter to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. Its reasoning rested on the plain text of the diversity statute, which requires specific party combinations not met here, along with consistent precedents applying the same rule.

procedure