Ortrie D. Smith

This case involves Hallmark Cards suing several Clipper-related entities and individuals for allegedly misusing Hallmark's confidential information, obtained through Monitor's consulting work, to evaluate and acquire a competitor, Recycled Paper Greetings. Hallmark asserted claims including RICO violations, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, and fraud, stemming from an arbitration award against Monitor and subsequent discovery. The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Monitor Clipper Equity Partners II, LP, RPG Investment Holdings, LLC, Charles Yoon, William Young, and Mark Thomas for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient minimum contacts with Missouri. It also dismissed the RICO and fraud in the inducement counts for failure to state a claim, as the alleged acts did not qualify as racketeering activity and the fraud allegations were inadequate. The remaining claims against the other defendants were allowed to proceed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The United States brought this civil action under IRC § 7408 seeking an injunction to stop the defendant, a lawyer and tax advisor with extensive education and professional experience, from promoting arrangements involving Roth IRAs and related entities. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the government, finding that the defendant had organized plans and furnished statements about the allowability of tax deductions, exclusions, and benefits that he knew or had reason to know were false or fraudulent, in violation of IRC § 6700. The court applied the statutory factors for scienter, including the defendant's sophistication and failure to rely appropriately on independent professionals, and concluded that injunctive relief was necessary to prevent recurrence of the penalized conduct.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in which plaintiffs claim that AT&T required them to log into phone and computer systems before their shifts started without compensation for that time. The court ruled that individuals who opted into the lawsuit are not subject to the full scope of discovery requests that would apply to named parties, limiting them to answering one interrogatory about their job details and producing limited documents. The reasoning is that FLSA collective actions function similarly to class actions, where opt-in members are not full parties, damages are calculated formulaically from the employer's records rather than individual testimony, and broad discovery would undermine the efficiency benefits of such collective proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a contract dispute between DynaSteel Corporation, a supplier of ductwork and related materials, and Black & Veatch Corporation, the buyer, for a power plant retrofit project. DynaSteel sued for breach of contract and related claims seeking payment of over $1.4 million allegedly owed under the contract, while B&V counterclaimed for breach of contract and warranty, seeking to recover costs for alleged defects through backcharges totaling millions. The court denied DynaSteel's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on issues including notice requirements under the contract and UCC, liquidated damages, and most defect claims. However, the court granted B&V partial summary judgment on liability for DynaSteel's failure to install insulation with a required 2-foot setback, as the contract unambiguously required this and DynaSteel did not dispute the obligation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Castro-Gaxiola v. United States, the movant, who had been convicted by a jury in 2005 of federal drug conspiracy, distribution, interstate travel, and illegal reentry charges and sentenced to 151 months, sought postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 more than 18 months after his conviction became final upon denial of certiorari in October 2007. The district court denied the motion as untimely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, denied the accompanying request for equitable tolling, and granted the government's motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that the movant failed to show extraordinary circumstances beyond his control or due diligence, as delays from relying on a non-attorney inmate, difficulties obtaining case files, limited prison library access, and lack of Spanish-language materials did not qualify; it also rejected an alternative limitations start date under § 2255(f)(4) based on a co-defendant's later successful motion, citing Eighth Circuit precedent that judicial decisions are not "facts" for this purpose.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a patron who was injured in a parking lot by a drunk driver after both had been served alcohol at the defendant's bar and restaurant; the plaintiff sued the bar under Missouri's dram shop statute and had previously settled with the driver for the limits of his insurance policy. The defendant moved to join the driver as a party (or in the alternative to compare his fault without joining him) so that a jury could allocate fault percentages under the 2005 tort reform statute, which limits joint-and-several liability for defendants found less than 51% at fault. The court denied the motion, holding that Missouri Revised Statute § 537.060 bars allocation of fault to a settling tortfeasor for any purpose, including comparison, even after tort reform; the statute discharges the settler from contribution or indemnity and dismisses that party from the action entirely, as confirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation in Teeter v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a former police officer for the City of Lebanon who sued the City and various officials under the ADA, MHRA, FMLA, and ADEA, claiming disability discrimination for denial of an accommodation under a protective vest policy and retaliation for filing an administrative complaint after his termination. The court granted the defendants' partial motion to dismiss, removing all individual defendants and any age discrimination claims under the ADEA and MHRA. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as his charges named only the City, checked only the disability and retaliation boxes, contained no mention of age, and did not identify the individuals as respondents, so the agencies' investigations could not have encompassed those claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a lawful permanent resident from Egypt who applied for naturalization in 2005, passed the required interview and tests in January 2006, but whose application remained pending due to an incomplete FBI name check. The plaintiff sued under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) seeking either a de novo hearing or a remand to USCIS with instructions to decide the application, citing family hardship from his wife's ongoing deportation proceedings. The court first confirmed subject matter jurisdiction because more than 120 days had passed since the examination. It then granted summary judgment by remanding the matter to USCIS with specific deadlines: the FBI must complete the name check within 60 days, and USCIS must decide the application within 30 days after receiving the check. The court reasoned that while it could not itself adjudicate without the background check, judicial intervention with timelines was warranted given the multi-year delay and statutory authority to issue appropriate instructions to the agency.

immigrationprocedure

This case was a consolidated class action securities fraud suit brought by investors against H&R Block, Inc. and certain officers, alleging violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint claimed that defendants made materially false statements about the company's revenues, earnings, and financial controls by failing to disclose deceptive practices tied to its Express IRA and Refund Anticipation Loan products, as well as errors in its effective tax rate that later required restatement. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), holding that the complaint failed to meet the PSLRA's heightened pleading requirements by not specifying misleading statements with particularity or alleging facts creating a strong inference of scienter. The court allowed limited leave to amend only as to the restatement-related claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the revocation of Defendant Lewis's supervised release after he violated its terms by committing new crimes, including aggravated flight from law enforcement, following his original 2004 conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. The court addressed unresolved questions from a prior 2004 revocation about the maximum penalties permissible under the PROTECT Act amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 3583, specifically the limits on imprisonment (up to two years) and additional supervised release (up to a combined total of three years) upon successive revocations. The court decided that the prior sentence was lawful, that Lewis had violated supervised release, and that it could impose up to two years of imprisonment plus further supervised release without exceeding the statutory aggregate limits. The reasoning centered on statutory interpretation of subsections (e)(3) and (h), holding that revocation sentences are aggregated to determine compliance with maximums and that the amendments permit reimposition of supervised release terms after imprisonment.

criminal lawprocedure

In Courtney v. United States, the movant, who had pleaded guilty to eight counts of product tampering and twelve counts of adulteration and misbranding of drugs after intentionally diluting cancer medications, sought post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his 360-month sentence. The district court had imposed the sentence after an upward departure from the Guidelines range, and the movant argued that a discrepancy between the effective service time discussed at sentencing (accounting for good-behavior credits) and the Bureau of Prisons' later calculation rendered the sentence unreasonable or would have led to a shorter term if known earlier. The court denied the motion, holding that the sentence imposed is the judicially declared term of 30 years rather than any adjusted effective time, that sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) do not require consideration of good-behavior credits, and that such credits played no role in the original sentencing determination. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding no substantial showing of a constitutional violation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned farmers who restructured delinquent USDA loans in 1992 under the Agricultural Credit Act, obtaining a debt write-down in exchange for a Shared Appreciation Agreement that required repayment of a portion of any property appreciation based on changes in value from the agreement's start to end. The dispute centered on the proper method for appraising the farm's value at recapture, specifically whether to apply the 1992 regulations' definitions of agricultural value focused on farm income potential or later approaches considering broader market or rental factors. The court set aside the USDA's final decision and remanded for reconsideration, holding that the agency must follow the original regulatory requirements for valuation methods and definitions applicable at the time the agreement was executed.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

The case involved a pharmacist who began working at Wal-Mart in 2001 and participated in its employee welfare benefit plan, which included long-term disability insurance with a pre-existing condition exclusion. After developing symptoms from Forestier's disease that rendered him unable to work in 2002, he received short-term benefits but was denied long-term benefits because medical records showed he had received care for related back and neck issues, including arthritis and degenerative conditions, in the year before his employment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's, holding that the denial was not arbitrary or capricious under the plan's terms. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's own physician provided a statement confirming the condition's onset years earlier, supplying substantial evidence to support the pre-existing determination, and the administrator had no further duty to obtain contradictory opinions or advise on claim strategy beyond specifying required documents.

labor & employment

This case arose from a garnishment proceeding in Missouri state court, initiated by plaintiff Georgia Hayes after obtaining a large judgment against an insured party (Robert Courtney) whose insurer was the defendant. The defendant removed the garnishment action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and the plaintiff moved to remand. The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction existed because the garnishment was not a "direct action" under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), so the insurer did not assume the insured's citizenship. However, the court granted the motion to remand, ruling that removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the notice was filed more than thirty days after service of the writ of garnishment, which qualified as the initial pleading commencing the proceeding.

procedurefederal power

The case involved anti-abortion protesters who positioned themselves and large graphic signs at a busy Kansas City intersection, prompting public complaints that the signs distracted drivers and created traffic hazards. Police officers responded by directing the group to move farther from the road or cease displaying the signs, and they arrested five individuals who refused to comply, citing a city ordinance against obstructing public streets by hindering traffic. Plaintiffs sued the officers for violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as various state tort claims. The court granted summary judgment to the officers on the constitutional claims, holding that qualified immunity applied because the officers reasonably addressed a public safety issue and the speech protections did not extend to intrusive displays creating unavoidable hazards for drivers. The tort claims were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims were resolved.

free speechabortioncriminal lawcivil rights

In this case, defendant Montonio L. Workcuff moved to suppress evidence seized during a May 2002 search of his residence, which was authorized by a Jackson County Circuit Court warrant based on information from a cooperating federal prisoner about drug trafficking. The warrant included a no-knock provision, though the supporting affidavit contained no facts showing risks to officer safety or evidence destruction, and officers entered without waiting for a response after announcing their presence. The magistrate judge recommended suppression solely on the ground that the no-knock entry violated federal requirements, while rejecting the defendant's other Fourth Amendment, probable cause, and procedural challenges and finding that the Leon good-faith exception would otherwise apply. The district court conducted de novo review, adopted the magistrate's findings and recommendation in full, and ordered the evidence suppressed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who, as a five-year-old child in 1985, suffered a foot amputation when struck by a riding lawnmower operated by his father, an employee of the defendant church corporation on its property. The plaintiff sued the defendant on theories of respondeat superior liability for the father's negligence and negligent maintenance of the lawnmower. The court denied summary judgment on the respondeat superior claim, holding that Missouri precedents on official and spousal immunity allow such claims against an employer even where the employee enjoys parental immunity, and there was no Missouri authority to the contrary. It granted summary judgment on the negligent maintenance claim for lack of evidence creating a triable issue on any defect. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike two expert disclosures.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

The case involved the sentencing of defendant Robert Ray Courtney, who had been convicted on multiple counts of tampering with and diluting cancer medications such as Taxol and Gemzar provided to vulnerable patients. The district court imposed a 360-month prison term after determining that an upward departure of three levels from the Sentencing Guidelines range was warranted. The court identified four independent grounds for the departure: the grouping rules under section 3D1.4 disregarded a significant number of additional offenses involving distinct victims and times; the conduct substantially endangered public health under section 5K2.14 beyond what the guidelines anticipated; the offenses created a unique risk of extreme psychological injury to victims under section 2N1.1; and section 5K2.21 allowed consideration of uncharged related criminal conduct such as tampering with other drugs and sales of black-market medications. Each ground alone justified the increase, resulting in the final sentencing range.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff who sued her medical insurance company after it released her confidential medical records to a third-party attorney in response to a subpoena in an unrelated lawsuit, without her consent or prior notice. The plaintiff claimed breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the physician-patient privilege. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the fiduciary duty claim, finding that the insurer had a duty under Missouri law to protect the records' confidentiality by objecting to the subpoena or seeking a protective order rather than immediately complying. The court granted the defendant's cross-motion on the physician-patient privilege claim, holding that this privilege applies only to physicians and does not extend to insurers. The case was decided under Missouri choice-of-law rules, and the remaining issue of damages was left for further proceedings.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

H & R Block sued former regional directors Enchura and Fortner and their new employer Jackson Hewitt to enforce non-compete and confidentiality clauses in employment contracts through a preliminary injunction, seeking to bar the individuals from working for the competitor and disclosing trade secrets. The court granted the injunction in part, enjoining Enchura and Fortner from competing in or advising franchises within their former regions for two years, from soliciting tax preparation business in those areas, and from revealing confidential information such as marketing plans and new products, while allowing JH to employ them in limited capacities outside those restrictions. The core reasoning was that the contractual covenants were enforceable to protect legitimate business interests in confidential information and regional operations within the seasonal tax preparation industry, that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships and public interest supported limited injunctive relief without fully prohibiting the defendants' employment.

business & regulatorylabor & employment