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

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals withdrew its previous opinion in this case filed on April 20, 2012. Because the case involved important and determinative questions of Texas law as to which there was no controlling Texas Supreme Court precedent, the Court substituted its previous opinion with the following questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: (1) whether, under Texas law, at-will employees may bring fraud claims against their employers for loss of their employment; and (2) if question number one is answered in the negative, whether employees covered under a sixty-day cancellation-upon-notice collective bargaining agreement that limits the employer's ability to discharge its employees only for just cause may bring Texas fraud claims against their employer based on allegations that the employer fraudulently induced them to terminate their employment. View "Sawyer v. E I DuPont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law

The EEOC brought this Title VII case against Boh Brothers Construction Company on behalf of the alleged discriminatee, Kerry Woods, a male construction worker in an all-male crew, who claimed that the Boh Brothers' crew superintendent, Charles Wolfe, engaged in same-sex harassment against him by referring to him in raw homophobic epithets and lewd gestures. The jury returned a substantial verdict of actual and punitive damages against Boh Brothers, and the district court granted injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the evidence did not establish a claim of unlawful same-sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Remanded for judgment dismissing the complaint. View "EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegal re-entry. Defendant contended that the district court erred in considering his need for anger management courses in determining the length of his sentence. At issue in this case was whether, when the law at the time of trial or plea is unsettled, but becomes clear while the case is pending on appeal, review for the second prong of the plain error test properly considers the law as it stood during the district court proceedings or at the time of the appellate court's decision. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals joined the majority of other circuits in holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal, the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal. The Court then held that the district court's determination under the second prong of the plain error test was plain error, and the error affected Defendant's substantial rights. The Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. View "United States v. Escalante-Reyes" on Justia Law

Claimant was employed by New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. (NODSI) as a mechanic from 1996 until 2002. Prior to his employment with NODSI, Claimant was employed by New Orleans Marine Contractors (NOMC) for five months. During his employment with both NODSI and NOMC, Claimant was exposed to loud noises on a continuous basis and did not use hearing protection. Claimant sought permanent partial disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for a hearing impairment. The ALJ determined that NODSI was liable for Claimants benefits as his last maritime employer. The Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the ALJ. View "New Orleans Depot Servs., Inc. v. Dir., Office of Worker's Comp. Programs" on Justia Law

Defendant United Polychem, Inc. (UPC) and Lynne Van Der Wall (collectively, Appellants) and Plaintiff Westlake Petrochemicals, LLC (Westlake) appealed different results of a jury trial. At the core of the trial was an agreement between UPC as buyer and Westlake as seller of ethylene, a petroleum product. The jury found that (1) the parties had formed a binding contract, (2) UPC breached that contract, and, as a result, (3) UPC was liable to Westlake for $6.3 million in actual damages and $633,200 in attorneys fees. The district court also held Van Der Wall jointly and severally liable under the terms of a guaranty agreement. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) a binding contract was established, (2) the district court applied the incorrect measure of damages, and (3) Van Der Wall, as UPC's president, was not jointly and severally liable with UPC for the jury verdict under the terms of the guaranty. The Court vacated the damages award and remanded for the district court to calculate the damages under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 2.708(b). View "Westlake Petrochemicals, LLC v. United Polychem, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Edward Teuschler pled guilty to distributing child pornography after he sent pornographic images to an undercover officer posing as a thirteen-year-old girl. The district court sentenced Defendant to 180 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed his sentence. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, holding (1) pursuant to United States v. Fowler, the district court erred by imposing a three-level enhancement on Defendant's sentence based on the number of images involved; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the Guidelines for child pornography crimes violate the Equal Protection Clause. Remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Teuschler" on Justia Law

The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) creates a system for the appointment and payment of counsel for defendants unable to afford representation. At issue here was subsection (c), which concerns the ability of district courts to appoint counsel in federal criminal prosecutions. Defendant, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal reentry. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion under subsection (c) for an additional court-appointed attorney to seek to have a prior state felony conviction set aside in an Iowa court. The prior Iowa conviction lengthened the advisory sentencing range for the illegal reentry offense. The district court determined the purpose would not be an appropriate use of CJA funds. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's challenge to a prior, unrelated conviction in a state court that could affect the sentence he received on a new federal conviction was not an "ancillary matter" under the statute, and therefore, it was inappropriate to appoint counsel for Defendant in this case. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Government filed suit against Defendant, Barbara Coney, to reduce to judgment the tax liability owed by Barbara and her deceased husband, Curtis, for the tax years 1996-2001. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government and rendered judgment in the amount of $2,687,408. Barbara appealed, primarily claiming that the couple's tax liability had been discharged in a prior bankruptcy proceeding. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Curtis willfully attempted to evade or defeat his tax liabilities for the tax years at issue; (2) Barbara willfully attempted to evade or defeat her tax liabilities for the tax years at issue; and (3) the district court did not err in awarding the Government a money judgment, and the court awarded the judgment in a proper amount. View "United States v. Coney" on Justia Law

The Stockmans entered into an extension of their mineral lease with Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P. and received a $240,000 bonus. In May 2008, the Stockmans entered into a mineral lease with Petrohawk Properties, L.P. for a $1.45 million bonus. Petrohawk then dishonored the draft and executed a second mineral lease with the Stockmans, paying them a $1.7 million bonus. Chesapeake sued the Stockmans for breach of contract, and the parties settled at trial. The Stockmans then sued Petrohawk for fraud in obtaining the first mineral lease, and Chespeake sued Petrohawk for intentional interference with its contract with the Stockmans. The district court (1) found that Petrohawk procured the first mineral lease by fraud and rescinded the lease, (2) dismissed Chesapeake's tort claim, and (3) dismissed Petrohawk's claim for a return of its bonus money. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Petrohawk obtained the first lease by fraud, and the district court did not err in rescinding the lease, awarding attorney's fees to the Stockmans; (2) the district court did not err in dismissing Petrohawk's counterclaim for the return of the lease bonus; and (3) the district court correctly dismissed Chespeake's intentional interference with a contract claim. View "Petrohawk Props., L.P. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P." on Justia Law

Appellants were employed as grips with Spring Break Louisiana (Employer) for the filming of Spring Break '83 (the movie). Throughout the filming period, Appellants were members of a union (Union), which entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Employer. Later, Appellants filed a grievance against Employer alleging they had not been paid wages for work they performed. Union and Employer entered into a settlement agreement pertaining to disputed hours allegedly worked by Appellants. Before the settlement agreement was signed by Union representatives, Appellants filed a lawsuit against Employer and several individuals (Appellees), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the individual Appellees were not employers under the FLSA; and (2) Appellants released any FLSA claims against Employer by accepting settlement payments for those claims. View "Martin v. Spring Break '83 Prods., LLC" on Justia Law