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

Plaintiff, the police chief, filed suit against defendant, the mayor, alleging unconstitutional retaliation as well as state tort law claims. On interlocutory appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order denying qualified immunity and plaintiff cross-appealed the district court's dismissal of one of his tort claims. Because the court concluded that plaintiff acted pursuant to his official job duties, the court need not consider the remaining prongs of the First Amendment retaliation test since he could not show that defendant violated his First Amendment rights. Therefore, the court remanded, concluding that the district court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's cross appeal, declining to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a state law tort claim in an interlocutory appeal of the district court's order denying qualified immunity. View "Gibson v. Kilpatrick" on Justia Law

Defendants Henry and Chikenna Jones were convicted of Medicare fraud charges. The government indicted Henry in three separate cases: the Ngari case; the Jones case; and the McKenzie case. Chikenna was indicted in the Jones and McKenzie cases. The court concluded that Henry's prosecution in the McKenzie case did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause where the conspiracies in the Ngari and the McKenzie cases were two separate conspiracies. Further, the court concluded that there was no multiplicity violation. In regards to Chikenna, the court concluded that the district court did not violate her constitutional right to choose her retained counsel when it denied her motions for substitution of counsel where the needs of fairness and the demands of the court's calendar weighed against granting the substitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Performance, One Beacon, and others for damages stemming from a personal injury that he sustained while working on a fixed platform. After the parties settled, the suit proceeded to trial, and the district court found Performance 15% at fault for the accident and awarded plaintiff $200,000 in damages. The court concluded that, in light of the evidence presented at trial, it was not implausible for the court to find that Richard John Boutte, as the designated signalman for the blind lift, was significantly more at fault for plaintiff's injuries than was Shalico Andow, a Performance employee. Because the district court took a permissible view of the evidence in finding Andow only 15% at fault, the court affirmed that determination. Because Performance failed to show that borrowed employee status should be applied here, the court affirmed the district court's holding that Andow was not a borrowed employee. Finally, a general damages award of $65,000 was much closer to what Louisiana courts would award plaintiff based on the facts. Because $200,000 was more than 133% of $65,000, the district court's award of general damages was excessive as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court remitted the general damage portion of plaintiff's award to $86,450. View "Delahoussaye v. Performance Energy Services, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for conspiracy involving, inter alia, theft of Postal Service mail from a "collection box." Defendant was involved in a conspiracy to steal mail, harvest identifying information, and cash forged paychecks. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's calculating of her offense level. The court held that Application Note 4(C)(ii)(I) to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 permitted the district court to presume that there was at least 50 victims when calculating an offense level in a case that involved one or more Postal Service receptacles: absent probative evidence that the actual number of victims exceeded 50, however, the district court could not presume more than 50, irrespective of the number of such receptacles that were involved. In this instance, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing where defendant should have received only the 4-level U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) enhancement applicable to cases involving at least 50 victims but not 250 or more. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory relief and specific performance concerning a life insurance policy. At issue was whether any of the several notices that the insurance company sent plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:905, which outlined notice requirements for lapsing life insurance policies. The court concluded that the district court erred in finding that December 21, 2010, was the operative date for section 22:905 purposes, and therefore abused its discretion in denying the insurance company's motion to alter or amend the judgment. The language of section 22:905 supported the conclusion that the payment that was "due," "payable," and required to be paid was the payment at the end of the grace period, on February 11, 2011. Given the insurance company's compliance with the notice requirements, plaintiff could not claim that the company failed to provide it with fair notice. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in the insurance company's favor. View "Johnston & Johnston v. Conseco Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, alleging that after fulfilling his two-week training obligation with the Army Reserve, he was terminated in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301-4335, and Texas Government Code 613.001-613.023. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to apply collateral estoppel to the ALJ's finding in a state administrative proceeding where a finding that plaintiff was discharged due to a disagreement about military service was not the equivalent of a finding that the County was motivated by his military status to discharge him; the court did not analyze the possible collateral estoppel effects of the ALJ's decision on a section 4312 claim because no one has briefed it; and the technical failure to plead all the currently presented defenses did not prevent consideration of them. The court also concluded that section 613.021 established venue in state court and had no effect on the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in federal court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment. View "Bradberry v. Jefferson County, Texas" on Justia Law

TFE filed suit against the Commission seeking an injunction and a declaration that the relevant portions of the Texas Election Code violated the First Amendment as applied to TFE. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of Tex. Elec. Code 253.094(a) - which prohibits corporations from making an unauthorized political contribution - and 253.003(b) - where an individual may not knowingly accept a political contribution - against TFE and the Commission appealed the injunction. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction because TFE was likely to succeed on the merits and because the manifest equities weighed in favor of equitable relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order granting the injunction. View "Texans for Free Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Commission, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his federal habeas petition. Petitioner alleged that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose an alleged jailhouse confession to the murder by Laura Hall. The court concluded that it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that petitioner's counsel would not have offered an alternate-perpetrator defense at trial rather than seeking conviction on a lesser offense. Given the jailhouse context of Hall's confession and its lack of corroboration and detail, the state court reasonably could have concluded that Hall's statement could not overcome the overwhelming problems with an alternate-perpetrator theory. Accordingly, fairminded jurists could conclude that Hall's confession was immaterial within the meaning of Brady and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Pitonyak v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former mayor of New Roads, Louisiana, appealed his conviction and sentence for corruption-related offenses. Defendant's convictions stemmed from the use of his position as Mayor to promote the Cifer 5000, a waste container cleaning system business, in the city and elsewhere in exchange for cash and other things of value. The court affirmed the district court's decision not to give an entrapment instruction because defendant made no plausible showing of lack of predisposition. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its evidentiary findings. In regards to the district court's valuation of defendant's bribery activity, because the court concluded that a loss calculation for the EPA letter that defendant wrote was appropriate on remand, and because the district court's reasoning with regard to the private investor letter relied in part on defendant's general expectation to generate "a large sum of money," the court deemed that closer scrutiny was advisable regarding the valuation of the private investor letter. However, the record supported the district court's determination that defendant expected to receive at least $250,000 in his role in the kickback scheme. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Nelson, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff became eligible for an award of unpaid overtime wages after her employer misclassified her as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court's application of the "Fluctuating Workweek" (FWW) method of calculating overtime was not warranted in this case. The court held that the record evidence showed that there was no agreement between plaintiff and her employer that she would receive a fixed weekly wage to work fluctuating hours. Therefore, there was no basis on these facts to apply the FWW method of calculating plaintiff's overtime premiums using the half-time multiplier. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated, remanding for recalculation. View "Black v. SettlePou, P.C." on Justia Law