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.