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

After losing on its claim for a declaratory judgment that ACE had a duty to defend, CBX dismissed its Texas Insurance Code claims without prejudice. Because those statutory claims were not resolved on the merits, CBX is entitled to bring a later suit on the same cause of action.The Fifth Circuit held that, at this point in the litigation, there is not a final appealable judgment. The court explained that appellate jurisdiction existed in Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 2111307, because the appellant had obtained a Rule 54(b) partial summary judgment on the claims it sought to appeal. However, CBX has not asked for such a partial summary judgment, which is a discretionary matter for the district court. Therefore, the court held that Williams does not free CBX from the finality trap and rejected CBX's arguments to the contrary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction. View "CBX Resources, LLC v. ACE American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied defendant's motion for sanctions against Sun Coast under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal. The court noted that the case for Rule 38 sanctions is strongest in matters involving malice, not incompetence.The court found that Sun Coast acted with incompetence, not malice, and therefore exercised its discretion in not granting defendant's request to impose sanctions under Rule 38. In this case, where Sun Coast failed to disclose that it cited Opalinski II rather than Opalinski I to the arbitrator, the court observed that the best that may be said for Sun Coast is that it badly misreads the record. Furthermore, where Sun Coast misunderstood the federal appellate process in its demand for oral argument, Sun Coast acted with incompetence, not malice. View "Sun Coast Resources, Inc. v. Conrad" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly entered partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and thus the court has jurisdiction to hear these appeals. Accordingly, the court remanded to the panel for a ruling on the merits.In this case, by following the framework set forth in Rule 54(b) and obtaining a partial final judgment as to Taylor Seidenbach and McCarty, plaintiffs preserved their right to appeal against those defendants. The court held that Rule 54(b) provides a complete solution for plaintiffs who, like the plaintiffs here, sue multiple defendants, but then later seek an appealable final judgment as to only a subset of those defendants. Furthermore, plaintiffs have many options to preserve their right to appeal under these circumstances, and they have properly exercised one of those options here. Consequently, the court need not answer certain questions that have been raised in this en banc proceeding. View "Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2017, Texas enacted a law that forbids its governmental entities from contracting with companies who engage in economic boycotts of Israel. Plaintiffs, who support the Palestinian side of the conflict, filed two actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court, alleging that requiring "No Boycott of Israel" clauses in Texas government contracts violates the First Amendment. The district court then preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the clauses in all contracts with Texas governmental entities.The Fifth Circuit held that the appeal is moot because, twelve days after the district court's ruling, Texas enacted final legislation that exempts sole proprietors from the "No Boycott of Israel" certification requirement. Because plaintiffs are no longer affected by the legislation, the court held that they lacked a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation. Accordingly, the court vacated the preliminary injunction order and remanded the case to the district court to enter an appropriate judgment dismissing the complaints. View "Amawi v. Paxton" on Justia Law

The IRS served a John Doe summons on the Texas Law Firm, which provides tax-planning advice, seeking documents for “U.S. taxpayers," who, during specified years, used the Firm's services "to acquire, establish, maintain, operate, or control" a foreign financial account, asset, or entity or any foreign or domestic financial account or assets in the name of such foreign entity. A John Doe summons, described in 26 U.S.C. 7609(c)(1), does not identify the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued. The government made the required showings that the summons relates to the investigation of a particular person or ascertainable group or class, there is a reasonable basis for believing that such person or group or class may fail or may have failed to comply with any provision of internal revenue law, and the information sought and the identity of the person or persons is not readily available from other sources. The Firm moved to quash, claiming that, despite the general rule a lawyer’s clients’ identities are not covered by the attorney-client privilege, an exception exists where disclosure would result in the disclosure of confidential communication.The Fifth Circuit affirmed in favor of the government. Blanket assertions of privilege are disfavored. The Firm's clients’ identities are not connected inextricably with privileged communication. If the Firm wishes to assert privilege as to any responsive documents, it may do so, using a privilege log to detail the foundation for each claim. View "Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm. P.L.L.C. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. At issue in this appeal is the enforceability of the parties' settlement agreement.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction to decide the motions to enforce and subsequent motion for reconsideration; the district court did not err in concluding that the settlement agreement does not allow plaintiff to receive $150,000 because she has not elected disability retirement; and the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the settlement agreement is enforceable. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to consider whether the settlement is valid and enforceable, or whether a mutual mistake warrants rescinding it. View "Wise v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its earlier opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff and his wife's suit against the HSPCA, as well as Texas county and state officials, for unlawful search and seizure under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's adversary proceeding against the HSPCA alleging fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. 542, 548, and 550.The district court correctly held that the statute of limitations barred plaintiff's section 1983 claims against both the HSPCA and Texas county and state officials. Because there was a valid, final judgment from the state court proceedings, the district court properly dismissed Hoffman's adversary claims under collateral estoppel. View "Hoffman v. Houston Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit against the HSPCA, as well as Texas county and state officials, for unlawful search and seizure under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that the statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' claims against defendants.Plaintiffs alleged that the seizure of their horses occurred on June 24, 2015, and thus they had to bring their claim no later than June 26, 2017. However, in this case, plaintiffs first filed suit after that date. Even accepting plaintiffs' claim that the seizure was only finalized when the justice court divested them of ownership, the court held that the record makes clear that the justice court issued its order on July 8, 2015 and their claims would still be time-barred. View "Hoffman v. Houston Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court's order denying vacatur of sealing orders. The court held that the decision denying vacatur of the sealing orders is appealable under the collateral order doctrine, because the decision is conclusive; the decision addresses important and unsettled questions of law concerning the Louisiana Public Records Law and appellants' First Amendment and common law rights to access settlement agreement information contained in a sealed court recording and sealed minutes, particularly where a minor's privacy interests are involved; the subject of the decision is completely separable from the merits of the litigation; and the decision would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.On the merits, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying appellants' motion for vacatur by relying on erroneous conclusions of law and misapplying the law to the facts. In this case, the settlement agreement involves public officials or parties of a public nature and matters of legitimate public concern, and it does not appear that the district court weighed as a factor in favor of disclosure the presumption of the public's right of access. View "Bradley v. Ackal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that her mortgage lender improperly enforced an adjustable-rate rider and that an assignment of her mortgage was invalid. After the parties executed a settlement agreement disposing of the first lawsuit, the second and third lawsuits were dismissed on res judicata grounds. Plaintiff added new claims in her fourth and fifth lawsuits. In this appeal, plaintiff seeks to revive the claims from her fifth lawsuit.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on res judicata grounds. In this case, all of plaintiff's previous actions resulted in a final merits judgment from courts of competent jurisdiction and all four identities were met under Mississippi law. The court also held that plaintiff's appeal was frivolous and ordered her to show cause within fourteen days as to why she should not be sanctioned. View "Anderson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law