Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04336/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04336-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ameren UE
Appellee
Norman Banks
Appellant
IBEW Local 1439
Not Party
Craig Sherrill
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4336

___________

Norman Banks, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Ameren UE; Craig Sherrill, *

doing business as Ameren UE; * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees, *

*

IBEW Local 1439, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2007

Filed: April 19, 2007 

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Norman Banks appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his suit against his

former employer, AmerenUE (AUE); his former supervisor, Craig Sherrill; and his

Appellate Case: 05-4336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2007 Entry ID: 3300566
-2-

former union, IBEW Local 1439. Banks brought numerous claims and alleged

numerous ways in which defendants wronged him. On appeal, however, Banks

challenges the dismissal only as to certain issues surrounding his fraud claim, and his

claim for penalty wages under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.110. Thus, we consider only

those issues. See In re MidAm. Energy Co., 286 F.3d 483, 487 (8th Cir. 2002) (per

curiam) (claims not raised in appeal brief are waived).

First, we agree with the district court that Banks failed to state a fraud claim

under Missouri law because he did not allege reliance on any of defendants’ allegedly

fraudulent representations or actions. See Trimble v. Pracna, 167 S.W.3d 706, 712,

712 n.5 (Mo. 2005) (nine essential elements of fraud, including hearer’s reliance on

representation’s truth; plaintiff cannot recover for fraud without establishing

reasonable reliance on truth of representation claimed to be false). In fact, Banks’s

complaint shows that he believed the representations and actions to be fraudulent

when each occurred. 

Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Banks’s motion

to amend his complaint, which was filed after the final order of dismissal and after

Banks had earlier stated in response to a dismissal motion that his allegations were

“enough to cover the elements for fraud.” Cf. Parnes v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 122 F.3d

539, 550-51 (8th Cir. 1997) (after complaint is dismissed, right to amend under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a) terminates; leave to amend may still be granted, but district court does

not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow amendment of pleadings to change theory

of case if no valid reason is shown for failure to present new theory at earlier time).

Third, Banks’s penalty-wage claim failed because his February 11, 2005 request

for penalty wages from AUE--nearly five years after his employment with AUE ended

on March 1, 2000--was untimely under Missouri common law. See Monterosso v. St.

Louis Globe-Democrat Publ’g Co., 368 S.W.2d 481, 485-86, 489 (Mo. 1963) (holding

that requests for unpaid wages under § 290.110 which had been sent to employer at

Appellate Case: 05-4336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2007 Entry ID: 3300566
-3-

least 90 days and in some cases 180 days after discharge were untimely because

employees had waited an unreasonable amount of time to present the requests to

employer).

Finally, the additional arguments Banks raises regarding his fraud claim are

meritless.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4336 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2007 Entry ID: 3300566