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.
133581P.pdf   05/21/2015  James Marshall  v.  National Football League
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3581
                          and No:  13-3582
                          and No:  13-3666
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Smith and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Sports law. In this class-action, nearly 25,000 former NFL 
   players sued the NFL alleging that NFL Films, the commercial film-making 
   wing of the league, had used their likenesses in a variety of videos in 
   violation of their publicity rights; following extensive negotiations, the 
   parties reached a settlement which creates a licensing agency to assist 
   former players in marketing their publicity rights and establishes up to a 
   $42 million payout to members of the class. Here, six former players 
   challenged the settlement on the grounds that it did not provide for 
   direct payouts to former players and was not fair, reasonable and 
   adequate. Held, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 
   approving the settlement as it provides a direct benefit to all class 
   members and was fair and reasonable considering the complexity and expense 
   of further litigation, the limited amount of opposition and the merits of 
   the plaintiffs' case. Judge Smith, concurring. 
  
141882P.pdf   05/21/2015  Zup's of Babbitt-Aurora, Inc.  v.  West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1882
                          and No:  14-1950
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Insurer. In an action to determine which insurer was 
   responsible for the insured's lost income following a fire which destroyed 
   its store and adjacent shopping mall, applying either the "closeness to 
   the risk" test or the "total policy insuring intent" test, Security 
   National's coverage of lost income from the supermarket was the primary 
   coverage and West Bend only had liability if Security National's coverage 
   was exhausted; since it is undisputed that Security's coverage was not 
   exhausted, Security was responsible for the insure's lost supermarket 
   income. 
  
142084U.pdf   05/21/2015  Teresa Bloodman  v.  Dr. Tom Kimbrell
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2084
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case - School law. Challenges to discovery rulings rejected; 
   district court's dismissal order affirmed, but modified to be without 
   prejudice. 
  
143661U.pdf   05/21/2015  Lin Gao  v.  YMCA of Greater St. Louis
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3661
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Bye and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. Dismissal of plaintiff's claims 
   affirmed without comment. 
  
151002U.pdf   05/21/2015  LaRonda Phox  v.  NCO Financial Systems
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1002
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case - Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices 
   Act. Defendant's summary judgment affirmed without comment. 
  
151162U.pdf   05/21/2015  United States  v.  Ontario Rush-Richardson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1162
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, and Murphy and 
   Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not err in sua sponte 
   denying defendant a sentence reduction without giving defendant notice or 
   a hearing as proceedings under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2) do not implicate 
   a constitutionally protected liberty interest and the court gave enough of 
   an explanation to permit meaningful appellate review. 
  
151341U.pdf   05/21/2015  Michael Douglas  v.  Shelley Maroney
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1341
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Dismissal affirmed without comment.