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

Highland Capital Management, L.P., a firm co-founded by James Dondero, filed for bankruptcy in 2019 due to litigation claims. As part of a settlement agreement, Dondero relinquished control of Highland to three independent directors, one of whom, James P. Seery, was appointed as Highland’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Restructuring Officer, and Foreign Representative by the bankruptcy court. To protect Seery from vexatious litigation, the bankruptcy court issued an order that no entity could commence or pursue a claim against Seery relating to his role without the bankruptcy court's prior approval. Despite this, two entities founded by Dondero, the Charitable DAF Foundation and its affiliate CLO Holdco, filed a lawsuit against Highland in district court, alleging that Highland, through Seery, had withheld material information and engaged in self-dealing related to a settlement with one of its largest creditors, HarbourVest.The bankruptcy court held the appellants in civil contempt for violating its order and ordered them to pay $239,655 in compensatory damages. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, concluding that the award was compensatory and therefore civil. The appellants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the sanction was punitive and thus exceeded the scope of the bankruptcy court’s civil contempt powers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case. The appellate court found that the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion by imposing a punitive sanction that exceeded its civil contempt powers. The court held that the sanction was not compensatory because it was not based on the damages Highland suffered due to the appellants' decision to file the motion in the wrong court. The court instructed the bankruptcy court to limit any sanction award to the damages Highland suffered because of this error. View "Charitable DAF Fund v. Highland Captl Mgmt" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Sheet Pile, LLC and Plymouth Tube Company. The conflict arose from an exclusivity agreement, in which Plymouth agreed to manufacture certain products only for PilePro, Sheet Pile's predecessor. Approximately a decade later, Sheet Pile accused Plymouth of breaching this agreement by selling those products to other companies, and they sued for fraud and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plymouth.Sheet Pile then appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. For the breach-of-contract claim, the court concluded that the claim was time-barred under Texas law, which has a four-year statute of limitations for such claims. The court also held that the discovery rule, which could have deferred the accrual of the cause of action, did not apply.Regarding the fraud claim, the court concluded that Sheet Pile failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact that Plymouth's representations were false when made. The court noted that there was no evidence that Plymouth sold the exclusive products to third parties in 2014 or 2015, and that Plymouth had expressly warned PilePro that it might begin selling to third parties if PilePro didn't hold up its end of the agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment for Plymouth. View "Sheet Pile v. Plymouth Tube" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, Carl and Mary Ellen Schnell, filed an insurance claim with their home insurer, State Farm Lloyds, after a hailstorm damaged their home's roof. State Farm accepted coverage for some claims but denied others, including the claim that the City of Fort Worth required the Schnells to replace their entire roof, rather than just the damaged tiles. The Schnells sued, and the district court ruled in favor of State Farm. The Schnells appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that there were genuine issues of material fact that prevented the case from being resolved through summary judgment. The court found conflicting evidence regarding whether a building code administrator had flatly denied the Schnells' request for spot repairs or had conditioned his decision on the Schnells confirming that the old and new tiles on their roof did not interlock. The court also found a genuine dispute of fact about whether the Schnells' roof tiles were damaged by a covered risk like wind or hail, which would have triggered their insurance coverage.Thus, the court vacated the district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm on the Schnells' breach of contract and Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act claims. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Schnell v. State Farm Lloyds" on Justia Law

The case involves Michael Garrett, a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice system for over thirty years, who contends that the prison's schedule allows him only three and a half hours of sleep per night, with a maximum of two and a half hours of continuous sleep. According to Garrett, this sleep deprivation constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. He sued the Department after his complaints were ignored by prison officials.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Garrett's claim, reasoning that he failed to demonstrate a direct causal relationship between his health issues and his sleep deprivation. The court also held that the prison officials' actions did not constitute deliberate indifference, as the schedule was based on legitimate penological purposes.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the district court had applied incorrect legal standards. The appellate court held that to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner need only show a substantial risk of serious harm, not actual harm. Furthermore, the court clarified that the prison’s penological purpose has no bearing on whether an inmate has shown “deliberate indifference” for purposes of an Eighth Amendment claim. The case was vacated and remanded to the district court to apply the correct legal standards. View "Garrett v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

This federal appeal case involves the claim of Eric Cruz, a former pretrial detainee at the Lubbock County Detention Center (LCDC), against Officer Domingo Cervantez. Cruz alleged that Cervantez violated his constitutional rights by showing deliberate indifference to his safety while he was enduring attacks from his cellmate. The jury agreed that Cervantez was deliberately indifferent but also decided that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not act unlawfully, considering the clearly established law and the information he had at the time. Cruz, now representing himself, argued that the district court erred in excluding evidence of disciplinary action taken against Cervantez following the incidents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, affirmed the district court's decision. Even if the lower court erred in excluding the disciplinary notice, Cruz failed to demonstrate that this error affected his substantial rights. The appellate court found that the disciplinary notice was largely duplicative of trial testimony and would have added very little to the evidence. Furthermore, it affirmed the jury's finding that a reasonable officer could have believed that Cruz was not in unreasonable danger, and thus Cervantez's actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. View "Cruz v. Cervantez" on Justia Law

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the plaintiff, Lebene Konan, alleged that the United States Postal Service (USPS) employees intentionally withheld her mail for two years. Konan, who is African American, owned two properties in Texas that she rented out to tenants. She claimed that USPS employees, Jason Rojas and Raymond Drake, deliberately failed to deliver mail to these residences because they didn't like the idea of a black person owning those properties.Konan filed a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and also alleged violations of her equal protection rights. The district court dismissed her claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Konan appealed the decision.The Appeals Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It ruled that the district court erred in dismissing Konan's FTCA claim, finding that the postal-matter exception to the FTCA's immunity waiver did not apply to intentional acts such as those alleged. The court ruled that Konan's claims did not constitute a "loss," "miscarriage," or "negligent transmission" of mail, which are covered by the exception, as they involved intentional non-delivery of mail.However, the court agreed with the district court's dismissal of Konan's equal protection claims. The court held that Konan did not provide sufficient facts to support her assertion that the USPS employees continued to deliver mail to similarly situated white property owners while denying her mail delivery. It also held that her claims were barred by the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine, which precludes conspiracy claims against multiple defendants employed by the same governmental entity. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of Konan's equal protection claims. View "Konan v. USPS" on Justia Law

In the case considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, employee Michael Ashford sued his former employer, Aeroframe Services, and Aviation Technical Services (ATS), alleging unpaid wages and other damages. The case, which began in Louisiana state court and was later removed to federal court, was complicated by numerous claims and counterclaims among the parties, including third-party defendant Roger Allen Porter, who was Aeroframe's sole principal.Initially, Ashford and other employees pursued claims against Aeroframe and ATS, alleging that negotiations between the two companies led to Aeroframe's insolvency and employees' loss of wages. ATS, in turn, cross-claimed against Aeroframe and Porter, alleging financial losses from its failed attempt to acquire Aeroframe. Porter also cross-claimed against ATS, asserting tortious interference and unfair trade practices.The Court of Appeals previously remanded the case to the district court, finding that the parties were not aligned in their interests at the time of the lawsuit's filing, and the district court lacked jurisdiction due to lack of diversity among the parties. Upon reconsideration, however, the district court found new evidence indicating that the interests of Aeroframe, Porter, and the employees were aligned from the inception of the litigation and that an irrevocable settlement agreement between them existed, allowing removal under the relevant law.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the non-ATS parties' interests were aligned from the litigation's inception. The Court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims against ATS and the individual judgments against Aeroframe in favor of the employees. View "Ashford v. Aviation Technical Svc" on Justia Law

In 2015, Christopher Novinger and ICAN Investment Group, L.L.C. were sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for fraudulently offering and selling life settlement interests in violation of the Securities and Exchange Acts. As part of the settlement, Novinger and ICAN were prohibited from casting doubt on the validity of the SEC’s investigation or enforcement against them or proclaiming their innocence unless they also indicated their lack of innocence.Later, Novinger sought judicial review of the decree, claiming it violated his First Amendment rights. His motion for relief was denied by the district court, and this decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Novinger then moved for a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, essentially raising the same claims as in his initial motion. The district court again denied his motion, ruling that it was procedurally improper and that there was no change in the law or facts that called for a modification of the decrees.Novinger appealed this decision, but the Fifth Circuit ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to review a procedurally improper motion that was denied as such. The court stated that the district court's order did not change the status quo or resolve any substantive issues, and thus, it was not a final decision that could be appealed. The court also rejected the assertion that the motion for declaratory judgment could be construed as an appropriate pleading under the DJA, maintaining the distinction between a pleading as an initial filing in a case and a motion as a subsequent filing. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "SEC v. Novinger" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit examined a case involving widowed octogenarians Iris Calogero and Margie Nell Randolph, who received dunning letters from a Louisiana law firm, Shows, Cali & Walsh (SCW). The letters came as part of the recovery efforts for a program known as the "Road Home" grant program, which was established to provide funds for home repair and rebuilding after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The widows claimed that the letters were misleading and violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of SCW, but this ruling was reversed on appeal.The case centered on the interpretation of the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from using false or misleading representations in connection with the collection of any debt. The plaintiffs claimed that SCW had misrepresented the status of their debts, collected or attempted to collect time-barred debts, and threatened to assess attorneys' fees without determining whether such a right existed.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs and held that SCW had violated the FDCPA in three ways: by misrepresenting the judicial enforceability of the time-barred debts; by mischaracterizing Calogero's debt; and by misrepresenting the availability of attorneys' fees. The court found that the dunning letters were untimely, misleading, and threatened action that SCW had no legal basis to take, such as collecting attorneys' fees not authorized by contract or statute.Therefore, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Calogero v. Shows, Cali & Walsh" on Justia Law

This case involves a maritime personal injury claim brought by Plaintiff Shanon Roy Santee against his employer, Oceaneering International, Inc., and two other companies, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and Chevron USA, Inc. Santee was a remote-operated vehicle (ROV) technician working on a drillship, the Deepwater Conqueror. He sustained an injury while replacing a part on one of the ROVs and subsequently sued the three companies under the Jones Act, general maritime law, and the Saving to Suitors Clause.The defendants removed the case to the Southern District of Texas, arguing that the federal court had jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Santee moved to remand the case to state court, arguing he was a "seaman" under the Jones Act. The district court denied the motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Santee was not a seaman under the Jones Act, so his Jones Act claims were fraudulently pleaded. The court also found that the district court had original jurisdiction under the OCSLA because the drillship was on the Outer Continental Shelf at the time of Santee's injury. Consequently, Santee's only remedy was under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.The court also found no error in the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Santee's negligence and unseaworthiness claims. It concluded that the defendants did not breach their duties to Santee, and Santee failed to show that additional discovery would have created a genuine issue of material fact. View "Santee v. Oceaneering Intl." on Justia Law