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

These consolidated cases sought judicial review of notices of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) issued to Bemont and BPB. Following the review of the district court, the government appealed the ruling on the partnerships' motion for partial summary judgment disallowing the 40% valuation misstatement penalty, and the ruling post trial holding that the FPAA issued to Bemont for the 2001 tax year was time-barred. The partnerships appealed the district court's judgment upholding the imposition of the 20% substantial understatement and negligence penalties. The court reversed the judgment of the district court that the FPAA as to the 2001 tax year was untimely; affirmed the judgment of the district court in all other respects including disallowing the 40% valuation misstatement penalty and upholding the 20% negligence penalty for both 2001 and 2002. View "Bemont Investments, L.L.C., et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

A Texas jury found that a corporate staffing company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., when it refused to allow a deaf woman to apply for a warehouse job, awarding her back pay, compensatory, and punitive damages. On appeal the company raised several issues. The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute; the district court's finding - that the company's failure to account for its delay was dispositive, outweighing the other three factors for assessing good cause - was well supported and squarely within its sound discretion; the court rejected the company's claim that because the EEOC failed to provide computations for compensatory and punitive damages, the EEOC should have been precluded from seeking any damages whatsoever; the district court's analysis of punitive damages was considered, fair, and in no way an abuse of discretion; and the court rejected the company's challenges to the district court's imposition of injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "EEOC v. Service Temps Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Texas state court. Petitioner filed a motion in the district court pursuant to Civil Rule 60(b)(6), seeking relief from the district court's judgment denying his initial federal habeas corpus petition. He also filed a motion for a stay of execution. That same day, in a separate district court action, petitioner filed a second-in-time federal habeas petition and a motion for stay of execution. The court held that the district court improperly granted a stay of execution pending the resolution of petitioner's 60(b)(6) motion. Therefore, the court vacated the stay of execution. Because the court concluded that the second-in-time petition was successive, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition. Therefore, the court concluded that, to the extent that the petition was construed as an application for a successive petition, the district court correctly transferred the case to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631 and the court had jurisdiction to consider that application. However, because petitioner brought the same two claims in his successive habeas petition as he did in his initial federal habeas petition, the petition was barred under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1). Therefore, the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over this petition and dismissed petitioner's successive habeas petition. View "In re: Beunka Adam" on Justia Law

Following the destruction of his home in Hurricane Katrina, plaintiff sued Liberty Mutual for negligent misrepresentation to recover the difference between his flood insurance coverage he had and the coverage he could have purchased under the preferred riskier insurance policy. The district court concluded that plaintiff's claim was not preempted by federal law and sent the case to the jury which awarded plaintiff in compensatory damages. Because plaintiff's dispute with Liberty Mutual related to his renewal of a policy already in place, Campo v. Allstate Ins. Co. did not control and the court held that plaintiff's state law claim was preempted. Because the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was presumed to be paying both the litigation expenses and any resulting damage award, the district court erred in submitting this case to the jury. Because Liberty Mutual was not offering insurance advice, was not a fiduciary of plaintiff, and did not offer any statement to plaintiff to imply the lack of alternative insurance options, Mississippi law would not recognize negligent misrepresentation as a cause of action against Liberty Mutual and the submission of negligent misrepresentation to the jury was error. Accordingly, the court reversed with instructions to dismiss plaintiff's claim View "Grissom v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowingly making a false statement to the Department of Defense security personnel when he entered Brooke Army Medical Center demanding to see a patient in the hospital accused in the Fort Hood shooting, Major Nidal Hasan, an army psychologist. The false statement at issue was defendant's statement to an army captain that he was Major Hasan's lawyer. Defendant appealed his conviction on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his false statement was material. The court concluded that a statement to a decision maker in a military hospital that the speaker was a lawyer for a restricted military prisoner was the type of statement capable of influencing the decision maker to allow the speaker to visit the patient and that the protocols in place did not affect the statement's materiality. The court also concluded that defendant's delivery of the statement in a manner not likely to persuade did not affect the materiality of the statement. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Abrahem" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1326. At issue was whether the record evidence was sufficient to justify the trial judge's conclusion that defendant was an alien at the time of his reentry. The court found that there was substantial evidence showing that defendant was an alien when he reentered the United States. The court also found that the nunc pro tunc divorce decree obtained in 2010 purporting to retroactively rearrange defendant's custody status in 1994 did not raise a reasonable doubt as to this alienage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Esparza" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 64 former employees of DuPont who worked at the company's manufacturing facility in La Porte, Texas, filed suit against DuPont alleging that they were fraudulently induced to terminate their employment with DuPont and accept employment with a wholly owned subsidiary. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims and entered a take-nothing final judgment in favor of DuPont. The court deferred to the Texas appellate courts and concluded that the 60 day termination clause at issue rendered the covered employees' employment with DuPont at-will for the purpose of Texas law. Accordingly, they could not bring fraud claims against DuPont for loss of their employment and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sawyer, et al. v. E I DuPont de Nemours & Co" on Justia Law

Ballard, successor in interest to Kilroy, sued Devon, successor in interest to Wise Oil, for breach of a provision in an American Association of Petroleum Land Men (AAPL) Model Form Operating Agreement (Operating Agreement) that was an exhibit to and incorporated by reference in a May 1971 Farmout Agreement (collectively, Joint Operating Agreement or JOA) between Kilroy and Wise Oil. Ballard's lawsuit turned on the interpretation of one sentence in the multi-paragraph "Area of Mutual Interest" (AMI) provision of the Operating Agreement. The court held that, because the entire AMI provision - including its acquisition provisions and its surrender provisions - expired before the claims asserted by Ballard arose, Devon had not breached its contract with Ballard, and the district court's summary judgment was proper. View "Ballard v. Devon Louisiana Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the county, the sheriff's department, and the sheriff and a deputy, in their individual and official capacities. On appeal, defendants argued that they were detained for more than 48 hours without a determination of probable cause or an initial appearance in violation of their constitutional rights. The court did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' argument that defendants did not show the delay was justified by extraordinary circumstances because plaintiffs failed to show that any defendant was liable for the alleged deprivation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The sheriff and the deputy were both entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims failed for the same reasons as their Fourth Amendment claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. View "Jones, et al. v. Lowndes County, Mississippi, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal prisoner, contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney overestimated his sentencing exposure under a proffered plea deal, leading him to reject the deal and stand trial. The district court rejected the argument. The court held that, in light of the conflicting accounts by defendant and his counsel and the incomplete record on other relevant factors, the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing before dismissing defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 application. View "United States v. Rivas-Lopez" on Justia Law