Ross Thompson Roberts

This case involved debtors who sought to set aside a foreclosure sale of their residence under 11 U.S.C. § 548, alleging it was a fraudulent transfer because they received less than reasonably equivalent value and were insolvent at the time. The bankruptcy court found the sale price inadequate but denied relief due to lack of evidence on insolvency and instead ordered the bank to return its excess proceeds from the sale. On appeal, the district court reversed that judgment, holding that the bankruptcy court had erred by rendering a decision without an adequate evidentiary basis on the insolvency and equivalent-value issues and by failing to conduct the hearing contemplated in a prior order. The court remanded the matter for a new hearing allowing the parties to present evidence, including on the contents of the Chapter 13 schedules.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved claims by White Industries and Carthage Airways, on behalf of themselves and a class of Cessna zone dealers, seeking treble damages from Cessna Aircraft Co. and Cessna Finance Corp. for alleged violations of the Robinson-Patman Act's prohibition on price discrimination and Section 1 of the Sherman Act during the distribution of general aviation aircraft between 1968 and 1974. After a bench trial on the liability phase of the individual claims, the court addressed the defendants' motions for involuntary dismissal of those claims and for decertification of the class. The opinion first defined key terms in the aircraft distribution chain, including fixed base operators, contracted dealers, zone dealers, and end consumers, then examined evidence regarding resale prices, sales territories, diverted sales, and competitive impacts. The court concluded that plaintiffs had not sufficiently proven the elements of their claims, including injury from discriminatory practices or diverted sales to end users, leading to rulings on the pending motions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose after the failure of Penn Square Bank, when six Missouri credit unions that had deposited over $100,000 each sought FDIC insurance coverage up to $100,000 per individual member rather than a single $100,000 limit per credit union. The FDIC determined that the credit unions qualified only for the corporate limit under its regulations and paid accordingly, prompting the credit unions to sue. On the FDIC's motion for summary judgment, the court held that Missouri-chartered credit unions are corporations subject to 12 C.F.R. § 330.5, which caps coverage at $100,000 per corporation, and that their relationship with members did not qualify for multiple coverage under any other regulatory provision. The court further found that the mere notation of "credit union" on the bank's records did not provide the required notification of a fiduciary or agency relationship entitling the plaintiffs to broader coverage. Because the material facts were undisputed and the issues presented questions of regulatory interpretation and law, summary judgment was granted to the defendant.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court's determination that certain post-divorce obligations were nondischargeable support payments. The debtor was required by the divorce decree to pay for his children's dental and orthodontic care and to share proceeds from a promissory note with his former spouse. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that these amounts totaling $3,650 constituted nondischargeable support under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), rather than a dischargeable property settlement. The court reasoned that the intent behind the obligations at the time of the decree was to provide for the children's needs, evidenced by the low child support awards and the context within the decree.

family law

This case concerned entitlement to a $4,442.50 surplus remaining after a trustee's sale under a first deed of trust on real property, where the first lienholder was paid in full and junior lienholders and the mortgagors both claimed the remainder. The court entered judgment for the Farmers Home Administration, holder of the second deed of trust, directing payment of the surplus to it (after costs) to the extent of its unpaid debt, with any excess to the Wishons. The decision rested on Missouri precedent holding that a junior encumbrance assigns the mortgagor's equity of redemption, giving junior lienholders priority over the mortgagor for surplus proceeds following foreclosure of a senior lien. The court distinguished contrary lines of authority as inapplicable to disputes between mortgagors and junior creditors.

property

The case centers on challenges by JBK, Inc. and related plaintiffs to a 1977 Kansas City ordinance regulating massage parlors and masseuses, asserting facial and as-applied violations of federal and state due process, equal protection, privacy rights, and unlawful delegation of power, along with Missouri antitrust claims. A prior state court action involving substantially the same parties and issues ended in a 1980 judgment declaring the ordinance constitutional and valid, with no appeal taken. On defendants' motion for summary judgment in this later federal case, the court addressed whether claim and issue preclusion from the state judgment barred relitigation. The court determined that the prior final judgment on the merits resolved the constitutional validity of the ordinance provisions at issue, precluding further federal adjudication of those claims.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned plaintiffs Richard and Ola Circo, who distributed food products for defendant Spanish Gardens Food Manufacturing Co. under a longstanding course of dealing that included a 15% discount, claiming breach of a constructive partnership, breach of an implied-in-fact contract, and tortious interference with their contracts to third-party stores and warehouses after the defendant began selling directly to the warehouses and later refused all further sales to plaintiffs. The court granted judgment for the defendant on the constructive partnership claim at the close of plaintiffs' evidence. On the implied contract claim, the court found that the parties' course of dealing created an agreement terminable only on reasonable notice, limiting any recoverable damages to the notice period, while rejecting the tortious interference claim due to lack of improper motive or means under applicable Kansas and Missouri law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned claims by the EEOC and intervenor Taloyre Butler that Butler was discharged from her position as an executive secretary due to her pregnancy, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court first addressed a jurisdictional issue, determining that Butler was employed by limited partnership entities that had fewer than fifteen employees and analyzing whether those entities and defendant Financial Assurance, Inc. should be treated as a single employer under the four-factor test from Baker v. Stuart Broadcasting Co. The court ultimately found that Butler had been discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy, awarded her make-whole relief including back pay, and directed the parties to submit calculations for prejudgment interest and related adjustments before entry of final judgment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit brought by Missouri residents Robert Houk and his wife against Kimberly-Clark Corp. for negligence related to safety at a Georgia construction site where Houk was injured while working, along with a loss of consortium claim. The defendant, a Delaware corporation doing business in both states, moved to transfer the case from the Western District of Missouri to the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for convenience of parties and witnesses. The court denied the transfer motion, holding that the plaintiffs' choice of forum carries great weight and that the defendant failed to show the balance of factors strongly favored transfer. Key considerations included the slight convenience to witnesses in Georgia being outweighed by the plaintiff's severe medical needs and ongoing care in Missouri, as well as the parties' relative financial positions, such that transfer would merely shift inconvenience without serving the interest of justice.

proceduretorts & liability

In this diversity jurisdiction case, Havens Steel Company sued Randolph Engineering Company for damages from allegedly defective cladding and insulation work on large ductwork at a cement plant conversion project in Michigan, claiming Randolph and its subcontractor deviated from specifications and caused $499,479.91 in repair costs. Randolph counterclaimed for damages from Havens' four-month delay in delivering fabricated ductwork, which caused interference and extra costs, plus uncompensated extra work due to defective materials, seeking $464,303.06. After a bench trial relying on documentary evidence, the court entered judgment for Randolph on both the claim and counterclaim, awarding $364,790.93 plus prejudgment interest on one count, finding that Randolph performed according to contract requirements while Havens' delays and materials issues caused the problems, and that no valid contract terms excused Havens' liability.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns evidentiary rulings made during the liability phase of a bench trial in a commercial dispute between White Industries and Cessna Aircraft Company, focusing on numerous documents from defendants' files that were challenged as hearsay. The court decided the admissibility of these items by applying Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) for records of regularly conducted activity and 801(d)(2) for adoptive, authorized, or vicarious admissions by a party-opponent. Core reasoning required proof of each foundational element under Rule 803(6), including timely creation, first-hand knowledge by the source, regular business practice, and a business duty for all persons transmitting the information, noting that mere retention in company files does not qualify a document as admissible.

procedure

The case involves a truck driver suing his former trucking company employer for fraudulent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel after the company allegedly failed to honor a commitment to transfer him to a Kansas terminal, causing him to quit his Arizona job and relocate to Missouri. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the claims were time-barred under Kansas statutes of limitations. The court converted the motion to one under Rule 12(b)(6), declined to consider the plaintiff's affidavit on estoppel, and permitted an amended complaint to properly plead that theory. On the limitations question, the court applied Missouri's borrowing statute and analyzed where the cause of action accrued under traditional choice-of-law rules focused on the place of the plaintiff's reliance and injury.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case is a garnishment proceeding brought by the plaintiffs to collect on $5.775 million in final tort judgments arising from a fatal 1980 automobile accident in Missouri, in which a towed repossessed vehicle broke loose and collided with the plaintiffs' car. The judgments were entered against driver Daniel Newman and his employer John Scheall after partial settlements with other insurers, and the garnishment targeted Mission Insurance Co. on an alleged additional policy. Following a jury trial on factual matters, the court resolved the remaining legal issues by interpreting the relevant insurance contracts under Missouri and Colorado law, holding that a clear and unambiguous Driver Exclusion endorsement in the Guaranty policy applied as written based on the application and policy terms, with no basis for coverage.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit brought by the Secretary of Labor against Health Care Resources, Inc., seeking to enjoin violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and to recover unpaid minimum wages due to employees. The defendant, after filing for bankruptcy, argued that the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code applied and required dismissal or suspension of the action. The court reviewed the statutory exception in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) for proceedings by governmental units to enforce police or regulatory powers, along with supporting legislative history and prior case law. It concluded that FLSA enforcement actions under section 17 qualify as such regulatory proceedings and are therefore exempt from the automatic stay. The court accordingly denied the defendant's request to dismiss or stay the case.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether subrogation provisions in an ERISA-regulated employee benefit plan, established through collective bargaining for electrical workers, could be enforced when Missouri state law would otherwise invalidate them as assignments of personal injury claims. The plaintiff, a covered employee injured in an accident, sought payment of medical bills exceeding $17,000 without signing a subrogation acknowledgment form required by the plan, leading to a suit for benefits and damages under Missouri law after the plan refused payment. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that ERISA preempts the conflicting state law. The reasoning centered on the broad preemption language in 29 U.S.C. § 1144, under which state laws relating to ERISA plans must yield unless specific statutory exceptions apply, none of which were relevant here, allowing the plan's subrogation rights to stand.

labor & employmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This diversity case involved NIKA Corporation suing the City of Kansas City and two employees over the alleged appropriation of proprietary documents and materials related to NIKA's Naces III computerized housing rehabilitation cost-estimating system, which the City obtained under a 1976 contract for its rehabilitation loan program. NIKA asserted claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an unconstitutional taking, common-law conversion, a state statutory violation, and breach of contract; the first, second, and fourth claims were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), leaving conversion and breach of contract for a bench trial. The court exercised diversity jurisdiction, made findings of fact regarding the parties' negotiations and the contract terms (including the addition of Part II), and addressed legal issues such as whether the City had a continuing right to retain and use the materials, the adequacy of state remedies for any taking claim, and the measure of damages if liability were found on the remaining claims.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The United States, on behalf of the EPA, sued Amoco Oil Company under the Clean Water Act for civil penalties based on alleged violations of an NPDES permit that set effluent limits for discharges from the company's refinery into the Missouri River. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the government arguing that Amoco's monitoring reports showed exceedances of daily average limits at one outfall and unauthorized discharges at another, while Amoco contested the meaning of the permit terms and the evidence of violations. The court examined the definition of 'daily average' as a monthly average, the applicability of per-day penalty provisions to such averages, and whether an unlimited total suspended solids limit at the second outfall permitted discharges of listed pollutants, while also addressing issues of mootness after the facility closed.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Nichole Force, a thirteen-year-old female student at Pierce City Junior High School, who sought an injunction to allow her to try out for the eighth-grade football team after the school board denied her request based solely on her sex. The defendants included the school district, its superintendent and principal, and the intervening Missouri State High School Activities Association enforcing rules against mixed-sex contact sports. The court granted the injunction, concluding that the exclusion violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The core reasoning was that sex-based classifications require an exceedingly persuasive justification supported by specific evidence rather than generalized assumptions about safety or administrative difficulties, especially where no girls' football team was offered and participation in athletics was mandatory.

civil rights

This case is a products liability class action originally filed in Missouri state court by plaintiff Lydia Adams, seeking damages for personal injuries including tooth discoloration allegedly caused by the drug tetracycline administered during pregnancy or early childhood. After the state court certified a broad class without notice to defendants, two defendants removed the matter to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, asserting complete diversity because one named Missouri defendant was a defunct corporation. Plaintiff moved to remand, challenging the removal's timeliness, the lack of consent from all served defendants within 30 days of service, and related procedural defects involving pre-service class certification and service returns. The court analyzed the removal statute's requirements for ascertaining diversity, the effect of service on the 30-day clock, and whether consents filed after the petition but within 30 days of notice were valid, while accepting the averments about citizenship and service as true where undisputed.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves nine plaintiffs who purchased revenue bonds issued by the Arkansas Valley Environmental & Utility Authority and allege securities fraud in connection with the bonds' issuance and marketing, claiming the bonds were worthless due to inadequate security, excessive fees, undercapitalization, and other nondisclosures. The complaint asserts federal claims under sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with state law claims for fraud, negligence, and breach of trust against the Authority, corporations, a bank, and individuals including attorney Rausch and Plaza Bank. Defendants Rausch and Plaza Bank moved to dismiss, raising issues of statute of limitations, standing, venue, personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim; the court converted certain matters to summary judgment based on submitted evidence and analyzed the sufficiency of allegations for primary and aiding-and-abetting liability under federal securities law. The opinion addresses the background of the 1974 bond issue, defaults in 1975, and legal standards for scienter, contact with purchasers, and pleading requirements.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability