St. Louis Produce Market v. Hughes, No. 12-3482 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThe Market sought a declaration that its employment separation agreement with defendant was invalid because defendant had altered the agreement and fraudulently induced the president of the Market to sign it. Defendant counterclaimed to enforce the agreement. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Market where defendant failed to fulfill a condition precedent - returning company property - and such failure meant that the Market had not duty to perform under the agreement. Alternatively, the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking defendant's pleadings based on defendant's deliberate and willful discovery abuses. The district court acted within its discretion to impose sanctions under Rule 37.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment contracts. Defendant failed to perform a condition precedent in his employment contract, and plaintiff had no duty to perform under the agreement; the district court did not err in striking defendant's pleadings and granting plaintiff summary judgment as a sanction for defendant's deliberate and willful discovery abuses.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.