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

This suit arose when Kenyon filed a revocatory and oblique action against defendants to collect on the judgment against Brennan's Inc. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this appeal where the voluntary dismissal of Ted Brennan's appeal voided his notice of appeal. He failed to file a new notice of appeal within the time limits required by Rule 4(a) or seek relief in the district court as provided by Rule 4(a). The reinstatement of his appeal by a single judge of this court was not decisive of this specific jurisdictional issue. View "Colbert, et al. v. Brennan, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose out of a Loan Agreement and Term Note between Regions and First KT and a Limited Guaranty Agreement executed by defendant as a security for the loan. Baron has since acquired all of Regions' rights against defendant. Regions, as the former plaintiff, had filed suit against defendant for the total amount due on the Guaranty. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's grant of Regions' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that defendant's claim that First KT made payments that reduced the amount under the Guaranty was fairly classified as an affirmative defense under Louisiana law; the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant was long familiar with the payment claim he sought to raise, that he failed to raise it in a pragmatically sufficient time, and that the delay prejudiced Baron, L.L.C. on its ability to respond to the claim; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Regions Bank v. Tauch" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against federal officials and others after they were sexually assaulted while being transported from an immigration detention center. Plaintiffs claimed violations of their Fifth Amendment due process right to freedom from deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm, alleging that the officials knew of violations of a contractual provision requiring that transported detainees be escorted by at least one officer of the same gender, and that the officials understood the provision aimed to prevent sexual assault. On appeal, Defendants Robertson and Rosado, federal officials who worked as ICE Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTRs), challenged the denial of their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that plaintiffs properly alleged that Robertson and Rosado had actual knowledge both of the violations of the Service Agreement provision and of that provision's assault-preventing objective. However, because the complaint did not plausibly allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Robertson and Rosado were entitled to qualified immunity and the district court erred in denying their motion to dismiss. View "Doe, et al. v. Robertson, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a baseball bat manufacturer, filed an antitrust suit against the NCAA and the NFHS, alleging that they imposed a regulation, the Bat-Ball Coefficient of Restitution Standard (BBCOR), that restrained trade in the market for non-wood baseball bats. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a conspiracy under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; the only plausible injury asserted was its own and only injuries to the markets were cognizable; and therefore, plaintiff did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted and the district court properly dismissed its Sherman Act claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to amend where two prior amendments were granted and allowing a third would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint and affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to amend. View "Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat'l Collegiate Athl. Assn., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Exxon Mobil alleging damages caused by exposure to naturally occurring radioactive material. On appeal, Exxon Mobil challenged the dismissal of its intervention based on the district court's ruling that a memorandum prepared by Exxon Mobil's in-house counsel was ineligible for the protections of the attorney-client privilege. The court concluded that the manifest purpose of the memorandum was to deal with what would be the obvious reason Exxon Mobil would seek its lawyer's advice in the first place, namely to deal with any legal liability that may stem from under-disclosure of data, hedged against any liability that may occur from any implied warranties during complex negotiations. Accordingly, the court concluded that the memorandum was privileged and vacated and remanded the judgment of the district court. View "Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Hill, et al." on Justia Law

These appeals concerned a suit filed under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and two bankruptcy proceedings. The district court concluded that the bankruptcy trustee had exclusive standing to assert the FCA claims at issue because those claims belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The court agreed with the district court that only the trustee had standing to prosecute the FCA lawsuit; affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6); and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. View "Westbrook Navigator L.L.C., et al v. Navistar, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for multiple drug and gun violations. Defendant decided to testify during trial and confessed to all of the crimes charged. At the trial's conclusion, believing no factual issue remained for the jury, the district court instructed the jury "to go back and find the Defendant guilty." As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that defendant preserved his Sixth Amendment argument for appeal. On the merits, the court concluded that the Sixth Amendment safeguards even an obviously guilty defendant's right to have a jury decide guilt or innocence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and six counts of aiding and abetting healthcare fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to justify the district court in concluding that defendant knew about the fraudulent upcoding and that the government proved defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; even assuming that the district court erred in a bench trial in excluding defendant's polygraph evidence, the court held that the error was harmless; and the district court did not err in applying an abuse-of-trust enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Willett" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court improperly engaged in the plea negotiations. The court concluded that, in this instance, the district court did more than offer generic commentary about the pros and cons of plea offers. The district court gave specific examples of negative results for defendants who rejected plea offers, it compared the evidence in defendant's case with other cases, and it suggested through a "success story" that favorable results could occur when a defendant pleads guilty. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings before a different district judge. View "United States v. Hemphill" on Justia Law

This case involved the rights to broadcast the Floyd "Money" Mayweather, Jr. v. Ricky Watton WBC Welterweight Championship Fight. On appeal, defendants challenged summary judgment in favor of J&J on its Federal Communication Act (FCA) claims pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 553 & 605. J&J alleged that defendants violated sections 553 and 605 by receiving and displaying the fight without first paying a licensing fee to J&J. The court concluded that J&J failed to meet its summary judgment burden under section 553 where there was at least a dispute of material fact as to whether defendants fell into the "safe harbor," that precluded the imposition of liability on the majority of cable recipients - customers of cable providers. This exclusion constrained the reach of the statute by exempting from liability those individuals who receive authorization from a cable operator. The court joined the majority of circuits in holding that section 605 does not encompass the conduct presented here: the receipt or interception of communications by wire from a cable system. The court concluded that the plain language of the statute compelled this interpretation. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Mandell Family Ventures L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law