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

Pursuant to protective orders entered ten years ago, Ford produced a number of Volvo documents that it designated as confidential. After objecting to the confidential status of these documents, plaintiffs distributed and used them in litigation against Ford competitors. Ford moved to protect these documents and the magistrate judge found the documents to be protected by the agreed orders. The court agreed with the magistrate judge's holding that the Protective Orders did not require Ford to seek a protective order until the parties' own negotiations failed to resolve the dispute. The court concluded that the magistrate judge's finding that Ford did not waive the protection of the Protective Orders was plausible and supported by the record and was not clearly erroneous. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to depose Ford's corporate representative. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the magistrate judge. View "Moore, et al. v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a national of Eritrea, requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he fled Eritrea to escape an assignment within the country's National Service program, which he asserts is a program of human trafficking and not a legitimate program of military conscription. The IJ denied petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal, but granted his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed. The court recognized that the evidence indicated the practices of the Eritrean government in enforcing its program of National Service were coercive and disturbing; the court noted that some of the evidence submitted in support of petitioner's motion to remand indicated that refusal to participate in National Service may be imputed as political opposition to the Government; but, however, the court could not say that the IJ's finding was unsupported by substantial evidence, nor could the court say that the BIA's denial of the motion was irrational or arbitrary. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Milat v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident, sought review of the BIA's order finding her inadmissible for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude and thus ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court denied relief because DHS may rely on subsequent convictions to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard in proving that a returning alien is applying for admission. View "Munoz v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's remand to state court. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the case. At issue was whether the district court has jurisdiction over an inventorship dispute where the contested patent has not yet been issued. The court concluded that, regardless of whether the removed complaint included an inventorship dispute, that dispute was inadequate to establish the district court's jurisdiction because the allegations indicated that no patent had issued; by raising a timely objection to removal, plaintiff properly preserved its jurisdictional argument; and because removal was improper and the case had not yet been tried on the merits, binding precedent dictated that the court remand the case to state court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's remand order as amended and dismissed plaintiff's motion and cross-motion. View "Camsoft Data Sys., Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Bromac, dismissing her claims under the Jury System Improvement Act (JSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1875. The court rejected plaintiff's claims that the district court misapplied the but-for causation standard by holding that she had to prove that her jury service was the only reason for her termination where the district court did not err in its analysis under the but-for causation standard. Even accepting plaintiff's version of the facts, she failed to create a genuine dispute that Bromac terminated her by reason of her jury service, or that their stated reason for terminating her was merely a pretext. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bromac. View "Rogers v. Bromac Title Services, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to knowing possession of child pornography but reserved the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress a series of confessions given to border patrol agents. The court held that when presented with a delay outside of the safe harbor, a district court must apply the McNabb-Mallory doctrine to determine whether the delay in bringing a suspect before a magistrate was reasonable. In this instance, the court concluded that the totality of the circumstances showed that defendant's statements were voluntary even though he was not presented to a magistrate judge until two days after his detainment. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's 9 p.m. confession did not violate his Miranda rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Boche-Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a weapon in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the first indictment without prejudice and therefore properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the second indictment; the court rejected defendant's claim that Count Two was either duplicitous or failed to state an offense under 18 U.S.C. 924; but the district court erred in holding that it did not matter whether defendant was served on the morning of trial with the second 21 U.S.C. 851(a) notice. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims and affirmed on all counts. The court vacated the sentence on Count One and remanded for further proceedings on that count. View "United States v. Blevins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the school district, asserting claims of national origin discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the removal of his suit from Texas state court and the dismissal of his entire suit. The court held that removal was proper where plaintiff's complaint included claims under Title VII. However, because the district court gave no notice to plaintiff before its sua sponte dismissal of his state law discriminatory termination claim, the court vacated the dismissal of the claim and remanded. View "Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for causing a person under the age of 18 to engage in a commercial sex act, and aiding and abetting the promotion of prostitution. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction; there was no plain error in the district court's jury instruction; defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor's statements at closing argument prejudiced his substantial rights; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's motion for a new trial was time-barred; and the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement for the use of a computer under U.S.S.G. 2G1.3(b)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Phea" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged with, inter alia, four counts of creating and one count of distributing animal crush videos. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's dismissal of counts one through five. Congress revised 18 U.S.C. 48 to make it a crime to knowingly create, sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video. The district court concluded that section 48 was facially invalid. However, the court concluded that section 48 incorporates Miller v. California obscenity and thus by its terms proscribes only unprotected speech. The court rejected defendants' arguments under R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and held that Congress has a significant interest in preventing the secondary effects of animal crush videos, which promote and require violence and criminal activity. Furthermore, section 48 serves the government interest in a reasonably tailored way. Thus, section 48 is a permissible regulation of a subset of proscribable speech. The court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Richards, et al." on Justia Law