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

In the underlying action in this case, Appellants Smith & Fuller, P.A. and Hugh Smith represented the Trenado family in a products liability suit against Appellee Cooper Tire & Rubber Company. That case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Cooper. During the proceedings, Smith and his law firm violated a protective entered by the district court to protect Cooper's trade secrets and confidential information produced during discovery. Following trial, the district court held that Smith and his firm did not willfully violate the protective order but determined that sanctions should be imposed. Appellants appealed, contending that the district court lacked authority to impose sanctions and that the fees and expenses sought by Cooper were unreasonable. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court imposed the sanctions under its authority; and (2) the expenses sought by Cooper in this matter were reasonable. View "Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Ryan Mudd was convicted of a single count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to seventy-seven months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. Mudd appealed. The Fifth Circuit (1) affirmed Mudd's conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support to the conviction, as the evidence created a plausible inference of Mudd's guilty knowledge, an element of the crime; and (2) vacated Mudd's sentence in part, finding that a conflict existed between the district court's oral pronouncement at sentencing and written judgment. Remanded with instructions to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement at sentencing. View "United States v. Mudd" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a machine repairman at a glass bottling plant filed a personal injury lawsuit against Arkema, Inc., the designer and manufacturer of a device known as a C-4 Hood. Plaintiff claimed that the C-4 Hood, to which he worked in close proximity, proximately caused his restrictive lung disease and pulmonary fibrosis. After excluding the opinions of Plaintiff's expert witnesses on the element of causation, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Arkema because Plaintiff was unable to prove causation without the opinions of his excluded causation experts. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects except as to Plaintiff's claims regarding his acute injuries, as Plaintiff's acute injuries were within those limited circumstances where expert opinion was unnecessary. Remanded for further proceedings concerning Johnson's alleged acute injuries. View "Johnson v. Arkema, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Texas prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against the chaplain of the Preston Smith Unit and other defendants, alleging that he was denied religious devotional items that the chaplain had given him permission to order. After reviewing plaintiff's pro se appeal, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants because there was no genuine dispute as to any material facts. View "McFaul v. Valenzuela, et al." on Justia Law

Local telephone companies initiated twenty separate suits against Halo before ten state public utility commissions (PUCs) and Halo filed for bankruptcy as a result of this collective action. The telephone companies requested that the bankruptcy court determine that the various PUC actions were not subject to the automatic stay provided by the Bankruptcy Code at 11 U.S.C. 362(a), because they were excepted under section 362(b)(4), or that the bankruptcy court modify the automatic stay for cause, pursuant to section 362(d)(1). The court agreed with the bankruptcy court's holding that the exception to the automatic stay in section 362(b)(4) applied to the state commission proceedings, allowing the telephone companies to proceed with their litigation in the PUCs, but holding that the state adjudicative bodies could not issue any ruling or order to liquidate the amount of any claim against Halo, and that the bodies could not take any action that affected the debtor-creditor relationship between Halo and any creditor or potential creditor. View "Halo Wireless, Inc. v. Alenco Communications, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and the district court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(5) based on the government's proof that the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine. Defendant argued that the enhancement was not applicable because he did not know that the methamphetamine he possessed was imported. The court affirmed the sentence and held that the enhancement applied irrespective of whether defendant knew that the possessed methamphetamine had been unlawfully imported. View "United States v. Serfass" on Justia Law

Defendant, mayor of Ball, Louisiana, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States in connection with major disaster benefits in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1040. On appeal, defendant argued that the government violated the plea agreement by advocating for a higher loss calculation than the one agreed to and that the district court erred in its loss calculation by including legitimate claims with fraudulent ones. The court held that the breach of the plea agreement likely did not affect the sentence so defendant's substantial rights were not affected and, as a result, the district court did not plainly err. Even if the error affected defendant's substantial rights, the court declined to exercise its discretion to require resentencing. The court also held that the district court committed no error by including the entire amount requested from FEMA after Hurricane Gustav, as well as a small portion requested after Hurricane Rita, as intended loss. View "United States v. Hebron" on Justia Law

This appeal involved a challenge to the 2011 Medicare payment rate set by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for partial hospitalization services. Paladin claimed that the Secretary's use of both hospital-based and community mental health center cost data in establishing and adjusting the 2011 relative payment weights and ultimate payment rate was in excess of her statutory authority. Paladin filed suit in district court without first presenting an administrative claim, alleging jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331. The court found that Congress expressly precluded judicial review of the Secretary's determinations and that her actions were not a facial violation of a clear statutory mandate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Paladin Commty Mntl Hlth Ctr, et al. v. Sebelius, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from a contract entered into by the parties where Ewing agreed to construct tennis courts for the school district. At issue was the interpretation of a Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy under Texas law. The district court held that a CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion applied in this case and that no exception restored coverage. The insured construction company faced liability, if at all, because it contracted to construct usable tennis courts for the school district and it had allegedly failed to perform. The court held that the district court correctly interpreted the contractual liability exclusion and correctly applied that exclusion with respect to the insurer's duty to defend the construction company. The court held, however, that the district court was premature in applying the exclusion to the insurer's duty to indemnify. View "Ewing Construction Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co." on Justia Law

LINA appealed the decision of the district court holding that it abused its discretion in its denial of benefits to plaintiff under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that LINA wrongly denied her the benefits of her common-law husband's ERISA-governed Group Accident Policies where her husband participated in two accidental death and dismemberment policies. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the common law definition of "accident" adopted in Todd v. AIG Life Insurance Co., was controlling in all ERISA accidental death and dismemberment plans where the term "accident" was undefined, irrespective of whether the plan administrator was given discretion to interpret the plan. View " Firman v. Beacon Construction Co., Inc." on Justia Law