E. Richard Webber

This case is a consolidated patent dispute in which FURminator, Inc. alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 7,334,540 covering a pet grooming tool designed to remove loose hair from animals, while Kim Laube & Co., Inc. sought declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity along with claims of inequitable conduct, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and related state-law torts. After the case was transferred and realigned, Munchkin, Inc. settled, leaving Laube as the sole defendant; a bankruptcy stay was later lifted, allowing the court to address the pending motions. The court reviewed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement, validity under §§ 102, 103 and 112, inequitable conduct, and the non-patent counts, together with Daubert motions to exclude expert testimony and various evidentiary motions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved buyers of real property in Missouri who obtained a title insurance policy from the defendant insurer and later faced a third-party lawsuit claiming adverse possession over a portion of the land. The plaintiffs notified the insurer of the claim and sought defense under the policy, but the insurer sought to resolve its obligations by paying the anticipated diminution in value rather than providing a defense. After a bench trial, the court held that the insurer had breached its contractual duty to defend the plaintiffs in the adverse possession action and entered declaratory judgment to that effect. The court reasoned that the policy language required the insurer to defend against covered claims and did not permit it to satisfy that duty solely by tendering the amount of the insureds' potential loss. Damages were limited to the reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in defending the underlying suit, with further documentation required to calculate the precise amount.

property

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Hawkeye-Security Insurance Company and Midwestern Indemnity Company against former employees of Total Lock & Security, Inc. and The Installers Company, seeking a ruling that their policies provided no liability coverage for driver Daniel Brandt or underinsured motorist coverage for injured passenger Donald Bunch following a November 2007 automobile accident. After a bench trial, the court found that Brandt, who was intoxicated with a breathalyzer reading of 0.196, had consumed alcohol and lacked express or implied permission to operate the company Jeep Liberty under the employers' zero-tolerance policy against drinking and driving. The court concluded there was no coverage because Brandt was not an authorized driver at the time of the crash, as company rules prohibited any employee from granting permission to another who had been drinking and no implied permission existed given the known policy violations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a railroad employee who sued his employer, BNSF Railway, for back and neck injuries allegedly sustained when a locomotive bottomed out on a rough section of track subject to a slow order. The plaintiff brought claims under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) alleging negligence and violations of Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) regulations, and a separate strict liability claim under the LIA. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no evidence the locomotive's condition played a role in the incident and that FRSA regulations governed the track conditions and slow orders with no showing of a violation. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on breach of duty or causation, as expert testimony was inadequate and no regulatory noncompliance was shown.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a copyright infringement claim by Charles F. Vatterott Construction Company and D.L. Design, Inc. against Esteem Custom Homes and others over the architectural design of a residential home called 'The Jefferson.' The district court had previously dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) because the copyright registration application had not been approved when the complaint was filed. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick that the registration requirement is not jurisdictional, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. It allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that related back to the original filing date, noted that the effective registration date preceded the lawsuit, and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved the re-sentencing of defendant Jose Parks after remand from the Eighth Circuit, following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute heroin. The central issue was whether Parks' prior Missouri conviction for escape from confinement qualified as a predicate offense making him a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1, which would increase his sentencing range from 41-51 months to 151 months. The district court examined the specific facts of the escape—running past a front-door officer at a corrections facility—and concluded that the conduct presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to others, distinguishing it from the passive 'failure to report' offense analyzed in Chambers v. United States. Applying the Supreme Court's frameworks from Chambers and Begay, the court held that the escape involved purposeful, violent, and aggressive behavior that met the criteria for a violent felony equivalent, thereby affirming the career offender designation for re-sentencing.

criminal law

This case involved a securities class action brought by a pension trust on behalf of Panera Bread shareholders, alleging that the company and its officers violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements about Panera's growth strategy and new Crispani product during 2005-2007, which allegedly inflated the stock price. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statements were protected by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's safe harbor for forward-looking statements accompanied by cautionary language. The court granted the motion in part, holding that most of the challenged statements were forward-looking and thus shielded from liability under the safe harbor provision of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A), without needing to consider the defendants' state of mind. It denied the motion only as to a few statements of present or historical fact that fell outside the safe harbor's protection.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims by two companies that defendants, including a home builder and a design firm, infringed their copyright in a residential home plan and design called 'The Jefferson,' along with related state-law claims of tortious interference. The court addressed motions to dismiss based on subject-matter jurisdiction and the statute of limitations. It dismissed the copyright infringement claims concerning the architectural design without prejudice because the plaintiffs lacked a completed copyright registration for that design when the complaint was filed, as required by 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), though it allowed the claim regarding the architectural plan to proceed. The court rejected the statute-of-limitations defense, finding that the complaint did not establish on its face when the plaintiffs discovered or should have discovered the alleged infringement. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim once the design-related federal claim was dismissed.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by registered voters and property owners in the Robinwood West Community Improvement District to the District's election practices under Missouri's Community Improvement District Act, which allowed both registered voters and non-resident real property owners to participate in board director elections, with property owners receiving one vote per parcel owned. Plaintiffs alleged that these practices, including permitting individuals to cast multiple ballots, violated the Equal Protection Clause by diluting votes and creating unequal voting power. The court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that the statute's facial authorization of property-based voting in special-purpose districts was constitutional under rational basis review as it served legitimate interests in funding improvements, but the District's implementation allowing multiple votes per person was unconstitutional as applied because it lacked sufficient justification and led to unequal ballot counts. The decision was based on precedents distinguishing general elections from limited-purpose district voting and noted that a preliminary injunction had already addressed the multiple-voting issue, with claims for nominal damages keeping the case live.

electionscivil rights

This case involves participants in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) who sued the former sole shareholder and ESOP trustee of Contemporary Flooring and Design, Inc., alleging that he breached fiduciary duties under ERISA through self-dealing, excessive compensation, improper real estate transactions, and actions to extend company loans in order to retain his position. The defendant moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim, failure to join necessary parties, or alternatively to strike or require a more definite statement. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the plaintiffs' remaining allegations of ERISA fiduciary breaches and related mismanagement stated valid claims for monetary, injunctive, and equitable relief. The court noted that plaintiffs had abandoned certain corporate-law theories and that some allegations were no longer at issue, but sufficient ERISA claims remained to proceed.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a police officer who sued St. Louis County officers and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his estranged wife’s 911 call led to his detention in a parking lot, seizure of his firearms, and involuntary transport to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation and short-term commitment based on reported suicide concerns. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the federal claims. It reasoned that the officers, who were CIT-certified, had sufficient reliable information from the 911 dispatch and follow-up calls to justify the stop, weapons seizure, and decision to seek evaluation without violating the Fourth Amendment or any other constitutional right, and that the plaintiff had failed to present evidence creating a genuine factual dispute. The court also resolved the remaining state-law claims in the defendants’ favor under supplemental jurisdiction.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves Jacqueline G. Letson appealing the denial of her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II, based on claims of disability from neck and back injuries sustained in a 2004 automobile accident. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full and affirmed the ALJ's decision denying benefits. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings, including the claimant's inconsistent statements about her work history, limited objective medical evidence of disabling limitations, her ability to return to work after surgery, and the vocational expert testimony. The ALJ's assessment of the claimant's credibility regarding her pain and functional restrictions was upheld as consistent with the record as a whole.

healthcare

The case involved plaintiff Maureen Eckert suing defendant LVNV Funding LLC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f, alleging that the defendant misrepresented the amount and legal status of a credit card debt in a state court collection petition and attached affidavit by seeking $5,881.73 plus interest from 2005. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that common-law witness immunity and litigation immunity barred the claims and that the complaint failed to state a claim. The court held that the FDCPA abrogates witness immunity because Congress did not intend to preserve the doctrine when enacting the statute, rejected the immunity defense, and found that the allegations were sufficient to proceed on the misrepresentation claims while granting leave to amend the unfair practices claim under § 1692f(1).

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs who purchased a title insurance policy for Missouri property from defendant Stewart Title sought coverage after being sued in an adverse possession action affecting part of the property; the insurer responded by tendering $1,000 under a policy option to pay the amount of insurance or loss, which it claimed terminated its duty to defend. Plaintiffs moved to strike the insurer's eleven affirmative defenses as insufficient, and the insurer moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting no duty to defend remained. The court denied the motion to strike, finding the defenses legally sufficient and providing adequate notice under federal pleading rules. It also denied judgment on the pleadings because the policy language on calculating and tendering payment to extinguish the duty to defend was ambiguous, leaving material factual issues unresolved about whether the $1,000 offer complied with the contract.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, Sensient Technologies and Sensient Flavors sued SensoryEffects Flavor Company and related defendants for federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and dilution, alleging that defendants' use of names like SensoryFlavors and SensoryEffects Flavor Systems created confusion with Sensient's established marks in the flavor industry. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, granted defendants' motion, and dismissed all claims with prejudice. The court reasoned that defendants' SensoryEffects name had been in prior use and created no likelihood of confusion, that any claims regarding the abandoned SensoryFlavors name were moot, that plaintiffs' mark was not sufficiently famous or distinctive to support dilution, and that evidence failed to show actual confusion or bad faith. Summary judgment on the motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part as to certain affidavit evidence.

business & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between divorced Israeli parents over custody of their three children, with the father filing a petition under the Hague Convention seeking the children's return to Israel after the mother retained them in Missouri. The court decided that the United States was the children's habitual residence at the time of the alleged wrongful retention, denying the petition for return. The core reasoning focused on the parents' shared intent when moving to and remaining in the US, the children's birth and long-term settlement there including school and daily life, and the terms of the Missouri parenting plan that did not establish Israel as the habitual residence despite clauses addressing potential relocation. The analysis emphasized the children's perspective and the absence of any settled purpose to return to Israel as a family.

family law

In this federal criminal case, defendant Randy Alan Jones was charged in connection with methamphetamine manufacturing and moved to suppress evidence consisting of empty blister packs recovered from a trash bag seized near a residence, along with a police incident report, arguing that the government had not laid a sufficient foundation for their admissibility at trial. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The court reasoned that a motion to suppress is not the proper vehicle for challenging the adequacy or foundation of evidence supporting an indictment or its use at trial, as such issues are governed by evidentiary rules best addressed through a motion in limine or at trial itself; the defendant had not raised any Fourth Amendment claim regarding the trash seizure.

criminal lawprocedure

In Lockridge v. HBE Corp., plaintiff Albert Lockridge, a Building Services employee at the Adam's Mark Hotel, sued the defendant under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, claiming he was denied a promotion to the CARE team, discharged, and retaliated against for complaining about racial discrimination, and was also denied light-duty work after FMLA leave. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all six counts. The court deemed most of the plaintiff's factual assertions admitted because they lacked required citations to the record under local rules, found that he either failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation or failed to show the employer's legitimate non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual, and noted that there was no evidence the relevant decision-maker knew of the EEOC complaint when denying the light-duty request.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved plaintiffs Vincent and Debbie Ventimiglia suing AT&T Yellow Pages and multiple related companies over an advertising services contract, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Robinson-Patman Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and breach of contract. The court addressed pending motions including the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the antitrust claims lacked sufficient factual allegations to support conspiracy, monopolization, or price-fixing under the Sherman Act or related statutes, that the civil rights claim failed to allege any discriminatory conduct, and that the breach of contract claim lacked a basis for federal jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claims. The court also denied the plaintiffs' requests to amend the complaint further or obtain injunctive relief and dismissed the remaining state-law claim without prejudice.

business & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved Crater Corporation suing Lucent Technologies and AT&T for alleged patent infringement of an underwater fiber optic coupling device, as well as state law claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract. Earlier proceedings had dismissed the patent claims, which were affirmed on appeal, while the state law claims were remanded for further development after the Federal Circuit upheld the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege but found the record insufficient. On remand, following the plaintiff's filing of a Second Amended Complaint, the court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining state law counts. The court determined that the plaintiff had not adequately identified the precise trade secrets at issue, any contracts and their breached terms, or evidence of misappropriation or breach that could be proven without relying on information protected by the privilege, leading to dismissal of those claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure