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

Plaintiff, Pervasive Software Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal office in Austin, Texas, sued Defendant, Lexware GmbH & Co. Kg, a corporation organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, for damages and injunctive relief on the basis of breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and conversion in a Texas state court. Lexware removed the case to the federal district court, and that court, in response to Lexware's motion, dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Lexware. Pervasive appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Pervasive had failed to establish a prima facie case that Lexware minimum contacts with Texas to support the exercise of either specific or general personal jurisdiction over Lexware. View "Pervasive Software, Inc. v. Lexware GMBH & Co. KG" on Justia Law

After coming home drunk, Wesley Vincent was found face-down in front of his house by his wife, Cheryl Likens. Vincent was taken to the hospital but eventually died. Likens tried to collect as the beneficiary of an accidental-death insurance policy, but the claim was denied under an alcohol exclusion because Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company determined that the injury resulted from being legally intoxicated from alcohol. The district court granted summary judgment for Hartford based on the alcohol exclusion. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a reasonable jury could not help but conclude that Vincent fell and suffered injuries as a result of his intoxication. On these facts, intoxication may not have been the only cause, but it did not have to be so to satisfy the exclusion. View "Likens v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Dameware Development, LLC Defined Benefit Pension Plan and Trust bought several life insurance policies from American General Life Insurance Company. After Dameware was unable to obtain the tax benefits it hoped would result from purchasing the policies, it sued American General for damages and for rescission of the contract. The district court granted summary judgment to American General. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Dameware had not shown any basis for rescinding the contract nor any contractual duties breached by American General, and therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to American General. View "Dameware Dev., LLC v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an alien with a detainer placed against him, challenged the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition seeking the benefit of drug-rehabilitation programs and halfway house placement. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under section 2241 on grounds that the asserted claims should have been brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In the alternative, the district court held the case should be dismissed because Defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Finally, the court alternatively held, with respect to the merits, that Defendant had failed to state a claim for the denial of any constitutional right. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court (1) erred in its conclusion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under section 4421; (2) erred in dismissing the complaint for Petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies; but (3) correctly dismissed Petitioner's petition on the merits for failure to state a claim for the denial of any constitutional right, as Defendant failed to establish a denial of his due-process or equal-protection rights. View "Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States" on Justia Law

The government filed a two-count indictment charging Defendant and three other co-defendants with interference with commerce by robbery and conspiracy to commit the same offense. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under the Speedy Trial Act because the indictment was filed more than thirty days after Defendant was transferred to federal custody. The government argued that the period of delay resulted from the absence of an essential witness, one of Defendant's co-conspirators, and therefore, the indictment was excluded from the thirty-day limit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(3)(A). The district court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. Defendant later entered a conditional guilty to both counts. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction and vacated his sentence, holding (1) the government failed to show that the co-conspirator was an essential witness for the purposes of obtaining a grand jury indictment against Defendant, and therefore, the indictment was filed beyond the time allowed by the Speedy Trial Act. Remanded. View "United States v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Company (DM) subcontracted with Petrofac, Inc. to design and install a plant to serve the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the Department of Energy. DM and Petrofac agreed to resolve any claim under the subcontract through binding arbitration. Later, Petrofac sent DM a multi-volume Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA), asserting that DM disputed Petrofac's ability to perform its work and seeking damages. An arbitration panel awarded Petrofac damages. The district court affirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly confirmed the arbitration panel's arbitration award, as DM failed to demonstrate reversible error on appeal. View "Petrofac, Inc. v. DynMcDermott Petro. Operations Co." on Justia Law

An individual owing a debt sued a debt collection agency. The suit alleged the agency's debt-collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, by contradicting and overshadowing the statutory notices in the letter. The standard for evaluating any potential deception in the letter was whether an unsophisticated or least sophisticated consumer would be confused by the letter. The district court concluded that the letter did not violate the statute. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the debt collection agency's letter was not inconsistent with and did not overshadow the letter's Section 1692g(a)'s notice; and (2) therefore, a least-sophisticated or unsophisticated consumer would not be confused by the letter. View "McMurray v. ProCollect, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted in Mississippi of capital murder. Petitioner later filed a petition for habeas relief in federal district court. While acknowledging that Petitioner's habeas petition was filed more than one year after the state court judgment became final, the district court found that equitable tolling was warranted under the circumstances. The court subsequently denied habeas relief on all grounds raised but granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on Defendant's Batson claims and claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to expand the COA with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The State of Mississippi appealed the district court's judgment holding that Petitioner's Batson claims were not procedurally barred and that the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was equitably tolled in Defendant's case. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied his motion to expand the COA, holding that AEDPA's statute of limitations had run when Defendant filed his application for postconviction relief, and tolling was not warranted under these circumstances. View "Manning v. Epps" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured in a car accident. The other car in the accident was owned by Amanda Salgado, a superintendent of a church (the Church), and driven by Michael Meyer, a member of the Church. The accident occurred while Meyer and other Church members were taking a lunch break from cleaning and repairing Church property. Appellant sued the Church, Salgado, and Meyer in state court. The Church's insurer (Insurer) then sought a declaratory judgment in federal court resolving whether its insurance policy covered Appellant's accident. The district court held that Insurer had no duty to defend the Church and Salgado. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court (1) erroneously held that Insurer had no duty to defend the Church and Salgado, (2) improperly adjudicated the scope of Insurer's duty to indemnify, and (3) improperly asserted jurisdiction over Appellant's state-law claims. Additionally, the Court held (1) Insurer had a duty to defend the Church and Salgado in Appellant's underlying state lawsuit, and (2) the scope of Insurer's duty to indemnify could not be adjudicated until after Appellant's claims are decided in state court. View "GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Missionary Church of Disciples of Jesus Christ" on Justia Law

Evan Stone, counsel for Plaintiff, appealed sanctions imposed on him. The underlying case involved Plaintiff's lawsuit alleging copyright infringement against 670 persons who allegedly unlawfully downloaded Plaintiff's film using an online file-sharing program. After the case had been dismissed, Defendants, through attorneys ad litem, moved for sanctions based on Stone's misconduct in violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 45 by issuing subpoenas to Defendants' ISPs. The district court granted the sanctions motion, finding that Stone had issued subpoenas in violation of court order, thereby grossly abusing his subpoena power. The Does, through the attorneys ad litem, then moved the court to impose further sanctions based on Stone's failure to comply with the first sanctions order. The court granted the motion for additional sanctions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions imposed by the district court, holding (1) all the issues Stone raised on appeal had been waived; and (2) no miscarriage of justice would result from the sanctions imposed. View "Mick Haig Prods. E.K. v. Does 1-670" on Justia Law