Charles Alexander Shaw

This case involved Safeco Insurance Company seeking to enforce a General Agreement of Indemnity against Lake Asphalt Paving & Construction and related defendants after Lake Asphalt defaulted on two bonded construction projects. Safeco had completed the projects under its performance bonds and sought specific performance to require the defendants to post collateral security matching its reserve amount of $1,990,070. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Safeco's motion for partial summary judgment on Count IV, ordering the defendants to deposit the collateral by September 8, 2011. The court reasoned that the indemnity agreement unambiguously required the posting of collateral upon demand, the facts were uncontroverted, and there was no evidence of bad faith by Safeco in setting the reserve.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a federal declaratory judgment action brought by insurer James River against Impact Strategies and others, seeking a ruling that James River has no duty under a commercial general liability policy to defend or indemnify the defendants in an underlying Illinois state-court negligence suit arising from a construction-site injury. Defendant Impact moved to dismiss based on the Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine, arguing the coverage issues should be resolved in the parallel state proceeding. The district court granted the motion in part, staying the federal action rather than dismissing it. The court reasoned that the Declaratory Judgment Act gives federal courts discretion to abstain when the same parties and issues not governed by federal law are already pending in state court, and here the Illinois court could more efficiently resolve all related claims, including newly added third-party coverage claims against James River. The court found the proceedings parallel and no procedural manipulation by the parties.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the State of Missouri, through its Attorney General, suing Portfolio Recovery Associates in state court under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act for allegedly deceptive and unfair debt collection practices, including attempting to collect discharged debts and filing false affidavits, and seeking injunctive relief, penalties, and restitution. Defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act on the theory that it qualified as a class action and under bankruptcy removal provisions. The district court granted the state's motion to remand, holding that the suit is not a class action under CAFA because it was filed by the Attorney General under the MMPA without any requirement of class certification and the state is the real party in interest. The court further determined that the action qualifies for the exception to bankruptcy removal for exercises of governmental police or regulatory power.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company and First State Insurance Company sought declaratory judgments regarding their obligations to indemnify The Doe Run Resources Corporation under primary and excess policies for bodily injury and property damage claims arising from Doe Run's lead smelter operations. Count Three specifically requested declarations that the policies provided no coverage for settlements in two underlying lawsuits, Warden and BNSF. Doe Run moved to dismiss the BNSF portion of Count Three for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on ripeness grounds. The court granted the motion, holding that no actual controversy existed because Doe Run had not asserted any coverage claim against Hartford for the BNSF settlement and there was no substantial probability it would do so, rendering the request for declaratory relief hypothetical and unfit for judicial decision under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the State of Missouri, through its Secretary of State and Attorney General, filing suit in state court against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company and related defendants, seeking damages for customers who purchased auction rate securities. Defendants removed the action to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), arguing it qualified as a removable covered class action involving a covered security. The court granted the state's motion to remand, holding that SLUSA's removal provision applies only to private party class actions precluded by the statute's limitations on state-law fraud claims, and explicitly preserves state enforcement actions brought by states on their own behalf. The decision relied on the statutory text of SLUSA subsections (d) and (e) as well as Supreme Court precedent interpreting the removal section as limited to precluded private actions.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In this case, plaintiff Hubbs Machine & Manufacturing, Inc. sued defendant Brunson Instrument Co. for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, Missouri trademark dilution, common law trademark infringement, and unfair competition, alleging Brunson infringed its federally registered "SM" mark used on industrial survey targets and related metrology products. Brunson moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the "SM" mark was generic and thus unprotectable, and that the unfair competition claim lacked sufficient factual allegations. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the federal registration of the mark created a rebuttable presumption of validity and distinctiveness that Brunson's genericness argument did not overcome at the pleading stage. The court further concluded that Missouri unfair competition claims are not limited to trade-secret misuse and that the complaint adequately stated a claim based on the alleged misuse of trade names or marks.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a pro se plaintiff's claims against her employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that the hospital failed to accommodate her asthma by reassigning her away from a construction area, leading to exacerbated symptoms and increased absenteeism, and that it also discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against her through discipline, negative appraisals, and other actions. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment after reviewing the evidence, including deposition testimony and records. The court determined there were no genuine issues of material fact, as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate, discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, with undisputed facts showing issues like the timing of construction and lack of supporting evidence for adverse actions tied to protected activity. The court also denied a related motion to compel.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves Michael Worthington's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his death sentence after pleading guilty to first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and forcible rape of Melinda Griffin. Worthington alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase, including failures to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence about his childhood abuse, family background, and mental health issues, and to object to certain prosecution evidence. The district court reviewed the claims under AEDPA deference standards and the two-prong Strickland test for deficient performance and prejudice, analyzing trial counsel's mitigation efforts, expert testimony, and procedural defaults while assuming some unreasonable conduct but focusing on lack of demonstrated prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a putative class action originally filed in Illinois state court in 2002, in which the plaintiff alleged that Home Depot automatically charged customers for an optional damage waiver on equipment rentals without their agreement, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. After the case was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds and refiled in Missouri state court in 2008, the defendant removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and traditional diversity jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because CAFA applies only to actions commenced on or after February 18, 2005, and the defendant failed to prove that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 from the plaintiff's viewpoint. The motion to dismiss was left for the state court to decide after remand.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, a prisoner sued correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that offering him a pork meal violated his First Amendment rights due to his religious beliefs and that using pepper spray on him while he held open a food port, followed by inadequate decontamination, violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claim, finding that the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies by filing a relevant grievance and had never informed prison officials of any religious dietary needs. The court denied summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim concerning the pepper spray, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the force was applied in good faith to restore order and whether officials took reasonable steps to mitigate the spray's effects by allowing proper cleaning. The ruling was based on standards for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and precedents on prisoner claims and excessive force.

criminal lawcivil rightsreligious liberty

This case is a patent infringement action in which OrthoArm and GAC alleged that Forestadent and Dyna Flex's Quick self-ligating orthodontic brackets infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,630,715 covering a bracket with an internal closing clip or shutter mechanism. The court ruled on the parties' various motions in limine concerning the admission of evidence and expert testimony for trial. It granted the defendants' motion to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs' In-Ovation commercial bracket, reasoning that infringement is determined solely by comparing the accused device to the construed patent claims, not to a patentee's commercial embodiment. The court also addressed other evidentiary motions, granting some to limit expert opinions that varied from the claim construction order and denying others without prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a Missouri plaintiff who sued Wal-Mart and the manager of a Missouri store for personal injuries allegedly caused by E. coli contamination in fresh spinach purchased at the store, asserting claims including products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. The defendants removed the action to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction existed because the manager had been fraudulently joined as a defendant. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the manager was not fraudulently joined since the complaint asserted a colorable claim against her under state law that could impose liability. Because the manager and plaintiff were both Missouri citizens, complete diversity was lacking and the federal court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Phillip Shaw, who was convicted as a juvenile in state court of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. The petition challenged the prosecution's use of a peremptory strike to remove a Black female juror, which defense counsel objected to at trial on race and gender grounds under Batson v. Kentucky and J.E.B. v. Alabama, but appellate counsel failed to preserve the gender claim by not raising it in the motion for new trial. The district court granted the petition after de novo review, finding that trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington by not preserving the gender-based Batson objection, which prejudiced Shaw because the strike was based on impermissible stereotypes about women's sympathy for young defendants. The court concluded this violated Shaw's equal protection rights and ordered his release or retrial.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which plaintiffs Sigma-Aldrich and Oxford Biomedica alleged that defendant Open Biosystems infringed two patents related to modified lentiviral vectors used for gene delivery in research and therapy. The court addressed the parties' motion for claim construction after a hearing, construing four disputed terms from the '123 and '699 patents. The court adopted the plaintiffs' proposed constructions in full, defining terms such as "lentiviral vector," "lentiviral LTR-deleted vector," "capable of transducing," and "non-functional lentiviral 5' LTR promoter" based on the language in the patent specifications, file histories, and applicable Federal Circuit precedents. The opinion emphasizes that claim terms must be interpreted according to their meaning within the context of the patents themselves rather than unrelated patents or general usage outside that context.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent dispute in which OrthoArm, owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,630,715 on self-ligating orthodontic brackets, alleges that Forestadent's Quick-Bracket dental brackets infringe claims 1 or 12. The district court conducted claim construction to define disputed terms in the patent. It adopted OrthoArm's proposed constructions, including interpreting "locking body for engaging said locking recess" according to its plain meaning as the portion of the locking shutter capable of fitting into the locking recess. The court reasoned from the patent specification, claim differentiation doctrine, avoidance of redundancy, and Federal Circuit precedent such as Markman v. Westview Instruments, rejecting Forestadent's narrower proposals that would add limitations not present in the claims.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Stanley Brasch sued the Secretary of Transportation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming employment discrimination and retaliation based on his Jewish religion and national origin at the FAA, with allegations covering a 14-day unpaid suspension in 2002 plus 28 other acts involving work schedules, meetings, and hostile environment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims after converting the dismissal motion due to materials outside the pleadings. The court held that Brasch failed to exhaust administrative remedies on some claims, could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation on the rest, and offered no evidence that the agency's stated reasons were pretextual, including findings that he was not similarly situated to the 2101 Specialists he referenced for comparison.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In SEC v. Shanahan, the Securities and Exchange Commission applied for a court order compelling former officers and directors of Engineered Support Systems, Inc. to comply with subpoenas issued in an investigation into potential stock options backdating. The respondents appeared for testimony but, on counsel's advice, refused to answer questions or assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The district court granted the SEC's application, ordering the respondents to produce the requested documents or provide a written statement of privilege by a set date, and to appear for testimony or personally assert a valid privilege. The court reasoned that the respondents did not contest the Powell factors required for administrative subpoena enforcement and that SEC Form 1662 did not expand any rights beyond those provided by the Fifth Amendment.

business & regulatoryprocedurecriminal law

The case concerned an appeal by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation from a bankruptcy court order approving the distress termination of three defined benefit pension plans maintained by Falcon Products, Inc. and its affiliates during their Chapter 11 reorganization. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the ERISA reorganization test for distress terminations could be applied to the plans in the aggregate rather than on a plan-by-plan basis. The court reasoned that the statute does not require individual analysis of each plan, that evidence demonstrated termination of all plans was necessary for the debtors to obtain financing and successfully reorganize, and that the bankruptcy court's factual findings supporting aggregate treatment were not clearly erroneous.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

In this wrongful death case, the plaintiff sued Union Pacific Railroad and others in state court after a fatal train-vehicle collision, alleging negligence in maintaining the crossing and operating the train. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that federal railroad safety regulations completely preempted the state claims and created federal question jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the state law claims were not subject to complete preemption under the Federal Railroad Safety Act because no comprehensive federal regulatory scheme governed the specific allegations, and thus no federal jurisdiction existed under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved FURminator, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against Ontel Products Corp., Linens 'N Things, Munchkin, Inc., and related defendants, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,782,846 (the Porter Patent) for a pet grooming tool used to remove loose hair and of the trademark 'DESHEDDING' for similar products. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied the motion in full after an evidentiary hearing. On the patent claim, the court concluded that FURminator failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because the patent was likely obvious in light of prior art consisting of toothed clipper blades used for deshedding, with the addition of a handle being a predictable improvement. On the trademark claim, the court found that 'DESHEDDING' was a generic or merely descriptive term that had not acquired secondary meaning, so it was not protectible, and there was no evidence of bad-faith passing off. The court further held that FURminator had not demonstrated irreparable harm and that the public interest in competition and the balance of hardships weighed against granting injunctive relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure