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

BD LaPlace, LLC, doing business as Bayou Steel (Bayou Steel), operated a steel mill in LaPlace, Louisiana. Without giving The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) notice, Bayou Steel terminated Plaintiffs’ employment and closed the LaPlace mill where they worked. Seeking to recover under the WARN Act, Plaintiffs initially filed a putative class action complaint against Bayou Steel in Delaware bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs dismissed that action and filed the instant class action in federal district court. Rather than suing their employer Bayou Steel, Plaintiffs sued Bayou Steel BD Holdings II, LLC and Black Diamond Capital Management, LLC(a private equity firm that advised the fund that owned BD Holdings II). Plaintiffs demanded a jury trial, which the district court denied. Defendants sought summary judgment, which the district court granted. Plaintiffs appealed, challenging both the denial of their jury demand and the summary judgment for Defendants.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that there is no right to a jury trial under the WARN Act. The court also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to BD Holdings II. But the district court erred in granting summary judgment to BDCM because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether BDCM exercised de facto control over Bayou Steel’s decision to close its LaPlace steel mill and order Plaintiffs’ layoffs. The court explained that if BDCM “specifically directed” the closing of the mill without proper notice, the company may be liable for Bayou Steel’s WARN Act violation even absent the other factors. View "Fleming v. Bayou Steel" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of numerous federal drug offenses related to his ownership and operation of a Texas pharmacy that was, in reality, an illegal pill mill. On appeal, Defendant’s arguments for overturning his convictions largely concern four audio recordings that, after being vetted by a government filter team, were turned over to the prosecution. Defendant contends that the recordings intruded into privileged conversations with his attorney and prejudiced his defense and that, as a result, his indictment should have been dismissed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that nothing in the government’s conduct here rises to the level of shocking or outrageous behavior that would justify dismissal under the Due Process Clause. The court wrote that before releasing the recordings, the filter team contacted Defendant’s lawyer to ask whether he intended to assert a privilege— while explaining they did not believe the recordings were privileged. When Defendant’s lawyer did not respond for over a week, the filter team did not take this silence as license to go forward. Because Defendant’s lawyer said that he would do so only after this second set of correspondence, the team moved the district court to authorize the release of the recordings. And even when the district court prematurely granted that authorization the next day, the team still did not release the recordings because they believed Defendant would take corrective action. The court found that this hardly constitutes conduct that is “outrageous” or fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, the court held that Defendant cannot demonstrate any error, much less “clear or obvious” error, in the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. View "USA v. Carr" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder in 2012 and received a life sentence at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”). Plaintiff claims Defendants should be personally liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for his conditions of confinement from August 2012 to June 2017, which he alleges violated the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. On remand, the district court directed the parties to file supplemental memoranda addressing qualified immunity and prescription and referred the matter to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that as to the Fourteenth Amendment, the magistrate judge correctly stated that restrictive confinement, like Plaintiff’s grounds for a due process claim, only if it “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Applying that standard, the judge properly considered the severity and duration of the confinement. Further, as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, the magistrate judge correctly stated that such a claim requires showing both that a prisoner faces conditions so dire as to deprive him of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” and that the responsible prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” to the inmate’s health or safety. Finally, the court wrote that confinement to a cell for twenty-three hours per day did not violate the Eight Amendment, where the inmate nonetheless could converse with other inmates, receive visitors, and engage in some form of exercise or other recreation. View "LaVergne v. Stutes" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, he argued that a sentencing enhancement that requires certain prior convictions be for offenses committed on different occasions could not be applied unless the facts supporting it were charged in the indictment and admitted by the accused or proved to a jury. He also argued that his prior convictions did not qualify for the enhancement.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant’s argument that the indictment must allege, and evidence at trial must prove, the facts of the commission of qualifying offenses on different occasions has long been rejected by the Fifth Circuit. Moreover, the court wrote that two of Defendant’s prior convictions were for the Texas offense of burglary of a building. It has been settled that convictions for Texas burglary qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA. View "USA v. Kerstetter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a black female educator and school administrator who works for the Brookhaven School District (the “School District”). Plaintiff sought to attend the Mississippi School Board Association Prospective Superintendent’s Leadership Academy, a training program for prospective superintendents. According to Plaintiff, the School District “established a precedent of paying for every employee’s fees after the employee was accepted to attend the program.” Plaintiff asked the Deputy Superintendent, if the School District would pay for her to attend the Leadership Academy. Once the program accepted Plaintiff, the School District’s Superintendent reneged and refused to pay for her to attend at that time. But Plaintiff’s spot was for the upcoming class, so she paid the fees herself. Plaintiff sued, alleging that the School District violated Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 by refusing to pay for her to attend the Leadership Academy but agreeing to pay for similarly situated white males to attend. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).   The Fifth Circuit reversed. The court held that Plaintiff set forth a plausible Title VII claim under Rule 12 because plausibly alleged facts that satisfy both adverse employment action prongs and the adverse employment action element was the only element in dispute. The court explained, taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true—that the School District (1) agreed to pay for similarly situated white males’ fees to attend the Leadership Academy; (2) promised to pay her fees (a promise she relied on); and (3) reneged on that promise—Plaintiff plausibly stated a Title VII disparate treatment claim. View "Harrison v. Brookhaven Sch Dist" on Justia Law

A Border Patrol Agent was conducting inspections and noticed two people in a truck. At trial, the Agent testified that he first asked the driver, Defendant, whether he was a United States citizen. Defendant responded that he was a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Defendant answered that the passenger was his wife and a United States citizen, and he gave the Agent a marriage certificate. After looking at the marriage certificate, the Agent asked the passenger if she was legally present in the United States, and she said that she was not. A jury found Defendant guilty of transporting within the United States an alien who “has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law.” On appeal, Defendant challenged his conviction as based on insufficient evidence. Defendant argued that the Government failed to prove the first element of this offense.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a rational jury could infer that Defendant illegally entered or remained in the United States from the testimony confirming that she was illegally present in the country. When the Agent asked the passenger if she was illegally present, she answered yes. During Defendant’s post-arrest interview, Defendant said that he heard from the passenger that she was “illegal.” And the passenger corroborated at trial that Defendant knew that she was in the United States illegally when he went to pick her up. View "USA v. Irias-Romero" on Justia Law

Appellant worked as a barge cleaner for T.T. Barge Services, which provides barge cleaning services to Ingram Barge Company. Appellant asserted negligence claims against Ingram after Appellant was injured by caustic soda that he was cleaning up on Ingram Barge 976, which was moored to one of T.T.’s work barges at the time of his injury. After Ingram filed a district court complaint to limit liability, Appellant counterclaimed and asserted claims of negligence against Ingram. T.T. also filed a claim for contribution and indemnity against Ingram. The district court granted summary judgment (1) as to Appellant’s lack of seaman status under the Jones Act and (2) as to all of Appellant’s negligence claims against Ingram. The district court then dismissed the case with prejudice. Appellant challenged the district court’s orders.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that T.T.’s Cleaning Barge is semi-permanently and indefinitely attached to land by steel cables, except for rare moves during repairs or to accommodate nearby dredging operations. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that T.T.’s Cleaning Barge lacked vessel status at summary judgment.   Further, the court explained that to qualify as a Jones Act seaman, a plaintiff must satisfy two requirements. First, an employee’s duties must ‘contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission. Second, that employee must have a connection to a vessel in navigation that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature. Here, Ratcliff lacks a substantial connection to Ingram’s barges. View "Ingram Barge v. Ratcliff" on Justia Law

In this case, the parties consented to have their commercial dispute tried before a United States magistrate judge. But, allegedly unbeknownst to Defendant, the judge was longtime family friends with the lead trial lawyer for the plaintiff. Specifically, the lawyer had been a groomsman in the judge’s own wedding, and the judge officiated the wedding of the lawyer’s daughter three months before this lawsuit was filed. None of this information was disclosed to Defendant. After a twenty-day bench trial, the magistrate judge rendered judgment for the Plaintiff, awarding $124.5 million, including over $100 million in trebled damages. After the issuance of the judgment and award, Defendant learned about the undisclosed longstanding friendship and sought to have the magistrate-judge referral vacated. The district judge denied the request and denied discovery on the issue. Defendant appealed.   The Fifth Circuit vacated. The court concluded that the facts asserted here, if true, raise serious doubts about the validity of Defendant’s constitutionally essential consent to have its case tried by this magistrate judge. Further, the court explained remand was necessary because the facts were not sufficiently developed for the court to decide whether Defendant’s consent was validly given or whether vacatur of the referral was otherwise warranted. Accordingly, the court remanded for an evidentiary inquiry. View "I F G Port Hold v. Lake Charles Harbor" on Justia Law

Defendant a citizen of Mexico, has been deported from the United States repeatedly over the past three decades. The list of crimes he has committed in the United States is extensive. Most recently, Defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after a prior deportation. At the time of this offense, Defendant was 51 years old, but had only spent one year of his adult life in Mexico, his country of citizenship. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, Defendant’s recommended range spanned from 3 years and 10 months (46 months) to 4 years and 9 months (57 months). The district court sentenced Defendant to 6 years (72 months). Defendant challenged his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the Government concedes that the district court mistakenly counted six prior theft convictions when there were only four and mistakenly suggested that Defendant had served 7 years for a 1991 vehicle burglary conviction when he actually served 10 months of the 7-year sentence. These, the Government admits, were obvious errors. Yet the Government argues, and we agree, that these misstatements did not affect Defendant’s substantial rights. Nor did they impugn the fairness, integrity, or reputation of the proceedings. Further, the court wrote it has previously affirmed the substantive reasonableness of a 72-month sentence for illegal re-entry. Thus, the court concluded that this sentence was substantively reasonable, as well. View "USA v. Recio-Rosas" on Justia Law

The United States commenced an investigation of Mississippi’s mental health system. This investigation was not prompted any individual instance of discrimination against a person with serious mental illness. The United States filed suit against the state of Mississippi, alleging that its entire mental health care system violated the “integration mandate” prescribed by 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(d) and reified in the Supreme Court’s decision, Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring. The district court conducted a trial, upheld the federal government’s theory of liability, and ordered not only sweeping modifications to the state’s system but also the indefinite appointment of a monitor who would oversee the system. Mississippi contends that (1) the federal government has not proved a cause of action for discrimination in violation of the ADA (2) the court erred in rejecting its defense that remediation would require an impermissible “fundamental alteration” of its existing programs and (3) the court’s remedial order vastly exceeds the scope of claimed liability   The Fifth Circuit reversed. The court explained that the possibility that some un-named individual with serious mental illness or all such people in Mississippi could be unjustifiably institutionalized in the future does not give rise to a cognizable claim under Title II. The court further wrote that nor does such a vague and standardless theory license courts under the ADA to rework an entire state’s mental health system. Accordingly, the court held that the government did not prove that the state of Mississippi violated Title II pursuant to the statute, regulations, or Olmstead as properly construed. View "USA v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law