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

The case centers on a protracted child custody dispute between two parents, one residing in Canada and the other in Texas. After their separation, the mother relocated to Canada with the children, initially under a Texas court order allowing her to determine their residence without geographic restriction. Over several years, both parents engaged in parallel legal proceedings in Texas and Canada, with each court issuing conflicting orders regarding custody and the children’s primary residence. The father later retained the children in Texas, prompting the mother to file a federal petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alleging wrongful retention in violation of her Canadian custody rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas conducted a bench trial. It found the children’s habitual residence was Canada, based on their long-term integration there, and concluded the father's retention in Texas was wrongful under the Hague Convention. The district court ordered the children’s return to Canada and rejected three defenses: consent, age and maturity, and judicial estoppel. Subsequently, as the father continued custody litigation in Texas, the district court issued a preliminary injunction barring him and two Texas judges from further proceedings and directed that the Canadian courts should resolve custody.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision ordering the children’s return to Canada, holding that the children were habitually resident in Canada and the retention in Texas violated the mother’s rights of custody under Canadian law. The appellate court also ruled that the defenses raised by the father did not bar the return remedy. However, it vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction, finding it improper to enjoin state and foreign courts from adjudicating custody. Thus, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the return order but vacated the injunctions restricting proceedings in Texas and Canada. View "Moreau v. White" on Justia Law

After Hurricane Harvey in 2017, an individual applied for disaster relief from FEMA, claiming her Houston residence was damaged and providing supporting documentation for her claim, such as hotel receipts, utility bills, and repair estimates. FEMA awarded her approximately $33,000. Later, federal authorities investigated and alleged that the application was fraudulent, asserting that the listed residence did not exist as described, the applicant never lived in Houston, and the supporting documents were fabricated.The United States charged the applicant with disaster relief fraud and wire fraud in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. During trial, the government revealed late disclosures of two items: civil recoupment letters sent to the defendant in 2020 and an email to a third-party contractor who had supposedly inspected the property. The defense argued these late disclosures violated the government's obligations under Brady v. Maryland. The district court ultimately dismissed the indictment without prejudice, citing its supervisory powers and referencing concerns over discovery violations in this and other recent cases before it, despite finding no intentional misconduct by prosecutors.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in dismissing the indictment. The appellate court held there was no Brady violation because the defense failed to show prejudice from the late-disclosed evidence, and the information could have been obtained through reasonable diligence. The court further found that, even assuming a Rule 16 violation, the district court had not properly considered the required factors or imposed the least severe sanction. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the indictment and therefore reversed the dismissal order, remanding with instructions to reinstate the indictment. View "USA v. Kuyoro" on Justia Law

In this case, employees at two Starbucks locations in upstate New York initiated unionization efforts. At the Latham store, a shift supervisor and union organizer named James Schenk was terminated following several infractions, including using extreme profanity about a coworker in a group chat, failing to complete all tasks during a shift, and opening a letter addressed to Starbucks. At the Stuyvesant store, the district manager significantly increased her presence during the union campaign, which employees argued created an impression of surveillance.An Administrative Law Judge found that Starbucks did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by terminating Schenk at the Latham store, but determined that the district manager's actions at the Stuyvesant store did unlawfully create the impression of surveillance. The National Labor Relations Board agreed regarding the Stuyvesant store but reversed the ALJ as to the Latham store, concluding that Schenk would not have been disciplined or terminated but for his union activity. Starbucks petitioned for review, and the Board sought enforcement of its order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Board failed to adequately consider contradictory evidence, including whether Schenk's misconduct was sufficiently distinct from other employees' behavior and whether his opening of official mail was treated differently for a legitimate reason. The court found the Board’s reasoning insufficient and vacated the Board’s decision regarding Schenk’s termination, remanding the case for further proceedings. The petition for review was granted, and the case was remanded to the Board for further consideration consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A 14-year-old passenger, Kevin Greenidge, died from cardiac arrest aboard an American Airlines international flight from Honduras to Florida. Kevin, who suffered from multiple health conditions, began experiencing breathing difficulties soon after takeoff. Despite the crew’s efforts and the assistance of two medical professionals on board, Kevin did not survive. During the resuscitation attempt, there was a dispute about whether the aircraft’s automated external defibrillator (AED) functioned properly, as several witnesses reported it failed to deliver a shock, despite internal device data indicating otherwise.Following Kevin’s death, his aunt, Melissa Arzu, acting individually and as administrator of his estate, filed suit against American Airlines in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. She alleged liability and loss of consortium under the Montreal Convention and breach of contract under Texas law. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American Airlines on all claims, finding that the alleged deviations from airline policy and medical response did not constitute an “accident” under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed summary judgment on the claims based on the crew’s allegedly ineffective medical response, holding that such a response does not amount to an “accident” under Article 17 without unusual circumstances or willful inaction. However, the court reversed summary judgment on the claims premised on the AED malfunction, finding that a genuine dispute remained as to whether the AED’s failure, in violation of FAA regulations, could be considered an “unexpected or unusual event.” The court also held that the Montreal Convention expressly preempts Arzu’s breach of contract claim. View "Arzu v. American Airlines" on Justia Law

Albert Hayes worked as an IT systems administrator for GStek, Inc., a contractor providing services for the U.S. Army at Fort Polk. After the COVID-19 pandemic, Hayes was required to return to in-person work. He subsequently received diagnoses of Autism, Major Depressive Disorder, and Social Anxiety Disorder. Hayes requested permission to telework as a reasonable accommodation for his disabilities. The Army, which controlled conditions for contractors at Fort Polk, determined that full-time telework was not in its best interests and denied the request. GStek allowed Hayes to telework two to three days per week, but after a mental health crisis and continued absenteeism, Hayes was terminated.Hayes pursued administrative remedies against the Army under the Rehabilitation Act, but his claims were dismissed because he was not an Army employee and had not timely pursued administrative procedures. He did not appeal that dismissal. Hayes then filed a charge of discrimination against GStek with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, after receiving a right-to-sue notice, sued GStek in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, bringing claims for failure-to-accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted GStek’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Hayes received a reasonable accommodation, was not a qualified individual under the ADA, and failed to establish prima facie cases for discrimination or retaliation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that in-person attendance was an essential function of Hayes’s job and telework was not a reasonable accommodation under the circumstances. Hayes was not a qualified individual because he could not perform the essential functions of his position, even with accommodations. As a result, his claims for failure-to-accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation under the ADA all failed. View "Hayes v. GStek" on Justia Law

Trojan Battery, a well-established manufacturer of golf cart batteries with valuable trademark rights in the “TROJAN” name and related marks, sued Golf Carts of Cypress and Trojan EV. The defendants, owned by the same individual, began selling golf carts under the “TROJAN-EV” brand, which led to alleged confusion among dealers and customers about the origin or affiliation of the products. Trojan Battery sent a cease-and-desist letter, but the defendants continued their use of the TROJAN-EV mark. The evidence showed that both companies operated within the golf industry, used similar advertising channels, and targeted the same customer base.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a bench trial. The district court found the defendants liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Texas law, based on a likelihood of confusion between the marks. The court awarded Trojan Battery the defendants’ profits as a remedy and issued a permanent injunction against further infringement. The district court also rejected the defendants’ post-trial motions and denied their request to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Defendants appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s liability judgment and the award of profits, finding no clear error in the determination that there was a likelihood of confusion and that disgorgement of profits was warranted. However, the appellate court vacated the permanent injunction, holding that it was overbroad because it extended beyond the golf cart and battery markets, where confusion was likely, to unrelated products and markets. The case was remanded for the district court to narrow the scope of the injunction. View "Trojan Battery v. Golf Carts of Cypress" on Justia Law

The case concerns an asylum seeker from El Salvador who entered the United States without authorization in 2022. He sought asylum, testifying that he had been forced into the MS-13 gang, later allowed to leave but forcibly tattooed, and had suffered torture and threats in El Salvador due to his gang affiliation. An Immigration Judge denied his requests for relief and ordered removal. During his appeal, the Department of Homeland Security inadvertently disclosed his personal information online. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the removal order but remanded the case for further proceedings on his eligibility for deferral of removal. His counsel later withdrew all applications for relief, claiming he was a Mexican citizen, and he was ordered removed to Mexico or, alternatively, El Salvador. Proceeding without counsel, he appealed again, contesting the withdrawal of his applications, but the Board dismissed his appeal.He subsequently filed a motion to reopen his proceedings, arguing that new evidence—specifically, the high-profile arrest and extradition of his father-in-law, a former MS-13 leader—constituted changed country conditions increasing his risk if returned to El Salvador. He also requested equitable tolling of the filing deadline, citing ineffective assistance of counsel, his pro se status, and other obstacles.The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion to reopen as untimely, finding no evidence of materially changed country conditions, only a change in personal circumstances. The Board also found no basis for equitable tolling, as he failed to demonstrate that counsel’s ineffectiveness prevented timely filing. The petitioner then sought review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying both the exception for changed country conditions and equitable tolling. The court denied the petition for review. View "Prado-Majano v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A catastrophic storm in March 2016 caused unprecedented rainfall in the Sabine River basin, leading the operators of the Toledo Bend Dam—jointly managed by the Sabine River Authority of Texas and the Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana—to open nine spillway gates. This action released significant amounts of water into the Sabine River over several weeks. Downriver landowners experienced extensive flooding and property damage. More than 700 landowners brought suit, alleging that the dam operators’ actions constituted a compensable taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment.The case began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where the defendants raised several defenses, including sovereign immunity, which was litigated and ultimately denied. Discovery disputes arose over the admissibility and timeliness of the plaintiffs’ expert affidavits and reports, which were found to rely heavily on an untested graduate thesis. The magistrate judge struck the challenged affidavits as untimely, and the plaintiffs did not object. Later, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the dam’s operation caused the flooding, nor that a taking had occurred. The court also found the necessity doctrine might shield the defendants but did not decide the case on that ground.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the lower court’s decisions. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the untimely expert affidavits. Affirming summary judgment, the Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had failed to present sufficient evidence of causation—specifically, that the dam’s operation, rather than the unprecedented storm itself, caused additional flooding beyond what would have occurred without the dam. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Bonin v. Sabine River Authority" on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old girl disappeared from Floresville, Texas in October 2023. Police discovered that she had communicated online with Jayden Douglas Richard Vacchino before her disappearance. The communications revealed Vacchino’s intention to take her from Texas to Louisiana for sexual purposes. Investigators found evidence that Vacchino’s phone was near the victim’s house on the night she went missing, and security footage confirmed his car in the area. Two days later, authorities located Vacchino and the victim together in Shreveport, Louisiana, where he was arrested.Vacchino pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transporting a minor interstate with intent to engage in criminal sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). At the sentencing hearing, the district court did not explicitly adopt the presentence report but imposed a sentence of 260 months in prison, 15 years of supervised release, a $100 special assessment, and a $25,000 fine. The court recommended sex counseling treatment during incarceration and stated it would impose “standard conditions” of supervised release “plus the sex offender conditions.” The written judgment, however, included additional special conditions from the presentence report and omitted the specific recommendation for sex counseling treatment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed several discrepancies between the oral sentence and the written judgment. The court held that mandatory supervised release condition 10, which required notification of economic changes, conflicted with the oral pronouncement and must be vacated. The court affirmed the other challenged conditions, finding that they either reflected the district court’s intent or clarified ambiguities. The Fifth Circuit also ordered correction of the written judgment to include the oral recommendation for sex counseling treatment. The judgment was thus vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "USA v. Vacchino" on Justia Law

A seaman was severely injured while working on an offshore supply vessel operated by his employer. Following his injury, the employer provided both mandatory and supplemental benefits, including housing and transportation. Six months after the incident, the employer’s executives presented the seaman with an agreement offering continued supplemental benefits in exchange for his commitment to arbitrate any future claims against the company. The agreement included a delegation clause stating that any disputes about the validity, interpretation, or application of the agreement would be resolved by an arbitrator. The seaman signed, acknowledging he had the opportunity to consult an attorney but later alleged he felt pressured and feared losing benefits if he did not sign.The seaman filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging negligence and seeking a declaration that the agreement and its arbitration provisions were invalid due to fraud, duress, and his medical condition. The employer moved to compel arbitration and to stay the litigation, arguing that the delegation clause required an arbitrator to decide issues of enforceability. The district court denied the motion without prejudice and allowed limited discovery on the enforceability of the agreement, concluding it must decide if a valid arbitration agreement existed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to enforce the delegation clause. The appellate court found the seaman’s arguments challenged the agreement as a whole, not the delegation clause specifically. Under Supreme Court precedent, such challenges must be resolved by an arbitrator when a valid delegation clause exists and is not directly challenged. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and compelled arbitration, remanding for further proceedings consistent with this holding. View "Hill v. Jackson Offshore Holdings" on Justia Law