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

After State Farm tendered the policy limit on its uninsured motor vehicle coverage to plaintiff nearly thirty months after she was injured, plaintiff brought a bad faith claim under Mississippi law. The district court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. Applying Mississippi substantive law, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to any breach of contract claim independent of the bad faith claim; the court held that there was a fact issue as to whether, under the totality of the circumstances, State Farm had an arguable or legitimate basis for its delay; and therefore, the court reversed and remanded the district court's grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff's bad faith claim. View "James v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this diversity case, at issue was whether plaintiff, a Mississippi resident injured in Mississippi while working for an Alabama resident contractor, had an action in tort for damages against the employer's worker's compensation insurer because of the insurer's intentional bad-faith refusal to pay him worker's compensation when due. The court concluded that under Mississippi's choice-of-law principles, plaintiff's tort suit was governed by Mississippi substantive law. Further, the district court erroneously concluded that, under Mississippi law, the insurer's alleged intentional bad faith refusal to pay plaintiff's worker's compensation was merely a breach of contract and not an independent tort committed by the carrier outside the scope of plaintiff's employment as the Mississippi Supreme Court held in Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Holland. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This is a products liability case arising from the sale of allegedly defective drywall from a Chinese manufacturer, TG, through a Virginia distributor, Venture, to plaintiffs. The court applied the Fourth Circuit, three-party inquiry to determine whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction over TG comported with Due Process. The court concluded that TG purposefully availed itself to Virginia; TG's contacts with Virginia formed the basis for this suit; and it was constitutionally reasonable for the district court to have personal jurisdiction over TG. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court had personal jurisdiction over TG with regard to Plaintiff-Intervenors, and all Original Plaintiffs who have met their burden in proving that their claims arose out of TG's contacts with Virginia. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by refusing to vacate the Default Judgment against TG where the district court weighed several relevant factors, including the merit of TG's asserted defense, before concluding that vacatur was unwarranted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of one firearm and with possessing and bartering one stolen firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence on the grounds that the district court erroneously calculated his base offense level. The court held that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant possessed or unlawfully sought to obtain between eight and twenty-four firearms under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hagman, III" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife sought to recover damages for plaintiff's injuries under an insurance policy Redland issued to plaintiff's employer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Redland, concluding that plaintiff could not avail himself of uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under Title 22, Section 1295 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. The district court ruled that the offending uninsured machine, a forklift, was not a "motor vehicle" for purposes of that law. The court reversed and remanded, holding that a forklift was a "motor vehicle" within the contemplation of Section 1295's identification of the uninsured or underinsured vehicle. View "Boyett, et al. v. Redland Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of a complicated bankruptcy proceeding. On appeal, Lender challenged the district court's judgment which, in relevant part, disallowed Lender's claim for a contractual prepayment consideration. Applying Colorado law, a lender was not entitled to a prepayment penalty when the lender chooses to accelerate the note. Absent a clear contractual provision to the contrary or evidence of the borrower's bad faith in defaulting to avoid a penalty, a lender's decision to accelerate acts as a waiver of a prepayment penalty. In this instance, the plain language of the contract plainly provided that no Prepayment Consideration was owed unless there was an actual prepayment, whether voluntary or involuntary. Accordingly, the acceleration of the Note due to GCMM's default by nonpayment under Article 4 did not trigger the obligation to pay the Prepayment Consideration under Article 6. View "Bank of New York Mellon v. GC Merchandise Mart, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, challenged the reinstatement of an order of removal by ICE, contending that the original order of deportation must be rescinded as unconstitutional. Alternatively, petitioner argued that the order could not be reinstated because he legally reentered the United States. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear petitioner's due process claim. Alternatively, petitioner's challenge to the reinstatement order was without merit where he illegally crossed the border and then applied for a new immigration card with a different identity and number. Successfully deceiving immigration officials into providing one with a new immigration card did not constitute either permission to reenter from the Attorney General or legal reentry. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Martinez v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wells Fargo in state court, raising claims related to Wells Fargo's foreclosure and Freddie Mac's attempts to evict plaintiff. Wells Fargo then removed the case to federal court where the district court dismissed all of plaintiff's claims. At issue on appeal was whether Wells Fargo could move for attorney's fees pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2). Here, the deed of trust at issue provided for attorney's fees to compensate Wells Fargo, inter alia, for the prosecution or defense of a claim. The language of the contract and the nature of the claim were the dispositive factors concerning whether the fees were an element of damages or collateral litigation costs. In this instance the court concluded that the motions for attorney's fees provided by contract were permissible under Rule 54(d)(2). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Richardson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, pro se, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, arguing that the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16911 et seq., compelled his speech in violation of the First Amendment. Congress enacted SORNA as a means to protect the public from sex offenders by providing a uniform mechanism to identify those convicted of certain crimes. The court concluded that relevant Supreme Court precedent, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Wooley v. Maynard, did not require the court to conclude that the government had unlawfully compelled defendant's speech. The court concluded that the Constitution did not provide defendant with a right to keep his registry information private. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court denied defendant's motion for appointment of counsel. View "United States v. Arnold" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for producing, possessing, and distributing child pornography. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant of Accurate Roofing; affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant of defendant's residence; but reversed and remanded for resentencing where the district court did not appreciate its authority to consider evidence of defendant's cooperation under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law