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

Unum denied plaintiff's claims of long-term disability and sought more than $1 million in reimbursements for benefits paid. Unum denial was based on emails it had received from plaintiff's former companion indicating that plaintiff was engaged in activities that were inconsistent with her asserted disability. The district court found that there was substantial evidence to support Unum's denial of benefits, but, nonetheless, held that the denial was procedurally unreasonable because Unum did not fulfill its duty to "consider the source" of the emails. The court concluded that, in evaluating whether a plan administrator wrongfully denied benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., it has never imposed a duty to investigate the source of the evidence. The court held that the burden was on the claimant to discredit evidence relied on by the plan administrator. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court, finding that Unum did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiff benefits. View "Truitt v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America" on Justia Law

Trout Point sought to enforce a defamation-based default judgment that they obtained against defendant in Nova Scotia, Canada. Defendant, owner and operator of a public affairs blog, published entries on his blog alleging a link between Aaron Broussard, the former Parish President of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, and Trout Point Lodge and others. At issue was the newly-enacted Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act), 28 U.S.C. 4102. The court affirmed the district court's determination that Trout Point could not satisfy its burden under the SPEECH Act of showing that either (A) Nova Scotian law provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in defendant's case as would be provided by the First Amendment and relevant state law, or (B) defendant would have been found liable for defamation by a Mississippi court. View "Trout Point Lodge, Ltd., et al. v. Handshoe" on Justia Law

Adam appealed the district court's denial of its motion to appoint an arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., after determining that the challenges to the appointment presented procedural questions to be decided by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over Adam's post-judgment motion to appoint an arbitrator under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. On the merits, the court rejected Adam's argument on appeal that the district court was required to intervene on grounds that a lapse had occurred in the appointment process; rejected Adam's argument that the district court was required to reach the merits of Adam's request to reinstate the mediator; and rejected Adam's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Adam Technologies Int'l v. Sutherland Global Servs." on Justia Law

This tax refund suit is one among several arising from a series of limited partnerships managed by AMCOR in the 1980s. Taxpayers asserted that the IRS erroneously assessed additional taxes and interest against them in connection with their investments in various partnerships in the 1980s and sought refunds of the federal income taxes and penalty interest paid. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the statute of limitations claims. Concluding that the district court did have jurisdiction over the penalty claims, the court held that, under Weiner v. United States, the assessment penalty interest against taxpayers was erroneous as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government and rendered judgment for taxpayers on this issue. View "Irvine, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for knowingly distributing at least 50 grams of cocaine base. The court concluded that the district court was incorrect in stating that the testimony regarding the prior possession and concomitant statement were intrinsic evidence. The court concluded, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the prejudicial effect of such evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The court further concluded that there was no error in the procedure followed by the district court with respect to defendant's brother's testimony and defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kinchen" on Justia Law

Louisiana's Patient's Compensation Fund served two objectives: (1) fostering a stable market for affordable insurance and (2) ensuring that victims of malpractice could recover for their injuries. Louisiana's Act 825 provided that any person who performed an abortion was liable to the mother of the unborn child for any damage occasioned or precipitated by the abortion. Plaintiffs, three healthcare providers, challenged the constitutionality of Act 825 facially, as applied to physicians enrolled in the Fund "who face or will face medical malpractice claims related to abortion," and as applied under the circumstances of this case. The court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge subsection (A) of Act 825; plaintiffs had standing to challenge subsection (C)(2); the case was not moot; and the Eleventh Amendment did not bar plaintiffs' challenge to subsection (C)(2). On the merits, the court concluded that Act 825 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where subsection (C)(2) was rationally related to the promotion of informed consent. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court striking down subsection (C)(2). The court vacated its judgment regarding subsection (A) and dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction. View "K. P., et al. v. LeBlanc, et al." on Justia Law

Issuer Banks appealed the district court's dismissal of their negligence claim as third party beneficiaries of Heartland's contracts with other entities. This case arose out of a group of hackers' breach of Heartland's data systems, compromising confidential information belonging to customers of Issuer Banks. Mindful that the New Jersey Supreme Court has long been a leader in expanding tort liability, and in light of the lack of a developed record illuminating any contractual remedies available to Issuer Banks, the court held that, in this instance, the economic loss doctrine did not bar Issuer Banks' negligence claim at this stage of the litigation. The court declined to decide on the remaining complex issues that Heartland raised. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Heartland Payment Sys., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). On appeal, he challenged the district court's imposition of a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) based on his prior SNAP violation. In light of United States v. Garcia, the court concluded that the district court correctly found that defendant's prior violation of SNAP and his acknowledgement of the violation satisfied the requirement that there be "interaction" between the agency and the defendant. The July 9 letter at issue found that defendant was responsible for violating food stamp regulations on four occasions by accepting benefits in exchange for ineligible merchandise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court did not err in applying section 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) to enhance defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Nash" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Nepalese citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he was subjected to past persecution and feared future persecution based on his political opinion and membership in a particular social group, the Nepal Student Union. The court remanded the case because the IJ's finding, as affirmed by the BIA, that petitioner failed to prove the necessary nexus that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion, was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Sharma v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The State appealed a preliminary injunction and stay of execution granted to a death-row inmate who was convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepson. The court concluded that there was no violation of the Due Process Clause from the uncertainty that Louisiana has imposed on the inmate by withholding the details of its execution protocol. The district court abused its discretion by granting the inmate's untimely motion for a stay. Even assuming arguendo that the motion was timely, there was no equitable basis for further delay because the inmate was not entitled to injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court reversed the preliminary injunction and stay of execution. View "Sepulvado v. Jindal" on Justia Law