Nanette Kay Laughrey

This case concerns whether West Publishing Corp. violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) by purchasing entire state driver’s license databases and reselling the personal information to third parties for potential future uses. The court denied West’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the DPPA does not permit resellers to obtain information solely for resale or to disclose bulk data absent a specific permitted purpose listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b). The core reasoning rests on the statute’s text, which generally prohibits obtaining or disclosing personal information except for enumerated uses and restricts resale by authorized recipients to those same limited purposes, while also finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged injury for standing purposes based on invasion of the privacy rights the DPPA protects.

business & regulatoryprocedurecivil rights

In Janson v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., a class of plaintiffs sued the online legal document provider alleging that its use of automated questionnaires to prepare customized documents such as wills, business formation papers, and other instruments amounted to the unauthorized practice of law under Missouri statutes. The court granted LegalZoom summary judgment on claims involving patent and trademark applications but denied it as to other documents, while granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The decision turned on the finding that LegalZoom's process—collecting customer answers, reviewing data for errors, and populating standardized attorney-drafted templates—constituted assisting in the drawing of papers affecting or relating to secular rights for a valuable consideration. The court rejected arguments that the fully automated nature of the service or the fact that documents take effect only upon customer signature exempted it from regulation.

business & regulatory

The case involved disabled adult Missouri residents over age 21 who were denied Medicaid coverage for medically necessary incontinence briefs, which the state classified as non-covered hygiene items, while covering them for those under 21 and for institutionalized adults. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, arguing that the denial forced institutionalization contrary to federal requirements. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction, declaring the state's policy unlawful. It reasoned that the policy violated the Medicaid Act's reasonable standards and home health services provisions, and breached the ADA and Rehabilitation Act's integration mandate under Olmstead v. L.C. by failing to provide community-based services equivalent to those offered in institutions, as waiver programs did not guarantee access or availability.

healthcarecivil rights

Missouri Beverage Company sued Shelton Brothers for violating Missouri franchise law by unilaterally terminating their oral agreement under which MoBev distributed Shelton's imported beers in the state. The court granted summary judgment to Shelton and denied MoBev's motion, holding that no franchise relationship existed under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.400. The core reasoning was that the required "community of interest" element was absent, as Shelton's products accounted for 1% or less of MoBev's annual sales, MoBev made no substantially franchise-specific investments, and MoBev was not economically dependent on Shelton.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Deckard sued his former employer Hostess for failing to provide the COBRA notices required under ERISA when he became eligible for the company health plan in 2004 and when his employment ended in 2006. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Hostess on the claims and denied attorney fees, noting that Deckard had received continuous coverage at no cost to himself, all medical claims were paid in full, and he therefore suffered no damages or success on the merits. On appeal, the district court affirmed, applying Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. to hold that without at least some success on the merits there was no basis to award fees.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Smith v. Astrue, the plaintiff sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits for the period before January 18, 2008, claiming disability due to migraines and other conditions. The court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case, instructing the ALJ to reconsider the plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) by accounting for limitations caused by her chronic migraine headaches. The reasoning centered on the ALJ's failure to adequately consider the impact of the migraines on the plaintiff's ability to perform work-related activities, despite evidence from treating physicians and the plaintiff's testimony about frequent debilitating headaches.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs, the ex-wife and adult children of a deceased public school teacher, who sued the Public School Retirement System of Missouri and related defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after the system paid retirement death benefits to the teacher's second wife instead of the children. The plaintiffs alleged an oral agreement during the divorce process under which the teacher and his ex-wife agreed to redirect their respective PSRS survivor benefits to their children, and they sought equitable relief including a constructive trust. The court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to the existence and enforceability of the oral agreement. The court also rejected arguments that the claims were barred by laches or the dead man's statute, noting that Missouri had abrogated the latter and that no unreasonable delay had occurred.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiff David Givens, a former pharmacy technician, suing Prudential Insurance under ERISA for wrongfully terminating his long-term disability benefits after the initial 24-month period. Prudential had determined that Givens could perform other gainful occupations despite his pain and medication side effects, but the court reviewed the denial under an abuse-of-discretion standard due to Prudential's conflict of interest. The court granted summary judgment to Givens and denied Prudential's motion, holding that Prudential failed to adequately consider evidence from treating physicians about morphine's impact on concentration and relied on a conclusory independent review that contradicted the record. This violated ERISA's requirements for reasoned decision-making in benefit determinations. The ruling was limited to the specific denial at issue and did not address future eligibility.

labor & employmenthealthcare

Following a 2008 helicopter crash, plaintiffs brought Missouri state-law negligence and wrongful death claims against MD Helicopters and others in state court, alleging the defendant breached duties as the FAA type certificate holder by failing to provide adequate maintenance instructions and by supplying defective parts. MD Helicopters removed the case to federal court under both the federal question statute (28 U.S.C. § 1441) and the federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442), arguing that the claims raised substantial issues under Federal Aviation Regulations and that it acted under federal direction. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that state-law claims incorporating federal standards do not create federal-question jurisdiction when Congress has not provided a private federal remedy, and that MD Helicopters did not qualify for federal officer removal because it neither assisted an FAA designee nor acted under a federal officer's direction. The court emphasized that FAA designees are legally distinct from their employer manufacturers and that mere regulation does not satisfy the 'acting under' requirement.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves Missouri residents who purchased legal documents from LegalZoom's website and sued the company in state court, alleging claims including the unauthorized practice of law under Missouri statutes and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. LegalZoom, headquartered in California, moved to reconsider the denial of its motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer the case to California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) based on a forum selection clause in its online Terms of Service. The court denied the motion, finding that venue is proper in the Western District of Missouri and that the § 1404(a) factors—including plaintiffs' choice of forum, the relative means of the parties, judicial economy, and the advantages of a Missouri court applying Missouri law—weigh against transfer.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved death row inmates in Missouri challenging the state's lethal injection protocol, alleging that the use of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act because the drugs were not obtained via prescription, approved by the FDA for this purpose, or dispensed lawfully. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment against state corrections officials. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the claims, that the federal statutes did not preempt or bar the action, that the claims did not conflict with the statutes' purposes, and that res judicata from a prior unrelated case did not apply because the issues and parties differed.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involves Mary Toppins suing Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company under ERISA for wrongfully terminating her long-term disability benefits after initially approving them based on her medical conditions. The court granted partial summary judgment to Toppins, denied Hartford's motion, and remanded the case to allow Toppins to respond to an independent medical review report that Hartford relied on for its denial. The reasoning is that while the plan administrator can close the record at some point, ERISA requires a full and fair review by allowing the claimant an opportunity to respond to new medical opinions before issuing a final denial on appeal.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves Russell C. Hogan suing United Parcel Service (UPS) under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) after UPS eliminated his feeder driver position at the Sedalia, Missouri facility while he was on military leave for Operation Iraqi Freedom from February 2003 to April 2004. The court granted UPS's motion for summary judgment and denied Hogan's motion for partial summary judgment. The decision rested on evidence that the position was eliminated for legitimate business reasons, including a decrease in local package volume that led management to reassign pickups to package car drivers as a cost-saving measure, a change made without regard to Hogan's military status. Hogan failed to show that his military service was a motivating factor in the elimination or that he would have been entitled to another feeder driver role under the applicable collective bargaining agreement had he not taken leave.

labor & employmentfederal power

In Coates v. Powell, the plaintiff sued Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper Derrick Powell, New Franklin police officer Jeff Glandon, and related entities after events during a June 2006 child neglect investigation prompted by a hotline call. Officers and a social worker entered her home with consent, restrained her on a couch when she became agitated and ordered them out, and later Powell arrested her outside for traffic violations, breaking her arm during the handcuffing. The court granted Glandon's motion for summary judgment in full and Powell's motion in part on claims including trespass, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and certain constitutional violations related to remaining in the house, while denying it on intentional infliction of emotional distress and illegal arrest or seizure claims; it also denied the plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion. The rulings turned on the absence of material factual disputes for some claims versus remaining questions about the reasonableness of Powell's actions for others.

civil rightscriminal lawfamily lawtorts & liability

In United States v. Lane, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his laptop computer pursuant to a warrant issued on the basis of an affidavit describing an unidentified caller's report of seeing what appeared to be child pornography on the laptop. The court conducted a de novo review and concluded that the affidavit did not establish probable cause because it contained no independent corroboration of the caller's information. The court therefore rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation on that point but declined to grant suppression, instead remanding the matter for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied based on the officers' reliance on the warrant. The opinion examined the four corners of the affidavit and noted that facts such as consultation with a prosecutor and the issuing judge's prior rejection of another warrant application could support good faith but required an evidentiary record.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Emily Roberts and Sarah Smith filed a putative class action against the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue and others, alleging that the Director knowingly disclosed their and others' highly restricted personal information, including Social Security numbers, from state motor vehicle records to private companies without consent, in violation of the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and through a related § 1983 claim. The Director moved to dismiss, arguing that the DPPA could not be enforced via § 1983 due to its comprehensive remedial scheme, that the complaint failed to allege the required mental state, that he was sued in his official capacity, and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The court granted the motion as to the § 1983 claim, finding the DPPA's enforcement mechanism exclusive, but denied it as to the direct DPPA claim, holding that the allegations plausibly stated a knowing violation and that the statute's clear language defeated qualified immunity. The core reasoning rested on the statutory text of the DPPA, precedents like Collier v. Dickinson, and the standard for motions to dismiss requiring plausible allegations viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.

civil rights

In Wright v. American Home Products Corp., plaintiff Becky Wright sued the manufacturers of the diet drug Pondimin (fenfluramine) for product liability, alleging that her short-term use of the drug caused her Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (PPH), with her husband claiming loss of consortium; the claims included negligence, design defect, failure to warn, misrepresentation, strict liability, and breach of warranty. The court ruled on multiple motions to exclude or limit expert testimony from both sides regarding causation and related issues. It denied the plaintiff's motion in full, granted the defendants' motions in part (including limits on testimony about the company's specific intent), and denied them in part, allowing several experts to testify on PPH causation, risks, and statistical data from studies like the IPPHS while finding their methodologies sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 for presentation to a jury. The core reasoning centered on whether the proposed expert opinions were based on sufficient facts, reliable principles, and proper application to the case facts, emphasizing that disputes over statistical probabilities and short-term use did not render the testimony inadmissible speculation.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

Tammy Drum sued her employer, Leeson Electric Corporation and Regal-Beloit, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act, Title VII gender discrimination, and the Missouri Human Rights Act after she was promoted and a male replacement was hired as Human Resources Manager at a higher salary. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that the employer had justified the salary differential through evidence of market-driven compensation practices and the male candidate's qualifications and experience, rather than sex. Drum failed to produce sufficient evidence showing that the higher pay for her replacement was not based on legitimate factors or that more qualified female candidates were overlooked.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved homeowners who sued their forced-place insurance provider after a fire destroyed their home, seeking payment under the policy despite having other insurance that covered the mortgage balance. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. The reasoning centered on the policy's 'other insurance' clause, which made coverage excess only after other valid insurance was exhausted, and a cancellation provision that applied once the mortgagee's security interest was satisfied by the homeowners' other policies.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a Chinese citizen residing in Missouri who filed a Form I-485 application to adjust his immigration status to lawful permanent resident over four years prior, but the application remained pending due to incomplete FBI name checks. The plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus under the Administrative Procedure Act and related statutes to compel the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, and FBI to complete the background checks and adjudicate his application promptly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the agencies have a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate applications within a reasonable time, which had not been met here, and remanded the case to USCIS with an order to complete adjudication within 90 days.

immigrationprocedurefederal power