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

The Louisiana legislature established the Scholarship Program in 2012 to provide funding to low-income parents with children in failing schools so that they may have the option of sending them to better schools, including private schools, of their own choosing. Parents seek to intervene in this litigation between Louisiana and the federal government over the state's voucher program. The court concluded that the parents met the requirements for intervention as of right and reversed the district court's denial of their motion to intervene. View "Brumfield, et al. v. Dodd, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed state law claims against Sentrillion, a general contractor, for injuries he sustained during a construction project for the U.S. Custom and Border Patrol. Sentrillion filed third-party indemnity and contribution claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., against the United States. The United States then moved the case to federal court and then moved to dismiss under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine. The district court dismissed all claims against the United States and remanded remaining claims to state court. Sentrillion appealed. The court affirmed the district court's holding that it was bound by extant Supreme Court precedent to dismiss Sentrillion's claims against the United States under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine. Having determined as a preliminary matter that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine applied to removals under 28 U.S.C. 1442, the court affirmed the district court's order remanding the remaining state law claims to state court on the basis that Sentrillion waived appeal of the 28 U.S.C. 1367(c) determination. View "Lopez v. Sentrillon Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being in possession of child pornography (Count One) and using a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a juvenile to engage in sexual activity (Count Two). The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of Count Two; venue was proper in the Western District where the phone calls and text messages sent from defendant was in the district and defendant's presence was in the district; the court rejected defendants arguments that he did not have an adequate opportunity to prepare for trial; the government did not violate Brady v. Maryland and defendant's claim to the contrary had no merit; and the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant consented to the search of his cell phone and the consent was voluntary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rounds" on Justia Law

A non-debtor spouse contended that her homestead rights in the Texas residence that she shares with her husband, the debtor in bankruptcy, precluded a forced sale of the property and alternatively, that if a sale occurred, she must be compensated for the loss of her homestead interest in the property. The bankruptcy court held that the non-debtor spouse's homestead rights were limited to the dollar amount of the exemption in 11 U.S.C. 522(p) and that there was no unconstitutional taking of the value of the non-debtor spouse's interest in the homestead. The court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's holdings. View "Kim, et al. v. Dome Entertainment Center, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Cleco, alleging race discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Cleco. Plaintiff claimed that he was issued a Disciplinary Warning in retaliation for his reporting of a coworker's racially hostile statements. Cleco asserted that the warning was issued because plaintiff sent a mass email disclosing that his coworker's son overdosed on pills. The court concluded the district court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim based on the Disciplinary Warning where plaintiff had demonstrated that there was a genuine dispute of material fact that Cleco's stated reasons were pretextual. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim arising from the Disciplinary Warning and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the remaining retaliation and discrimination claims. View "Willis v. Cleco Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief. The parties' experts agreed that petitioner suffered from some degree of deficit in adaptive functioning. The experts sharply disagreed as to whether these deficits were related to petitioner's subaverage intellectual functioning. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner was not mentally retarded where, having heard and evaluated the testimony of each expert, the court found that the State's expert was more persuasive. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ladd v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants after plaintiffs failed to make the required payments on their home equity loan. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of their claims. Determining that the court had appellate jurisdiction, the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to controvert evidence that a letter was indeed sent to them notifying them of the change to their loan servicer. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of Bank of America's and Deutsche Banks' motion for summary judgment in part on plaintiffs' Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 2 U.S.C. 2605, claim. The court concluded that plaintiffs have made no factual allegations that Morgan Stanley was involved in the alleged unlawful conduct in connection with plaintiffs' home equity loan and the district court did not err in granting Morgan Stanley's motion to dismiss. The district court also did not err in granting Barrett Daffin's motion to dismiss. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for sanctions and motion to compel discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Haase, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

BCN filed suit against Catalina and three of its individual officers or employees, alleging deceptive trade practices, trademark violations, and related fraud and tort claims. BCN's claims stemmed from defendants' creation of CouponNetwork.com, a website and business "remarkably similar" to BCN's existing business, BrandCouponNetwork.com. The court vacated the district court's judgment to the extent that it dismissed BCN's claims under Rule 12(b)(6) as time barred because the district court erred in considering evidence outside the pleadings and a genuine issue of material fact appeared to exist regarding the timeliness of BCN's claims which would preclude summary judgment. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the individual defendants where BCN failed to preserve its claims where BCN did not present it to the district court and BCN's claims were conclusional. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina Marketing Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Progressive for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),15 U.s.C. 1692 et seq., as well as violations of Texas state law. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Progressive's unaccepted offer of judgment rendered plaintiff's claims moot. The court concluded, however, that Progressive's incomplete offer of judgment did not render plaintiff's FDCPA claims moot. Under the FDCPA, an individual claimant was eligible to recover actual damages under section 1692k(a)(1). Plaintiff requested actual damages. Progressive's Rule 68 offer of judgment did not offer to meet plaintiff's full demand for relief because it did not include actual damages. Therefore, Progressive's offer left a live controversy for the court to resolve, plaintiff maintained a personal stake in the outcome of the action, and the offer did not render plaintiff's FDCPA claims moot. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Payne v. Progressive Fin. Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder of a police officer, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner argued that the voluntary-intoxication instruction required by Texas Penal Code 8.04 unconstitutionally limited the jury's ability to consider mitigating evidence. The court rejected petitioner's claim, concluding that the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of Boyde v. California, Penry v. Lynaugh, or Penry v. Johnson. Because clear Fifth Circuit caselaw foreclosed each of petitioner's five additional challenges, the court did not grant a certificate of appealability (COAs) on any of them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition and denied petitioner's request for COAs on additional issues. View "Sprouse v. Stephens" on Justia Law