Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Eighth Circuit”

8th Cir. BAP Reverses Disallowance of Postpetition Interest at Default Contract Rate

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s disallowance of postpetition interest at the default contract rate, holding that “the bankruptcy court erred in applying a liquidated damages analysis and ruling the default interest rate was an unenforceable penalty,” and also erred in weighing “equitable considerations” to avoid enforcing the contractual default interest rate.

8th Cir. Holds No Repurchase Required for Foreclosed Loans

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the purchaser of residential mortgage loans could not require the seller of the loans to repurchase purportedly defective loans under their agreement after the loans had gone through foreclosure.  However, the seller was required to repurchase the defective loans that had not gone through foreclosure. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in part to the seller and in part to the purchaser. A copy of the opinion in CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Equity Bank, N.A. is available at:  Link to Opinion. Over the course…

8th Cir. Reverses Nationwide UDAP Class Cert Due to Variations in State Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently reversed certification of a nationwide class involving allegedly deceptive advertising practices, holding that certification of a national class was inappropriate because the consumer protection laws of each class member’s home state governed their claims. The Eighth Circuit further held that class treatment was inappropriate due to the trial court’s failure to conduct separate choice of law analyses for the consumer class’s breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims. A copy of the opinion in Hale v. Emerson Electric Company is available at:  Link to Opinion. A group of consumers brought…

8th Cir. Allows External Evidence to Oppose Remand Under CAFA’s ‘Local Controversy’ Exception

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order denying a motion to remand a putative class action to Arkansas state court based on the federal Class Action Fairness Act’s (CAFA) “local controversy” exception to jurisdiction because the consumer plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that they sought significant relief from a defendant that was a citizen of the state. In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit held that the trial court did not err when it considered extrinsic evidence in the form of affidavits from the defendant company because a court “may…

8th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act Claim for Lack of Standing

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a trial court order dismissing a plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing, holding that the plaintiff properly alleged an injury in fact because it claimed an economic harm to it that was concrete and personal to the plaintiff. In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit found that standing existed even if the claim may lack merit under the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, because Article III standing is distinct from the merits of a state law claim. A copy of the opinion in Enterprise Financial Group Inc. v. Podhorn is…

8th Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration in FLSA Case Against Lender

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration over a suit filed by a former employee alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In so doing, the Court held that the former employee’s mere review of the employee handbook, and the arbitration and delegation provisions therein, did not constitute acceptance of the relevant clauses, and without acceptance no valid contracts to arbitrate their disputes or delegate the decision to an arbitrator were formed. A copy of the opinion in Shockley v. PrimeLending is available at: …

8th Cir. Affirms Cancellation of Lis Pendens Due to Imprecise Property Description and Prayer for Relief

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order canceling a lis pendens, finding that the description of the property at issue in the lis pendens was imprecise and did not connect to any particular request for equitable relief as required under Missouri law. A copy of the opinion in Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. v. Podhorn is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff lender extended a $1.9 million loan to an entity that then made alleged fraudulent transfers of the loan proceeds to the defendant company. The defendant used the fraudulently transferred loan proceeds to purchase…

8th Cir. Rejects Alleged Data Breach Victim’s UDAP, UDTPA, Common Law, and Other Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of an alleged data breach victim’s allegations under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as various common law claims. A copy of the opinion in Melissa Alleruzzo v. SuperValu, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. In June and July 2014, hundreds of retail grocery stores operated by three different entities (“grocers”) were hacked, resulting in the theft of customers’ card information, including their names, credit or debit card account…

8th Cir. Rejects FDCPA Claim for Unlicensed Collection Letter Signer

The U.S Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a consumer’s suit against a debt collector, alleging that its collection letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In so ruling, the Court concluded that the debt collector’s use of the term “PROFESSIONAL DEBT COLLECTORS” and the initials of its “doing business as” name would not mislead or deceive an “unsophisticated consumer,” and the letter’s inclusion of a signature of an individual not registered to collect debts in Minnesota was irrelevant and did not violate section 1692f, because the collection company and two other signatories…