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

Plaintiff filed suit under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. 11607(b)(3), against defendant for the return of their child. The parties settled and plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees and necessary expenses. The court found that the settlement order was sufficient to create a duty on the district court to order an award of necessary fees and expenses under section 11607(b)(3)'s fee-shifting provision. The court concluded that the district court functioned within its broad discretionary powers in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing and deferred to the district court's determination that $39,079.13 was a reasonable award for the necessary expenses incurred by plaintiff in obtaining the return of her child. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Salazar v. Maimon" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for committing a hate crime under the Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1). The court affirmed, concluding that the Supreme Court's Thirteenth Amendment precedent allowed Congress to define and regulate the "badges" and "incidents" of slavery so long as their definition is rational, and the Act survived rational basis review. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants caused bodily injury to the victim because of his race. View "United States v. Cannon, et al." on Justia Law

Wartburg appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Bumbo, a South African seller of plastic baby seats, on counterclaims by Wartburg alleging breach of contract. The court held that Wartburg's retailer limitation claim, regarding Bumbo's insistence that Wartburg supply Wartburg's inventory of Bumbo products solely to Wal-Mart, Toys "R" Us, and Babies "R" Us, arose from the initial, admitted-to contract. As such, this claim fell under one of the exceptions to Texas's statute of frauds. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Bumbo as to this claim on statute of frauds grounds. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jonibach Mgmt. Trust v. Wartburg Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics against ten federal officers, in their individual capacities, based on their alleged roles in contributing to the death of ICE Special Agent Zapata and the serious injury of Agent Avila. The agents were ambushed and shot by drug cartel members in Mexico using weapons they allegedly obtained unlawfully in the United States. The court concluded that the district court did not explicitly rule on defendants' qualified immunity defense; the district court failed to make an initial determination that plaintiffs' allegations, if true, would defeat qualified immunity; and the district court did not identify any questions of fact it needed to resolve before it would be able to determine whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Because the district court did not fulfill its duty under Backe v. LeBlanc, Wicks v. Miss. State Emp't Servs., Helton v. Clements, and Lion Boulos v. Wilson, the court had jurisdiction to review the district court's discovery order and vacated it. The court remanded with instructions for the district court to follow the procedures outlined in Backe, Wicks, Helton, and Lion Boulos. View "Zapata, et al. v. Melson, et al." on Justia Law

Hess sought to enforce debtor's guaranty on a contract between Hess and Premier. Debtor was a member in Premier and served as guarantor of the agreement. The agreement stated that Hess would provide certain management services related to the operation of the Fluker Pit. The bankruptcy court held that Premier breached the contract in bad faith, but the court limited the damages award to $375,000. Hess appealed to the district court, which overruled the bankruptcy court and awarded Hess the full value of the contract - $1.5 million. Debtor appealed. The court concluded that a Louisiana court would find that the bad faith damage clause did not enhance the damages owed Hess beyond the time the Fluker Pit closed. Instead, giving full effect to the bad faith damages provision, the court found that Hess was only able to establish as a "direct consequence" of the breach damages up until the November 12th date. Awarding Hess damages beyond that point would not serve the provision's purpose of conferring damages consequentially linked to bad faith breach, but instead would punitively award damages unconnected with the facts surrounding the breach. Further, Louisiana's rule on mitigation makes clear that a non-breaching party must take "reasonable efforts to mitigate the damage caused by the obligor's failure to perform." This demonstrates that damages are not set in stone, and strengthened the court's conclusion that post-breach events may effect the amount of damages award. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hess Mgmt. Firm, L.L.C., et al. v. Bankston, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 89 months of imprisonment. Because defendant refused to waive his right to appeal, the Government declined to move for a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b). After sentencing, and while his appeal was pending, the Sentencing Commission amended the commentary to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b), which now instructs prosecutors not to withhold such motions on the basis of defendant's failure to waive his appellate rights. The court affirmed the sentence because even assuming that Amendment 775 should be considered on appeal, defendant's substantial rights have not been affected. The court declined to follow the First Circuit's decision, which remanded an appeal for resentencing in light of a post-sentencing amendment despite the fact that the amendment was substantive and not clarifying. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Garcia-Carrillo" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court granted a COA as to petitioner's claim that trial counsel's failure to investigate and present adequate mitigating evidence violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The court denied a COA with regard to the argument that Martinez v. Ryan compelled the federal habeas court to consider newly presented evidence that was never submitted to the state habeas court where new evidence presented to the district court did not fundamentally alter his claim but merely provided additional evidentiary support for his claim. View "Escamilla v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple who are natives and citizens of India, appealed the BIA's decision denying their petition for adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure. The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that Dilshad was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i) because she was inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for fraudulent entry; Naseem's derivative application thus was also properly denied; and the court denied the petition for review. The court lacked jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting or denying of discretionary relief in the form of cancellation of removal or voluntary departure where this appeal involved neither constitutional questions nor questions of law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the remainder of the petition for want of jurisdiction. View "Sattani, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b) as an alien unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. The district court concluded that defendant's prior state-court conviction for conspiracy to commit murder warranted a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. The court concluded that conspiracy to commit murder, within the meaning of Application Note 5 of section 2L1.2, did not require an overt act as an element of the offense and the court rejected defendant's claims to the contrary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Pascacio-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit pro se under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., against Equable, as successor in interest to Hilco. Plaintiff alleged that Hilco obtained his consumer credit report without a permissible purpose or plaintiff's consent, in violation of the section 1681(b). The magistrate court granted Equable's motion for summary judgment on the ground that certain discovery responses showed that plaintiff's suit was time barred under section 1681p(1) because he did not file suit within two years of receiving the May 2009 report. The court affirmed, concluding that, in light of Hyde v. Hibernia Nat'l Bank in Jefferson Parish, the limitations period began to run when plaintiff discovered that Hilco had obtained his credit report without his consent. View "Mack v. Equable Ascent Financial, LLC" on Justia Law