Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This was an adversary proceeding arising out of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy of debtors. The trustee filed suit against A&R, the former debtors' counsel, seeking disgorgement of the attorney's fees awarded during the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court ordered a sanction for A&R's failure to adequately disclose various connections it had to the debtors and creditors, but found that A&R did not have a disqualifying adverse interest. The trustee appealed, arguing that A&R was not disinterested and that all legal fees should have been disgorged. The court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, A&R did not have a disqualifying interest; given the bankruptcy court's factual findings were reasonable based on the record, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in ordering disgorgement of only a portion of the retainer; and the bankruptcy's court's decision to deny the amendment was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Waldron v. Adams & Reese, L.L.P." on Justia Law

Petitioners, proprietors of a family-run funeral home, were convicted of embezzlement in connection with their business. The State appealed from the district court's grant of their petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioners petitioned for habeas relief because, inter alia, the Mississippi Court of Appeals denied their Sixth Amendment claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the proper rule, petitioners were entitled to relief on their ineffective assistance claim stemming from joint representation. Because the Mississippi court's decision was contrary to clearly established law where it applied a rule that contradicted the governing law set forth in the Supreme Court's cases, the court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. View "Salts v. Epps, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the use of facilities of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, and entice a minor female to engage in illegal sexual activity. Defendant appealed his sentence on various grounds. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the charged offenses; there was no indication that the district court abused its discretion for excluding defendant's witness, having found no good reason for the delay at issue and finding the testimony to be redundant; defendant's argument that the evidence presented to the jury, chat conversations, video, and texts, presented to the jury was not properly authenticated was unpersuasive to the court; and the testimony of the officer at issue was not hearsay where the officer was testifying based upon his investigation. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Lundy" on Justia Law

This case dealt with the district court's application of the obstruction of justice enhancement and non-application of the minor role reduction to defendant's sentence for aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Because defendant was not substantially less culpable than the average participant, the district court did not clearly err when it denied him the minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b). Defendant failed to object to the application of the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice at the district court and this failure to object foreclosed the court's review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Claiborne" on Justia Law

In a consolidated appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in denying their motions to remand and in dismissing their workplace safety claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that Dresser failed to properly monitor and mitigate exposure to loud noise at Dresser's industrial facility and that these failures led to long-term hearing loss. The court concluded that Dresser owed plaintiffs duties under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and simultaneously owed non-negotiable, independent duties under Louisiana tort law. These duties formed the bases for two distinct types of claims - contract and tort - either of which plaintiffs could have brought before the district court. Plaintiffs chose to sue in tort, without reference to the CBA, and their claims could be adjudicated by sole resort to Louisiana tort law. Applying the Supreme Court's construction of section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), the district court was without jurisdiction and therefore erred in denying the motions to remand and in granting the motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remanded. View "McKnight v. Dresser, Inc.; Lachney v. Dresser, Inc.; Anderson, et al. v. Dresser, Inc." on Justia Law

This case required the court to review the EPA's disapproval, more than three years after the time within which it was statutorily required to act, of three regulations promulgated by the State of Texas. 30 Tex. Admin. Code 116.610(a), 116,610(b), and 116.617. Pursuant to Texas's duty under the Clear Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., to adopt and administer a statewide plan for implementing federal air quality standards, those regulations provided a standardized permit for certain projects that reduce or maintain current emissions rates. Because the EPA had no legal basis on which to disapprove those regulations, the court vacated the agency's disapproval of Texas's regulations and remanded with instructions. View "Luminant Generation Co., et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his mother sued the county under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff's sister shot her husband and plaintiff, then thirteen-years-old, confessed to the murder. Plaintiff claimed that the county actors coerced a confession and plaintiff's mother claimed separation from her son while he was confessing violated her rights. The court held that, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, plaintiff's confession was voluntarily given and its introduction at trial did not offend the Fifth Amendment. Although a thirteen-year-old's separation from his mother, his desire to please adults, and his inexperience with the criminal justice system all weigh against voluntariness, his express desire to help his sister decided the issue. There was no evidence that, absent plaintiff's resolve to reduce his sister's punishment, the deputies' interrogation tactics would have produced a confession. The sister may have used her brother's love to make him lie on her behalf, but there was no evidence that the deputies knew of her plan. Looking back on his interrogation after he was released from prison, plaintiff told a national television audience, on the "Dr. Phil" show, that the deputies did not coerce him into confessing. The court rejected the remaining challenges and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the county. View "Edmonds, et al. v. Oktibbeha County, Mississippi" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, nine children in the custody of PMC, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against three Texas officials, in their official capacities, seeking to represent a class of all children who were now, and all those who will be, in the State's long-term foster care. The gravaman of plaintiffs' complaint is that various system-wide problems in Texas's administration of its PMC subjected all of the children in PMC to a variety of harms. Applying the standards announced in the Supreme Court's recent opinion, Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the court held that the district court failed to conduct the "rigorous" analysis required by Rule 23 in deciding to certify the proposed class. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion by certifying a class that lacked cohesiveness under Rule 23(b)(2). Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's class certification order and remanded for further proceedings. View "M.D., et al. v. Rick Perry, et al." on Justia Law

In this employment discrimination case, the EEOC and Thomas D. Turner (collectively, plaintiffs), appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing all plaintiffs' claims that the decisions to discipline Turner and three other African American employees for putative work-rule violations were based on race in violation of federal and state law. The court affirmed with respect to the claims based on the decisions to discipline Jesse Frank and Clarence Cargo because the court concluded that the EEOC had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to those decisions. However, the court reversed with respect to the claims based on the decisions to discipline Turner and Lester Thomas because the court concluded that plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of discrimination; and that defendant failed to produce admissible evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for those decisions. Thus, a jury question existed as to whether the decisions to discipline Turner and Thomas were impermissibly based on race. View "Turner v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co." on Justia Law

The City appealed the district court's summary judgment enjoining it from implementing a purported housing ordinance that required all adults living in rental housing within the City to obtain an occupancy license conditioned upon the occupant's citizenship or lawful immigration status. The court concluded that the ordinance's sole purpose was not to regulate housing but to exclude undocumented aliens, specifically Latinos, from the City and that it was an impermissible regulation of immigration. The court held that the ordinance was unconstitutional and presented an obstacle to federal authority on immigration and the conduct of foreign affairs. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Villas at Parkside Partners, et al. v. City of Farmers Branch, Texas" on Justia Law