Plaintiff Regina Terwilliger, a housekeeper at Howard Memorial Hospital, took approved FMLA leave for back surgery in early 2009 and returned to work shortly afterward. While she was on leave, the hospital installed a camera after a series of thefts and later terminated Terwilliger based on video footage showing her near a desk where money had been stolen, though the footage did not clearly show her taking anything. Terwilliger sued the hospital and related defendants under the FMLA, claiming both interference with her leave rights and retaliation for taking leave. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the retaliation claim, holding that Terwilliger presented no evidence showing the hospital's stated reason for termination—attempted theft—was a pretext for discrimination. The interference claim was allowed to proceed to trial.
This case involved a dispute between two behavioral healthcare providers, Texarkana Behavioral Associates (TBA) and Universal Health Services (UHS), arising from failed negotiations in 2004 and 2007 for UHS to acquire TBA's facilities. TBA alleged that UHS misused confidential business information shared under confidentiality agreements to build a competing facility in Fayetteville, Arkansas, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference with business expectancies, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. UHS moved for summary judgment, arguing the agreements did not restrict competition or require a purchase and that TBA failed to show improper use of information or interference. The court granted summary judgment to UHS, finding no genuine issues of material fact because the agreements permitted UHS to evaluate but not commit to a deal, TBA lacked evidence of breach or misuse, and the interference and deceptive practices claims failed due to insufficient proof of improper conduct or causation.
This case involved an appeal by First State Bank of Crossett from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order in Joe Ann Fowler's Chapter 13 proceeding. The bankruptcy court found, after a hearing with bank records and witness testimony, that Fowler had overpaid her mortgage debt by $638.96, ordered repayment of that amount along with release of the lien on her home, and awarded attorney fees and costs. The district court reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, concluding that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining the overpayment based on the evidence or in applying Arkansas law and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to award fees and costs.
This case involved migrant agricultural workers employed by Pittman Nursery Corporation who alleged that a former employee extorted kickbacks from them over several years, reducing their net wages below federal and state minimum wage levels. The plaintiffs brought claims under the FLSA, RICO, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, and for negligent supervision. Pittman Nursery moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the non-FLSA claims on grounds of preemption and failure to state a claim. The court ruled that the FLSA does not provide an exclusive remedy and therefore does not preempt the other claims, citing the statute's savings clause and district court precedents within the Eighth Circuit. However, the court dismissed the RICO, AWPA, negligent supervision, and related claims because the complaint failed to adequately plead them, while permitting the FLSA claims to continue.
Luxpro Corp., a Taiwanese manufacturer of MP3 players, sued Apple Inc. alleging that Apple used injunctions obtained in German and Taiwanese courts, along with subsequent warning letters to Luxpro's business partners, to interfere with Luxpro's contracts and business expectancies. Apple moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that many claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the interference allegations did not meet the required elements under Arkansas or California law. The court determined that Luxpro's claims based on pre-injunction litigation conduct were time-barred but that post-injunction warning letters could proceed as a basis for the interference claims. It further held that the tortious interference claims failed because Luxpro did not sufficiently allege an actual breach or disruption of its contractual relationships or expectancies. The opinion analyzes the claims under both states' laws and dismisses the commercial disparagement claim for similar pleading deficiencies.
This case involves a civil rights lawsuit filed by Anthony Hicks under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at the Ouachita County Detention Center, alleging that Captain David Norwood used excessive force against him during booking and that Lt. Gregory and Sgt. Baker failed to intervene. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the official capacity claims, finding no evidence of an unconstitutional policy, custom, or failure to train amounting to deliberate indifference. It denied summary judgment on the remaining individual capacity claims due to genuine issues of material fact regarding the alleged excessive force and failure to intervene. The decision was based on the absence of supporting evidence for official capacity liability and disputes over the facts of the incident at the summary judgment stage.