The case involved a breach of contract dispute between Crane Construction Co. and JKC Construction, Inc., arising from two subcontracts for renovations at Kohl’s stores, with each party alleging the other had failed to perform. Plaintiff originally sued in Missouri state court, Defendant removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, and Plaintiff moved to remand based on forum selection clauses in the contracts. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the clauses were valid even though they appeared in boilerplate language that the parties had not specifically negotiated. The court further concluded that the clauses’ language—requiring that jurisdiction and venue be solely and exclusively in a court located in Andrew County, Missouri, and no other—constituted a clear and unequivocal waiver of the right to remove the action to federal court.
In United States v. Lopez-Lopez, the district court considered a defendant's motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained during a consent search of his residence after police executed a search warrant and took him into custody. Officers obtained the defendant's signed consent by stating they sought only identification documents, while actually intending to search for methamphetamine based on information from another individual, and they did not disclose that intent or the tip. The court concluded that the consent was not voluntary due to the officers' deception and that the subsequent search exceeded the scope of any consent given, violating the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to suppress the methamphetamine and related evidence found during the search.
This case involved a challenge to a Missouri Department of Corrections policy that prohibited transporting pregnant inmates off-site for elective, nontherapeutic abortions. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that the policy violated the inmates' rights under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. The decision rested on the finding that the policy unduly burdened the constitutional right to abortion without sufficient penological justification, as analyzed under the Turner factors, and that denying such procedures constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
The case involved a pregnant inmate over age 18 at a Missouri women's correctional facility who was approximately 16-17 weeks pregnant and sought an abortion, which was unavailable at the facility; prison officials refused to provide transportation under a policy barring transport for non-medically necessary abortions. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering defendants to transport her to a St. Louis clinic for the procedure, counseling, and related services. The core reasoning was that an inmate's Fourteenth Amendment right to reproductive choice survives incarceration and requires justification by legitimate penological interests, which the defendants' cited concerns over security and cost did not meet, while denial of access would cause irreparable harm; the court also rejected the motion to stay the injunction pending appeal.
The case involved the United States suing defendants Bobby and Jewel Veal under the Fair Housing Act for engaging in a pattern or practice of housing discrimination on the basis of sex. After the Veals failed to comply with discovery orders, the court entered a default judgment on liability; a jury then awarded over $1.1 million in compensatory and punitive damages to eleven aggrieved women. The defendants moved for a new trial, relief from judgment, or remittitur, arguing attorney misconduct caused the default, improper liability findings, and excessive punitive damages. The court denied all motions, holding that parties bear responsibility for their counsel's actions in discovery violations, that the evidence supported liability for both defendants, and that the damages award was not excessive under applicable standards. The ruling also rejected challenges to the government's standing to sue under the Act.
The case involved the EEOC suing Consolidated Freightways on behalf of twelve African-American former employees, alleging racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After the defendant filed for bankruptcy, which triggered an automatic stay of proceedings, the EEOC argued the stay did not apply, while the defendant sought a discretionary stay under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). The court held that the police or regulatory power exception under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) exempted the EEOC's enforcement action from the automatic stay. It further denied the discretionary stay after analyzing the injunction factors, finding the defendant had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, that litigation costs did not constitute irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships and public interest factors were inconclusive or neutral.
