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

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court dismissed the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) on the ground that plaintiff's counsel failed to retain local counsel as required by local rules. The court held that dismissal was unwarranted because Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1992), sets forth a strict framework that district courts must meet to justify dismissal with prejudice—and one that the district court plainly failed to meet here. In this case, the record shows neither a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, nor the futility of lesser sanctions, nor any aggravating factor. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Campbell v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

Arbor Court filed suit challenging the City's refusal to grant permits to repair the damage caused by Hurricane Harvey to its apartment units. The district court dismissed, holding that the action was not ripe because Arbor Court had not yet obtained a decision from the final arbiter of Houston permit requests, the City Council. Since the filing of this appeal, the City Council has ruled and denied the permits.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly concluded that this case was not ripe because the City Council had not yet denied the permits. The court explained that this conclusion warranted dismissal of the pending claims and the denial of Arbor Court's attempt to add yet another unripe claim. However, now that the Council has acted, the court held that the claims are ripe. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The court also vacated the district court's denial of Arbor Court's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. View "DM Arbor Court, Ltd. v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging USCIS's denial of their application to adjust their immigration status to lawful permanent residents under the diversity visa program. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the case was moot prior to the entry of the district court's final judgment. The court joined its sister circuits in concluding that a claim challenging the denial of a diversity visa status adjustment application becomes moot after the relevant fiscal year expires. In this case, plaintiffs' claim was moot at the time they filed their initial complaint. View "Ermuraki v. Renaud" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Barrett Boeker, her cousin's husband, raped and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions at his home on the grounds of the Louisiana state prison where he serves as an assistant warden. Plaintiff also alleges that Samuel D'Aquilla, the district attorney, conspired with Boeker and others to prevent her from seeking justice for these crimes.The Fifth Circuit held that, under established precedent, it has no jurisdiction to reach plaintiff's claims against D’Aquilla, because she has no Article III standing. The court explained that Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973), makes clear that "a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution." Accordingly, the court has no choice but to reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to D'Aquilla. View "Lefebure v. D'Aquilla" on Justia Law

In a case related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, four plaintiffs seek reversal of dismissals with prejudice for failure to comply with orders of the multidistrict litigation (MDL) judge to file particular information about their claims. Plaintiff Alvarado seeks reversal of his dismissal with prejudice for failure to timely opt out of the settlement class.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissals with prejudice of Plaintiffs Iames and Alvarado's claims where the record shows a clear record of delay by Iames, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Alvarado's failure to opt out was inexcusable. The court reversed and remanded the dismissals of Plaintiffs Dorgan, Gortney, and Valdivieso where plaintiffs ultimately complied with pretrial orders (PTO) 66. In this case, plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, and there are no existing aggravating factors counseling in favor of dismissal with prejudice. View "Alvarado v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc." on Justia Law

In a case arising out of the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by R. Allen Stanford and others, Stanford investors filed suit against defendants who provided banking services to Stanford. Appellants, who moved to intervene, are also Stanford investors and investment funds that purchased assignments of claims from Stanford investors.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of intervention as of right, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by balancing the Stallworth factors in determining that the motion to intervene was untimely. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a delay of 18 months weighed against timeliness; the existing parties would be prejudiced in the form of costly and inefficient discovery, as well as delay of final distribution; and the denial of intervention will not exclude appellants from recovery even if it were to prejudice them in some way. Finally, there are no unusual circumstances militating for or against timeliness.The court dismissed the appeal of the denial of permissive intervention for lack of jurisdiction where the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the request for permissive intervention was untimely. The court rejected the motion to strike the personal jurisdiction argument. View "Mendez v. Trustmark National Bank" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the University as barred by sovereign immunity. Plaintiff's action involved employment discrimination and retaliation claims, and he sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. The court held that Texas A&M is an agency of the State of Texas, so a suit against the former is a suit against the latter. Furthermore, neither of the two exceptions to sovereign immunity apply in these circumstances. In this case, Congress did not abrogate the State's sovereign immunity, and the State did not knowingly and plainly waive its sovereign immunity and consent to suit. View "Sullivan v. Texas A&M University System" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit dismissed, based on lack of jurisdiction, plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's grant of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion in a dispute over attorney's fees stemming from an underlying action regarding the promotion and sale of a medical procedure. The court explained that this case does not yet involve a final determination of the status of the interpleaded funds. Rather, it involves Rule 60(b)(5) relief from a prior order to disburse funds. View "Reed Migraine Centers of Texas, PLLC v. Ticer" on Justia Law

Louisiana bar owners challenged the Governor’s restrictions to the operation of bars in response to COVID-19. The Bar Closure Order prohibited on-site consumption of alcohol and food at “bars,” but permitted on-site consumption of alcohol and food at “restaurants.” Two district courts denied the bar owners’ motions for preliminary injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court applied “rational basis” review. The classification at issue is based on a business permit, and does not differentiate on the basis of a suspect class. The Bar Closure Order’s differential treatment of bars operating with AG permits is at least rationally related to reducing the spread of COVID-19 in higher-risk environments. A classification does not fail rational-basis review because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. View "Big Tyme Investments, L.L.C. v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that state judges in Dallas, Texas are unconstitutionally denying release to indigent arrestees who cannot pay the prescribed cash bail. The district court certified the suit as a class action and allowed three different categories of judges to be defendants; determined that the Sheriff was not a proper defendant for Section 1983 purposes but did not yet dismiss her from the case; and held that there was a likelihood of success by plaintiffs on their equal-protection and procedural-due-process claims and granted injunctive relief against the judges and the County.With one exception, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that plaintiffs have standing. The court concluded that the suit was properly allowed to proceed against most of the judges and the County. However, in regard to the Criminal District Court Judges, the court held that they are not proper defendants because plaintiffs lack standing as to them and cannot overcome sovereign immunity. The court also held that the Sheriff can be enjoined to prevent that official's enforcement of measures violative of federal law. Finally, the court held that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs need not first pursue habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the injunction, with one revision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Daves v. Dallas County" on Justia Law