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

In this equal protection case, plaintiff appealed from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the School Board. The district court rejected plaintiff's claim that the School Board's student assignment plan, formulated to address school population changes while "maintaining the district's unitary status," was impermissibly race-based and discriminatory against minority elementary, middle, and high school students zoned for East Ascension High School. At issue on appeal was whether child A had standing; prescription of plaintiff's claims based upon the 2002 feeder plan modification; and whether Option 2f violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The court held that because it remanded on other grounds, the court vacated the district court's ruling on whether plaintiff had standing to pursue claims on behalf of child A and remanded for reconsideration by the district court in the first instance as to whether to permit plaintiff to cure his defective allegations of capacity. The court also held that the district court correctly held that the 2002 feeder plan modifications claims were time-barred. The court finally held that because factual questions existed as to whether Option 2f had both a racially discriminatory motive and a disparate impact, and the district court misapprehended the significance of the evidence before it, that court erred in awarding summary judgment under a rational basis test. Accordingly, further factual development was required.

In 2008, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act No. 530, Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 48:394, which required that all railroad companies obtain permission from the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) before closing or removing private railroad crossings. During the pendency of this litigation, in 2010, the Louisiana Legislature adopted Act 858, amending Section 48:394 in light of the court's decision in Franks Investment Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Plaintiff filed the instant action against LPSC and its commissioners in their official capacity, seeking a declaration that Section 48:394 was preempted by federal law, and both preliminary and permanent injunctions against the enforcement of that section. The court held that Louisiana had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court also held that, because the parties agreed that if the State was entitled to immunity the case would be dismissed, the court dismissed the appeal and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action.

Plaintiff sued Hudspeth County and Sheriff West under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for Hudspeth County but not for West, finding that genuine disputes of material fact precluded a determination of the application of qualified immunity. In particular, the district court found genuine disputes existed as to West's knowledge of plaintiff's status as an El Paso Police Department (EPPD) officer and plaintiff's authority to operate in Hudspeth County as part of the 34th Judicial District task force. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court where West failed to show legal error in the district court's analysis.

Spencer Committee appealed two orders of the district court: (1) the denial of the Spencer Committee's appeal of the bankruptcy court's confirmation order of the reorganization plan (Plan) by debtor on the grounds of equitable mootness and (2) the denial of the Spencer Committee's motion for a new trial de novo of its fraud claims. The court concluded that, (1) the Spencer Committee appeared before the bankruptcy court and did not obtain a stay, (2) the Plan had been substantially consummated, and (3) the Spencer Committee's requested relief would adversely impact the success of the Plan or the rights of third parties not before the court. Accordingly, on the grounds of equitable mootness, the court affirmed the district court's order granting debtor's motion to dismiss.

This case arose when plaintiff and defendant created a joint venture where plaintiff loaned the joint venture $75,000,000 under a Loan Agreement which contained an arbitration clause. Defendant did not sign the Loan Agreement individually but did sign a third-party guarantee (Limited Guarantee) for the loan on the same day the Loan Agreement was executed. Plaintiff subsequently sued defendant pursuant to the Limited Guarantee and defendant sought arbitration. The district court denied a motion to compel arbitration because defendant was not a party to any Loan Document. Defendant appealed and the district court denied his motion for a stay pending appeal. Defendant appealed the denial of the stay and plaintiff moved for summary affirmance of the denial of the motion to compel. The court held that there was no automatic stay and that under the circumstances of the case, defendant was not entitled to a stay. Therefore, the motion for summary affirmance was carried with the case.