DISCLAIMER: The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
123526P.pdf 07/23/2014 Gary Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3526 and No: 13-1245 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges Civil case - Civil Procedure.The one-year limit for removing cases to federal court under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(c)(1)is inapplicable to this case based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1453(b), and defendant was not required to remove the class action within one year of plaintiff's original complaint; the court cannot conclude that diversity jurisdiction was proper based solely on an allegation that plaintiff was a resident of Arkansas; however, plaintiff's submission that he was a citizen of Arkansas when the case was commenced and when it was removed amended the pleadings to satisfy the diversity question; because the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, the only named plaintiff was a citizen of Arkansas and no named defendant was, this action falls within the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a); under this court's decision in Rivera v. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Johnson, 719 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2013), the district court did not err in dismissing this action; however, the district court erred in awarding costs to defendant since defendant failed to file the verifying affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1924. 123918P.pdf 07/23/2014 James Gladden, Jr. v. Kenneth Richbourg U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3918 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Webber, District Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. District court did not err in granting defendant police officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that they violated his decedent's civil rights when they dropped him at an isolated off-ramp on a cold December night knowing that he was intoxicated and unable to care for himself; no special relationship existed entitling the victim to police assistance under the Fourteenth Amendment since the undisputed facts demonstrated he voluntarily accepted a ride to the location and was sober enough to make the decision rationally; with respect to plaintiff's claims against the police chief, assuming the North Little Rock Police Department had a policy of taking intoxicated person to remote locations, plaintiff could not establish the custom implicated either of the special situations where police have an affirmative duty of care - a person is in their custody or the officer affirmatively placed them in danger - and his official capacity claims must fail; as he had failed to establish his federal claims, plaintiff's state law civil rights and wrongful death claims must fail. 132613P.pdf 07/23/2014 National Parks Conservation v. Northern States Power Company U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-2613 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Clean Air Act. In an action by environmental groups to impose emission-control technology on Northern States Power's Sherburne County power plant, the district court erred in denying Northern States Power's motion to intervene as the company satisfied all of the elements of Article III Standing - injury, causation and redressability; further, the motion met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), and Northern States Power was entitled to intervene as of right.