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

Articles Posted in November, 2012
by
Three cases related to the Mexican reorganization of Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., a corporation organized under the laws of Mexico, were consolidated before the court. The Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders, a group of creditors holding a substantial amount of Vitro's debt, appealed from the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's recognition of the Mexican reorganization proceeding and Vitro's appointed foreign representatives under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Vitro and one of its largest third-party creditors each appealed directly to the court the bankruptcy court's decision denying enforcement of the Mexican reorganization plan because the plan would extinguish the obligations of non-debtor guarantors. The court affirmed in all respects the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the bankruptcy court in No. 12-10542, and the court affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court in Nos. 12-0689 and 12-10750. The temporary restraining order originally entered by the bankruptcy court, the expiration of which was stayed by the court, was vacated, effective with the issuance of the court's mandate in Nos. 12-10689 and 12-10750. View "Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de C.V." on Justia Law

by
This case arose from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico where an explosion killed 11 workers, caused the drilling platform to sink, and resulted in a major uncontrolled release of oil. At Presidential direction, those events prompted the Department of the Interior to prohibit all new and existing oil and gas drilling operations on the Outer Continental Shelf for six months. The district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the moratorium. At issue on appeal was whether the Interior's subsequent actions violated a specific provision of the court's injunction, justifying a finding of civil contempt. The court held that even though the Interior immediately took steps to avoid the effect of the injunction, the court concluded that none of those actions violated the court's order. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Hornbeck Offshore Services, et al v. Salazar, et al" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs were passengers on a chartered fishing boat insured by St. Paul Fire when they were involved in an accident with a utility boat owned by non-party Harvest Oil and insured by Steadfast Insurance Company. Steadfast subsequently appealed from the district court's order denying it summary judgment and granting summary judgment to plaintiffs. The court held that plaintiffs' contention that Steadfast failed to reserve its rights with respect to the watercraft exclusion was without merit. The court also held that, because the automatic stay did apply to plaintiffs' claim against Harvest in the 2008 case, that case had remained stayed since Harvest filed for bankruptcy and the court could not lift the stay until the bankruptcy court closes or dismissed Harvest's bankruptcy case; neither claim preclusion nor issue preclusion would prevent Harvest from litigating the issues decided in this case; and even if plaintiffs had produced sufficient evidence of inconsistent conduct to survive summary judgment, plaintiffs produced no evidence that Steadfast's conduct in this case prejudiced Harvest. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered summary judgment for Steadfast. View "Sosebee, et al v. Steadfast Ins. Co." on Justia Law

by
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of more than five grams of cocaine base. Defendant subsequently appealed his sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), 21 U.S.C. 844(a), because the conduct giving rise to the offense took place before August 19, 2008, the date of defendant's initial indictment. The court held that defendant's five-year term of imprisonment exceeded the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by the post-FSA version of 21 U.S.C. 844(a). Furthermore, defendant's three-year term of supervised release exceeded the maximum authorized term of supervised release. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

by
Defendants, manufacturers and distributors of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels, jointly removed this case to federal district court on the grounds that (1) the action was a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(1)(B), or (2) the action was a mass action under the CAFA. The State moved to remand the case to state court and the district court granted the motion. Because it was undisputed that there were more than 100 consumers, the court found that there were more than 100 claims at issue in this case. Further, no disqualifying exceptions to the term "mass action" was applicable. Consequently, the suit qualified as a mass action under the CAFA and the court found removal to be proper. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., et al" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner filed a successive federal habeas petition, contending that he was mentally retarded and ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The district court denied relief, but granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the state court's determination that petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he had significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning was unreasonable. The court concluded that the state court's determination was not unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lewis v. Thaler" on Justia Law

by
The Corps contracted with Atlantic for the construction of a child development center and Atlantic entered into a Subcontract Agreement with J-Crew for labor and materials. The Subcontract Agreement included a forum-selection clause, which provided that disputes shall be litigated in Virginia courts. Ignoring the forum-selection clause, J-Crew filed suit against Atlantic in Texas. Applying 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), the district court denied Atlantic's motion to transfer, finding that Atlantic had not met its burden of showing why the interest of justice or the convenience of the parties and their witnesses weighed in favor of transferring the case to Virginia. Atlantic subsequently petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to dismiss or transfer the case. Because the court found that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by considering enforcement of the forum-selection clause under section 1404(a), instead of under Rule 12(b)(3) and section 1406; and by conducting its analysis under section 1404(a), the court denied the petition. View "In re: Atlantic Marine Const Co. Inc." on Justia Law

by
This case stemmed from a dispute over annuity payments. Counter Defendants, RSL, appealed the district court's decision to abstain based on the doctrine of Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States. Under the Colorado River doctrine, a court could abstain from a case that was part of parallel, duplicative litigation under "exceptional circumstances." The court examined the six relevant factors under Colorado River and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should determine whether RSL was entitled to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. 3. The district court must determine in the first instance whether any issues or claims decided by the state court were entitled to preclusive effect. View "Saucier v. Aviva Life and Annuity Co." on Justia Law

by
This was a direct appeal from the bankruptcy court involving a dispute with contract vendors. The court held that the reservation language in the Reorganization Plan was sufficiently specific and unequivocal under In re United Operating, LLC. The court could not find, however, that the Litigation Trustee had standing to sue each of the appellees here. The Reservation Plan specifically carved out released claims. Accordingly, the Litigation Trustee lacked standing to bring, and the bankruptcy court was without jurisdiction to hear, any such claims. Therefore, the court vacated the bankruptcy court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Compton v. Aker Pusnes AS, et al" on Justia Law

by
Defendant, an inmate on death row, challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment concerning his claim that Mississippi's lethal injection procedures violated his Eight Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Because Baze v. Rees precluded the remedy sought, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Thorson v. Epps, et al" on Justia Law