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

Plaintiff filed a citizen suit against defendants, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Defendants filed a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, asserting that the citizen suit was barred under the "diligent prosecution" provision of the Act under section 1365(b)(1)(B). The district court granted the motion to dismiss, but on the ground that the 2002 consent decree mooted plaintiff's claims. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court erred in granting defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the citizen suit based on mootness where neither party argued that any circumstances subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit rendered it moot. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether the suit was precluded under the "diligent prosecution" provision. View "LA Environmental Action Ntwrk v. City of Baton Rouge, et al." on Justia Law

C&MI was a company that recycled hazardous compounds used by manufacturers and Honeywell was one of its clients. An employee of Honeywell died from exposure to toxins released from a container that C&MI had mislabeled as holding a non-toxic refrigerant. It actually contained highly toxic industrial waste. C&MI subsequently entered into a written agreement with the government by which it agreed to plead guilty to negligent endangerment that resulted in death. The sentence included a $1,000,000 fine and a restitution award of $2,000,000. The court held that there was no evidence to support either amount. Therefore, the court modified the fine and vacated the restitution order, affirming the judgment. View "United States v. Chemical & Metal Ind." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Because restitution to a pawn shop to which defendant sold stolen firearms that he unlawfully possessed was not authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3663 under the facts of this case, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. The court also concluded that the district court plainly erred in calculating defendant's criminal history but did not reach the question of whether that error affected defendant's substantial rights since resentencing would occur. View "United States v. Espinoza" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a law enforcement park ranger, was transferred to a staff ranger position based on the conclusion of a medical review board constituted by the National Park Service that his uncontrolled diabetes could prevent him from safely performing his duties. Plaintiff filed suit under the Rehabilitation Act, claiming that his transfer amounted to discrimination on the basis of his alleged disability. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department and plaintiff appealed. The court held that the record supported the district court's conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the business necessity defense and its grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department was proper. View "Atkins v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought an enforcement suit against defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants' practice of offering reimbursements for telephone services to retirees who lived outside of defendants' service region constituted a "pension plan" under ERISA. Judge Rodriquez was assigned to the claims at issue here and to Boos v. AT&T, a case involving similar claims. After ruling that the concession at issue in Boos was not a pension plan under ERISA, Judge Rodriquez reconsidered Judge Justice's interlocutory order with respect to plaintiffs' claims in this case. He concluded that the program of retirement benefits was not a pension plan under ERISA and he then entered a final judgment. Because the court concluded that Judge Rodriquez did not abuse his discretion by revising Judge Justice's interlocutory order, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Stoffels, et al. v. SBC Communications, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against the Board, arguing that the fee charged at the conclusion of his public intoxication and public inhabitation case violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment because it discouraged public defenders from exonerating their clients. Louisiana's funding mechanism for indigent defense required indigent defendants who were found guilty, or plead nolo contendere, to pay a $35 fee at the conclusion of their cases, but it did not require defendants who were exonerated to pay the fee. The district court ruled that abstention was required under the Younger doctrine and, alternatively, that plaintiff did not state a claim for relief under the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment. Because the court held that the district court did not err in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff's lawsuit, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bice v. Louisiana Public Defender Bd" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(1) for being found unlawfully present in the United States after previous deportation subsequent to a felony conviction. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying the defense's motion for a court-ordered mental competency evaluation and by not sua sponte conducting a mental competency hearing thereafter. The court also rejected defendant's claim that the district court denied him his constitutional right to testify in his defense where, inter alia, defendant wanted to testify regarding excluded matters. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Flores-Martinez" on Justia Law

LRK, an architect firm, brought this action for copyright infringement against a former client and his affiliated building companies (collectively, Bryan defendants). Lafayette and State Farm, insurers of Bryan's Cypress Lake Development, sought declaratory judgments that, by virtue of exclusions set forth in their respective insurance policies, they have no obligation to provide coverage or duty to defend in LRK's suit. LRK appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling that Lafayette and State Farm have no duty to provide coverage, and Lafayette and State Farm appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling that they have a duty to defend. The court concluded that the exclusions relied upon by the insurers did not preclude coverage of LRK's copyright infringement claim and therefore, that the insurers owed both coverage and defense under their respective policies. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Looney Ricks Kiss Architects v. Bryan, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff asserted federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and under 42 U.S.C. 1981, as well as a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, asserting that his employer subjected him to racial discrimination. At the time plaintiff filed both his EEOC charge and his complaint initiating the instant case, plaintiff was a debtor in a Chapter 13 proceeding, having filed a petition for bankruptcy. The employer subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff should be judicially estopped from pursuing his claims against the employer because he failed to disclose those claims to the bankruptcy court. The district court granted the motion, dismissing plaintiff's case, and plaintiff appealed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying judicial estoppel to plaintiff's claims after finding that plaintiff failed to create a fact issue regarding his purported inadvertence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

ACS and FKI appealed the district court's decision to dismiss their suit for equitable relief under section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3)(B), for lack of jurisdiction. ACS and FKI argued that the district court: (1) erroneously interpreted two Supreme Court cases as requiring dismissal of their claims; (2) abused its discretion in denying their motion for a default judgment against one of the defendants; (3) should have concluded that Chapter 142 of the Texas Property Code was preempted by ERISA; and (4) should have deferred to the FKI Plan administrator's determination of liability. Pursuant to the three-part test in Bombardier Aerospace Emp. Welfare Benefit Plan v. Ferrer, Poirot, & Wansbrough, the court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the ERISA claims against Larry Griffin, Judith Griffith, Willie Earl Griffin (the Trustee), and the Larry Griffin Special Needs Trust for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court found it unnecessary to address the remaining arguments. View "ACS Recovery Services, Inc., et al. v. Griffin, et al." on Justia Law