Marvin Shape, a former Barnes County correctional officer, sued the county and its sheriff after being demoted in December 2003 and terminated in April 2004, claiming the actions stemmed from his possible ADD, complaints about billing practices, grievances over access to personnel records, and a hostile work environment. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing four of the seven counts including discrimination and certain retaliation claims, while denying it as to the remaining counts involving retaliation, free speech, and due process violations, and removed the sheriff as an individual defendant. The court reasoned that some claims failed due to lack of evidence or immunity, but the due process claim survived because the grievance hearing committee included potentially biased members and denied Shape the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The case centers on public employment actions and constitutional protections in the workplace grievance process.
The case arose from injuries sustained by plaintiff Paul Eberts when thrown from an ATV manufactured by the defendants, leading to claims including defective warnings under state law. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the warnings claim, asserting that it was preempted by a federal consent decree issued under the Consumer Product Safety Act that specified warning requirements for ATVs. The court denied the motion, holding that the state claim was not preempted because the decree established only minimum standards, a statutory savings clause preserved common-law liability, and the decree did not conflict with additional state-law duties. The court further found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff actually received the supplemental warnings mailed by the defendants, precluding summary judgment.
In Myers v. Richland County, a former elected state's attorney sued the county and its commissioners, claiming breach of a settlement agreement from a prior federal Title VII gender discrimination case, along with defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on alleged retaliation that prevented his reelection. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as there was no diversity or federal question jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that supplemental jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the federal court had expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement from the underlying federal action. The court granted the motion to strike the request for punitive damages, finding that North Dakota law requires a separate motion to amend the pleadings before such damages can be sought.
This case concerns the resentencing of Pedro Dyck, a Canadian citizen previously deported after a federal drug conviction, who was convicted of attempted reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) after traveling through the U.S. border without authorization. The district court imposed the 41-month sentence mandated by the Eighth Circuit, which had vacated an earlier downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 and § 5K2.0 based on the defendant's background and circumstances. The court explained that the guidelines were intended to promote uniformity but not to eliminate all judicial discretion for fact-specific individualized sentencing, yet it was bound to apply the appellate ruling requiring a sentence within the 41-51 month range.
The case involved a dispute over a defective oilseed processing plant in North Dakota, where AgGrow sued Ibberson (the contractor), Anderson (the equipment supplier), and National Union (the performance bond surety) for breach of contract, warranty, negligence, and related claims after the plant failed to meet performance guarantees. Following arbitration between AgGrow and Ibberson and review by special masters under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, the masters found Ibberson fully liable for breach damages including corrective costs and lost profits, Anderson partially at fault with indemnity obligations to Ibberson, and National jointly and severally liable with Ibberson for corrective work costs under the bond. The court largely adopted the masters' report after reviewing objections, modifying it in three respects while confirming the core liability allocations based on contract terms, express warranties, and the scope of the performance bond. The decision centered on interpreting the parties' agreements, including indemnity provisions and bond triggers, without attributing fault to AgGrow.
The case involved a defendant convicted of aggravated sexual abuse who received a 125-month sentence that included a two-level enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines for inflicting serious bodily injury on the victim. Following an appeals court remand for additional findings on whether the enhancement applied, the district court held evidentiary hearings with medical testimony and reimposed the original sentence. The court determined that the victim suffered serious bodily injury based on extreme physical pain during labor and delivery caused by the crime, as well as protracted mental impairments including depression and PTSD lasting over a year and physical impairments from pregnancy and related hospitalization.