Court Opinion

ID: 9962043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 16:02:06.385331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:42.342803
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-3151
                        ___________________________

                                   Danny Huff

                                      Plaintiff - Appellant

                                        v.

                      Canterbury Park Holding Corporation

                                     Defendant - Appellee
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: April 17, 2024
                              Filed: April 22, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Danny Huff sued Canterbury Park Holding Corporation, his former employer.
The amended complaint alleges that the company wrongfully withheld pay, misled
him during settlement negotiations, and retaliated after he demanded payment. We
affirm the dismissal of most of his claims, except for the one seeking unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, see 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
       Huff did not get close to stating a retaliation claim. Among the elements
missing were involvement by his employer, an adverse employment action, and a
causal connection between the alleged retaliation and the protected activity. See
Yearns v. Koss Constr. Co., 964 F.3d 671, 674–75 (8th Cir. 2020) (listing the
necessary elements). Another chance to amend would not have solved these
problems. See United States ex rel. Raynor v. Nat’l Rural Utils. Coop. Fin., Corp.,
690 F.3d 951, 955, 957 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing both the failure to state a claim
and the futility of proposed amendments de novo). And to the extent he challenges
the dismissal of his state-law claims, he has given us no reason to question the district
court’s conclusion that they are covered by his settlement with Canterbury Park. See
Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007).

       Missing from the order, however, was any discussion of his federal wage
claim. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). “[T]he district court [should] consider [this claim]
in the first instance,” given the possible “questions still to be resolved.” MPAY Inc.
v. Erie Custom Comput. Applications, Inc., 970 F.3d 1010, 1021 (8th Cir. 2020)
(citations omitted); see Barbee v. Big River Steel, LLC, 927 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th
Cir. 2019) (noting that courts are split over whether parties can settle FLSA claims
involving “bona fide disputes over hours worked or wages owed” without judicial
approval). We accordingly vacate and remand for further proceedings on this claim,
but otherwise affirm.1 See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                         ______________________________

      1
       We do, however, modify the dismissal of the other claims to be with
prejudice. See Williams v. Schario, 93 F.3d 527, 529 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
                                        -2-