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

Plaintiff filed a nonsubscriber action under Texas Labor Code 406.033 against her employer, Home Depot, claiming that Home Depot's negligence caused her on-the-job-injury. On appeal, Home Depot appealed the district court's remand after Home Depot removed the case to federal court. Because the policy underlying 28 U.S.C. 1445(c) and this court's instruction that ambiguities in removal statutes should be construed against removal, the district court construed section 1445(c) in favor of remand. Accordingly, the court had no authority to review such remand orders and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. View "Ernewayn v. Home Depot USA, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved the foreclosure sale of certain property owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of their claims against BAC and NDE under the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), Tex. Fin. Code 392.304(a), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 17.41 et seq., and Texas common law. The court concluded that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim against BAC for misrepresenting the status or nature of the services that it rendered. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the TDCA claims under section 392.304(a)(14) as to that basis, remanding for further proceedings. Consequently, the court also reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' request for an accounting from NDE. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Miller, et al. v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conditions of supervised release stemming from his conviction for possessing and attempting to possess child pornography. The court concluded that although the district court failed to provide any explanation of reasons supporting defendant's sentence, this error did not constitute reversible plain error because defendant was sentenced to a within-Guidelines sentence of 30 months and defendant failed to demonstrate how a fuller explanation would have altered his sentence. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the district court's imposition of the special conditions because he could not demonstrate that any error affected his substantial rights. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not orally pronouncing the challenged standard conditions where the subject conditions were categorized as "standard" in the judgment form and there was record evidence supporting these conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rouland" on Justia Law

Defendant, a psychiatrist, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; six counts of health care fraud relating to six specific patients; six counts of false statements relating to health care matters relating to six specific insurance claims; one count of money laundering; and two counts of engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from unlawful activity. Defendant raise numerous issues on appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. The court concluded that the only errors that the court found - the erroneous application of two sentencing enhancements and the failure to inquire whether either party requested that the jury determine forfeiture - related to sentencing and thus clearly did not require reversal of the convictions. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, W-G, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., after W-G terminated his employment. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for W-G on the ADA claim, concluding that plaintiff was "currently engaging" in illegal drug use and was fired "on the basis of such use," and that plaintiff did not qualify for the safe harbor under section 12114(b). The court also affirmed summary judgment in favor of W-G on plaintiff's FMLA claim where no reasonable jury could find that he was denied reinstatement for any reason other than his refusal to continue his FMLA leave period for the express purpose for which it was taken, which was completing his drug dependency treatment. View "Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for drug distribution conspiracy charges. The court held that the district court's failure to dismiss four counts of using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a drug crime was an abuse of discretion necessitating reversal because the Government has never argued that dismissing the telephone counts would have been clearly contrary to manifest public interest and because the district court provided no reasoning justifying its refusal to dismiss the telephone counts. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court with respect to the conspiracy count. The court reversed the district court's denial of the Government's motion to dismiss the telephone counts and rendered a judgment of dismissal on these counts. View "United States v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after the City's police sergeant sexually abused her. Defendants are state officers involved in the investigation and arrest of the sergeant. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim under either her deliberate indifference or bystander liability theory against defendants. Consequently, there was no constitutional violation for which Defendants Hanna and Bullock would need qualified immunity. Finally, the district court correctly denied plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint where amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Whitley v. Hanna, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his appeal from the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen his in absentia deportation proceedings, rescind the in absentia order, stay deportation, and change venue. Petitioner argued that he never received the notice of deportation hearing; the notice of hearing (NOH) was statutorily deficient under 8 U.S.C. 1252b(a)(3)(A) because it was written only in English and not also in Spanish; and due process required that a NOH be in a language the alien could understand. The court concluded that petitioner's unsupported denial of receipt of the certified mail notice was insufficient to rebut the presumption of effective service; the fact that the NOH was only printed in English did not prejudice petitioner; and the NOH comported with due process. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Lamesa filed suit against Liberty Mutual alleging that Liberty Mutual was liable under a federally-required surety bond for the alleged misconduct of its principal, a trustee in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. On appeal, Liberty Mutual appealed the district court's decision to affirm the bankruptcy court's judgment that the trustee had committed gross negligence and Liberty Mutual, as the trustee's surety, was liable for damages under the terms of the bond. The court held that the controlling limitations period in this case was provided by 11 U.S.C. 322(d). Because Liberty Mutual did not contest that Lamesa's claim was timely under that provision, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that Lamesa's suit was not time-barred. On the merits, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court's finding that the trustee was grossly negligent in performing her duties was not clearly erroneous; expert testimony was not necessary to establish that the trustee failed to meet her standard of care; and Liberty Mutual failed to demonstrate that the district court's damage award was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. USA by Lamesa National Bank" on Justia Law

SWT appealed the district court's holding that a lien on its principal asset held by Acceptance survived confirmation of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan. In light of the court's interpretation of the definition of the word "participate" and in accordance with persuasive authority from its sister circuits, the court held that meeting the participation requirement in In re Ahern Enterprises required more than mere passive receipt of effective notice. Accordingly, the court held that Acceptance's passive receipt of notice did not constitute participation within the meaning of this test and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Acceptance Loan Co., Inc. v. S. White Transp., Inc." on Justia Law