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

The Fifth Circuit dismissed as moot an action challenging the discontinued practice of Louisiana public defenders of placing indigent, non-capital defendants on wait lists for appointed counsel. The court held that the Louisiana Legislature's recent $5 million reallocation of indigent-defense funding has eliminated all wait lists for non-capital defendants. Therefore, because current wait lists in the districts for noncapital defendants were non-existent, there was no live case or controversy. View "Yarls v. Bunton" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a class action filed by plaintiff, alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The court held that the district court's dismissal without prejudice supported appellate jurisdiction. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case for want of prosecution in response to plaintiff's disobedience to its prior order compelling arbitration. View "Griggs v. S.G.E. Management" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of a default judgment against defendant in an action filed by plaintiff, alleging misappropriation of confidential software and copyright infringement claims, as well as trade secret claims under state law. Determining that it had appellate jurisdiction, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering the default judgment given defendant's repeated failures to comply with the district court's rules of procedure, as well as his significant delay in challenging the entry of default. The court held that defendant also failed to show how the district court abused its discretion under any of the Rule 60(b) subsections. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's order striking defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; order granting a permanent injunction against defendant; and order ruling that the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction. View "Sindhi v. Raina" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice as to relators and without prejudice as to the Government in an action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The court held that the district court did not err by dismissing the Government without prejudice when relators sought to abandon their claims. The court explained that relators acted on purely private interests and the Government, even one that chose not to intervene, should not be bound by that decision, because it was powerless to vindicate the public's interests in other actions that may have a stronger basis or a relator more able to shoulder the burdens of litigation. The court rejected United's remaining claims regarding relators' voluntary dismissal and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States ex rel. Vaughn v. United Biologics, LLC" on Justia Law

After a marine accident that resulted in damages estimated to exceed $60 million, Valero, Shell and Motiva asked the court to resolve whether the excess insurers of one of the involved vessels may limit their liability to that of the insured vessel. The district court held that the Protection and Indemnity policy covering the vessel has a Crown Zellerbach clause thereby permitting the excess insurers to limit their liability to that of the insured vessel.The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal based on lack of appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(3), holding that the district court's Order and Reasons failed to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. The court found no compelling reason to distinguish between a district court's determination of a contractual entitlement rather than statutory entitlement to limit liability. The court joined the Eleventh Circuit in holding that neither decision was reviewable on appeal under section 1292(a)(3). View "SCF Waxler Marine, LLC v. Aris T M/V" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against prison officials, alleging that he was denied access to rehabilitative programs and services, including sex offender treatment. The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. The magistrate judge then sua sponte deemed plaintiff's motion withdrawn, and plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's dismissal of the suit.The Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and thus could not reach the merits. The court considered defendant's motion for reconsideration still pending before the district court because the magistrate judge's withdrawal of the motion was ultra vires and without legal consequence. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration remained pending in the district court. The panel held the appeal in abbeyance and issued a limited remand to allow the district court to rule on plaintiff's motion. View "Lawson v. Stephens" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. In this action asserting breach of contract, the court held that, assuming without deciding that the motion did not sufficiently apprise plaintiff of deficiencies in proof and that the district court therefore erred in granting defendant's Rule 50 motion, under a de novo standard of review, plaintiff failed to establish that the error was harmless. In this case, plaintiff could not have presented legally sufficient evidence to support his claim for breach of contract. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its exceedingly wide discretion by denying plaintiff's motion for a continuance. View "Kelso v. Butler" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to rescind a settlement from a lawsuit about golf carts and to vacate the dismissal under state contract law. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to resolve the motion on state law terms because the parties' unconditional dismissal deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The court explained that, to reopen this case, defendant must lean on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b), but that Rule 60(b)'s six grounds to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding were unavailable to defendant. View "National City Golf Finance v. Scott" on Justia Law

Would-be plaintiff–intervenors filed a motion to intervene after the district court had already entered a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) stipulated dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. When the district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion, it did not have the benefit of Sommers v. Bank of American, N.A., which rejected the suggestion that intervention was always improper after a case has been dismissed.The Fifth Circuit held that, because Sommers was controlling in this case, the district court has jurisdiction to consider the would-be intervenors' motion. The court agreed with Wal-Mart that, if jurisdiction was found to exist, the court should remand for consideration of Rule 24's basic requirements. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying intervention on jurisdictional grounds and remanded for further proceedings. View "Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against defendant as premature. Plaintiffs alleged that Eisner, seeking to maintain its relationship with Leveraged and some related funds, participated in a scheme to trick plaintiffs into waiving their redemption rights. Louisiana has established a public accountant review panel to review claims against certified public accountants and accounting firms, and plaintiffs conceded that they did not seek panel review before filing suit. The court held that the district court dismissed plaintiffs' suit as premature because they failed to seek pre-suit review by the Louisiana public accountant review panel pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes 37:105. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to decide in the first instance whether defendants were entitled to dismissal with prejudice. View "Firefighters' Retirement System v. EisnerAmper, LLP" on Justia Law