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

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on their claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs challenged defendants' reliance on dog-scent lineups, which Defendant Pikett conducted and which the municipalities used to arrest, charge, and hold plaintiffs. Winfrey v. State held that inculpatory evidence obtained from dog-scent lineups could raise a strong suspicion of guilt, but was merely supportive and, when used alone or as primary evidence, was legally insufficient to support a conviction. For the same reasons provided in Winfrey, the court affirmed summary judgment as to Defendants Wright, Fort Bend County, the City of Houston, and the unknown HPD and Fort Bend County employees, on qualified immunity grounds and for failure to establish municipal liability. The court held, however, that Winfrey was distinguishable as to the claims against Defendants Stivers, Anthony, Chappell, and Pikett. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to those defendants. View "Curtis, et al v. Anthony, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as time-barred because it was filed after the one-year deadline. Petitioner contended that the district court erred by deeming the date the clerk of the court stamped his state post-conviction petition as received to be the date he filed the petition. The court held that, under Texas law, petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 application was deemed filed on the date petitioner turned the application over to prison authorities to be filed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded and did not reach petitioner's claim that he was entitled to equitable tolling. View "Richards v. Thaler" on Justia Law

DHS sued VHS for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and trademark violations. DHS engaged VHS to market and sell the drug Provasca. After that relationship ended, VHS began to manufacture, market, and sell Arterosil, a product similar in many respects to Provasca. The court held that the district court granted DHS's request for a preliminary injunction after making sufficient findings of fact to support each element of the analysis and applying the correct legal standard to those facts. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the preliminary injunction in full and lifted the stay of the injunction. The court remanded and directed the district court to expedite the trial on the permanent injunction and to attempt to narrow the breadth of its preliminary injunction. View "Daniels Health Sciences, L.L.C v. Vascular Health Sciences, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Wells Fargo appealed from a district court decision affirming confirmation of a Chapter 11 cramdown plan. Debtors had obtained a loan from Morgan Stanley to renovate hotel properties and Wells Fargo eventually acquired the loan from Morgan Stanley. As a preliminary matter, the court held that the appeal was not equitably moot. On the merits, the court held that the bankruptcy court's 5% cramdown rate calculation on the basis of a straightforward application of the prime-plus approach was not erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wells Fargo Bank National Assn v. TX Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants Wallstrum, Clark, and Bryant appealed the denial of their motions to suppress evidence seized during two traffic stops. Defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. The court affirmed the district court's determination that the initial stop was unlawful; reasonable suspicion justified the prolonged detention; and the district court did not clearly err in finding that Bryant's consent to search the car was voluntary. View "United States v. Wallstrum" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a citizen and national of Iran, filed suit seeking relief under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 704 and 706, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), when plaintiff's application to obtain lawful permanent residence status was denied by USCIS ten years after he filed the application. Because the government had not demonstrated a significant change in the law between 1999 and 2010 as applied to plaintiff's petition for permanent resident status, USCIS was collaterally estopped from concluding that plaintiff was ineligible for an adjustment to permanent resident status on the basis of his provision of support to the mujahedeen movement. USCIS's denial of application was set aside under 5 U.S.C. 706. Accordingly, the court reversed, rendered summary judgment to plaintiff, and remanded to the agency for further proceedings. View "Amrollah v. Napolitano, et al" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the explosion and sinking of Transocean's Deepwater Horizon in April 2010. At issue were the obligations of Transocean's primary and excess-liability insurers to cover BP's pollution-related liabilities deriving from the ensuing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Because the court, applying Texas law, found that the umbrella policies between the Insurers and Transocean did not impose any relevant limitation upon the extent to which BP was an additional insured, and because the additional insured provision in the Drilling Contract was separate from and additional to the indemnity provisions therein, the court found BP was entitled to coverage under each of Transocean's policies as an additional insured as a matter of law. The court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Fire Eagle appealed the district court's decision affirming a bankruptcy court's grants of summary judgment in two consolidated matters. The court held that the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction extended to the underlying adversary actions and declined to reverse the district court's holding to that effect. The bankruptcy court's entering an order in the two adversary proceedings without reference to the district court was within its statutory authority. There was no constitutional bar to the bankruptcy court's exercise of its jurisdiction over the two adversary actions. Venue was proper in the Western District of Texas. The transfer of venue of the Bischoff Adversary to the Western District of Texas was proper. Finally, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment. View "Fire Eagle, L.L.C. v. Bischoff, et al" on Justia Law

The Board applied for enforcement of its order upholding a decision of an ALJ invalidating a decertification election based on findings that, inter alia, Arkema violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), before an election by disciplining an employee for alleged harassment and sending an anti-harassment policy to employees. The court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Arkema violated Section 8(a)(1). Because the court found no grounds for invalidating the decertification election, Arkema's reliance on the election results before their formal validation did not violate Section 8(a)(5). The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that a September 5 letter was a disciplinary action. However, there was no substantial evidence to support a finding either that Arkema demonstrated anti-union animus or that such animus was the motivating factor in providing the employee with a written confirmation of the meeting. Accordingly, the court denied the application for enforcement. View "NLRB v. Arkema, Inc." on Justia Law

Nabors appealed the district court's denial of its motion to compel the arbitration of plaintiff's age discrimination claim. When plaintiff began working for Nabors, plaintiff signed an Employee Acknowledgment Form indicating his agreement to resolve disputes through the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program. The court reversed the district court's order and remanded for entry of an order compelling arbitration because the court found that plaintiff agreed to conclusively resolve this dispute through arbitration. View "Klein v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P." on Justia Law