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

In 2021, Shannon Carson was injured in an automobile accident in Louisiana while driving an 18-wheeler truck owned by his employer. The accident was caused by another driver, Jamarcea Washington, who was insured by GEICO and died in the collision. Carson's employer's truck was insured by American Millenium Insurance Company, which provided $75,000 in underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Carson also had a personal automobile insurance policy with USAA, which provided $50,000 in UIM coverage. Carson settled with GEICO and American Millenium for their policy limits and then sought additional UIM benefits from his USAA policy.The case was initially filed in Louisiana state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana based on diversity jurisdiction. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of USAA, concluding that Carson, as a Class II insured under South Carolina law, was prohibited from stacking his personal UIM insurance on top of the American Millenium UIM coverage. Carson filed a Rule 59(e) motion, arguing that he was entitled to "port" his personal UIM coverage under South Carolina law. The district court denied the motion, maintaining that the case involved stacking, not portability, and that Carson had already received the statutory limit for UIM coverage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that South Carolina law does not prevent Carson from recovering UIM benefits under his personal automobile insurance policy with USAA. The court distinguished between stacking and portability, noting that while stacking is prohibited for Class II insureds, portability allows an insured to recover under their personal UIM policy when their vehicle is not involved in the accident. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Carson v. USAA Casualty Insurance" on Justia Law

Hermilo Cantu Silva sustained a gunshot wound when a Border Patrol Agent attempted to apprehend him for suspected illegal entry into the United States. Silva sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), asserting several intentional tort claims and negligence. The case proceeded to a bench trial solely on the negligence claim. At the close of evidence, the trial court raised the potential applicability of the discretionary function exception, which the parties briefed. The trial court determined that the discretionary function exception deprived the court of jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a bench trial and, at the close of evidence, raised the issue of the discretionary function exception. The Government filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and Silva responded. The trial court concluded that the discretionary function exception applied, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over Silva’s FTCA claim. Silva appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the discretionary function exception applied. The court found that Agent Mendoza’s decision to draw and not re-holster his firearm was discretionary and grounded in policy considerations, meeting both prongs of the Gaubert test. Consequently, the discretionary function exception precluded subject matter jurisdiction over Silva’s FTCA claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. View "Silva v. United States" on Justia Law

Bilal Hankins, a passenger in a car with two other youths, was driving slowly at night looking for a neighbor’s lost dog. Hankins asked Officer Kevin Wheeler, who was on patrol for a local private security district, for assistance in finding the dog. Later, Officer Wheeler and another officer, Officer Ramon Pierre, stopped the car without reasonable suspicion and approached it with guns drawn. Hankins brought claims under Sections 1983 for unreasonable seizure, excessive force, constitutional conspiracy, supervisory liability, and Monell claims, along with related state-law claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana limited discovery to the issue of qualified immunity. The district court concluded that there was no question of material fact as to whether there was an underlying constitutional violation of either Hankins’ right to be free from an unlawful seizure or his right to be free from excessive, unlawful force. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims, as each federal claim relied on an underlying constitutional violation. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that material fact disputes precluded summary judgment on the seizure claim. The court held that the factors relied upon by the district court, such as the car’s registration information, the time of night, and the car driving slowly, did not amount to reasonable suspicion when considered in the totality of the circumstances. The court also noted that Hankins’ testimony that Officer Wheeler said, “you know, three young men, in a nice car, in this neighborhood,” if credited, would undermine the officers’ justification for the stop. The Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment on the seizure claim, vacated the summary judgment on the other federal claims, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hankins v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Balboa Capital Corporation, a financing company, entered into agreements with various physicians across multiple states to finance their participation in a telehealth program run by America’s Medical Home Team (MHT). MHT, however, was operating a Ponzi scheme and failed to deliver the promised services and equipment. Balboa financed the physicians' participation by paying MHT directly and then sought repayment from the physicians through monthly payment agreements (MPAs) or installment payment agreements (IPAs). The physicians, unaware of the full terms and believing they could withdraw without financial obligations, defaulted on their payments after MHT's collapse.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas consolidated multiple collection actions filed by Balboa against the physicians. The court struck an evidentiary exhibit that combined the payment agreements with invoices, ruling that the invoices were not properly authenticated and constituted impermissible hearsay. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of the physicians, finding that the payment agreements alone did not constitute valid contracts as they lacked essential terms such as the total amount financed and the cost of financing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court affirmed the decision to strike the exhibit, agreeing that the invoices were not properly authenticated and did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court also affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the payment agreements, even if considered together with the invoices, did not form enforceable contracts under California law due to the absence of material terms. Consequently, Balboa’s claims for breach of contract and breach of guarantee failed as a matter of law. View "Balboa Capital v. Okoji Home Visits MHT, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the law firm Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner and its former associate, Edward Festeryga. Abraham Watkins terminated Festeryga’s employment after discovering that he attempted to take clients and firm files to a new firm. Abraham Watkins sued Festeryga in Texas state court for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract. Festeryga moved to dismiss the suit under Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute, the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which stayed the expedited discovery sought by Abraham Watkins. Despite agreeing to produce certain documents, Festeryga filed a notice of removal to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction as a Canadian citizen.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas remanded the case back to state court. The district court did not address whether Festeryga had shown diversity of citizenship but concluded that Festeryga waived his right to remove by participating in state court proceedings, specifically by filing a TCPA motion to dismiss. The district court found that this action demonstrated an intent to invoke the jurisdiction of the state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case to determine if it had appellate jurisdiction over the remand order. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction, citing its precedent in In re Weaver, which held that waiver-based remand orders are jurisdictional under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and thus unappealable under § 1447(d). The court noted that although it disagreed with the reasoning in Weaver, it was bound by the rule of orderliness to follow the precedent. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga" on Justia Law

Marek Matthews, a seaman and captain, filed a lawsuit against Tidewater, Inc. and Tidewater Crewing, Ltd., alleging that he was exposed to toxic chemicals during his employment, resulting in severe health issues including end-stage renal failure and stage IV cancer. Matthews, a Florida resident, claimed that the exposure occurred while working on offshore supply vessels in the Red Sea. His employment contract included a forum-selection clause mandating that any disputes be litigated in the High Court of Justice in London, England.Initially, Matthews and other plaintiffs filed the suit in Louisiana state court, asserting claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Tidewater removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and moved to dismiss it based on the forum-selection clause and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding the forum-selection clause valid and enforceable. Matthews's subsequent motion to reconsider the dismissal was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the forum-selection clause was enforceable. The court applied a de novo review to the enforceability of the clause and an abuse of discretion standard to the forum non conveniens analysis. It concluded that Matthews did not meet the heavy burden of proving the clause was unreasonable under the circumstances, despite his health conditions and Louisiana's public policy against such clauses. The court emphasized the federal policy favoring the enforcement of forum-selection clauses in maritime contracts, which outweighed the conflicting state policy. View "Matthews v. Tidewater" on Justia Law

Dean Dabbasi was terminated by his employer, Motiva Enterprises, in 2019. Dabbasi filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), as well as disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the TCHRA. He claimed that his termination was due to his age and a cardiac incident he experienced during a performance improvement plan (PIP) meeting. Motiva argued that Dabbasi was terminated for poor performance and attitude.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Motiva. The court found that Dabbasi's claims related to his transition to a different role and the failure to place him in a promised position were time-barred or not actionable. The court also held that Dabbasi failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because he was not replaced by someone younger in his final position. Additionally, the court concluded that Dabbasi was not disabled at the time of his termination, as he returned to work without restrictions after his medical leave.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in evaluating Dabbasi's age-discrimination claim in isolation rather than considering the totality of the evidence. The appellate court determined that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Dabbasi was terminated because of his age. However, the court agreed with the district court that Dabbasi failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, as he was not disabled at the time of his termination.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Dabbasi's disability-discrimination claim but reversed the summary judgment on his age-discrimination claim, remanding it for further proceedings. View "Dabbasi v. Motiva Enterprises" on Justia Law

Caris MPI, Inc. (Caris) provided cancer diagnostic services to UnitedHealthcare, Inc. (United) for over ten years without a written contract. United audited Caris’s past claims and determined that Caris had used incorrect billing codes, resulting in overpayments. United began recouping these overpayments by offsetting them against new payment claims from Caris. Caris challenged United’s recoupment through United’s internal process, but after United rejected Caris’s appeals, Caris filed suit in Texas state court alleging various state law claims.United removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting federal officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court denied Caris’s motion to remand and dismissed Caris’s claims without prejudice, finding that Caris failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Medicare Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and agreed that federal officer jurisdiction existed. However, the court found that the district court erred in dismissing Caris’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Fifth Circuit held that the administrative review process under Medicare Part C does not extend to claims where an enrollee has no interest, and there were no administrative remedies for Caris to exhaust. The court distinguished this case from others by noting that no enrollee had requested an organization determination or appeal, and all enrollees had already received the services for which United sought recoupment. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of the remand motion, reversed the dismissal of Caris’s claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Caris MPI v. UnitedHealthcare, Incorporated" on Justia Law

John Craig First purchased an agricultural combine from Rolling Plains Implement Company, which was manufactured by AGCO Corporation. First was told the combine was part of AGCO’s Certified Pre-Owned Program, had roughly 400 hours of use, and had never been to the field. However, these representations were false; the combine was not certified and had over 1,200 hours of use. After experiencing numerous issues with the combine, First discovered in 2019 that it had an extensive repair history and over 900 hours of use. He then filed a lawsuit against Rolling Plains, AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, AGCO Finance, and other related entities.Initially, First filed his lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma County, but it was removed to federal court in Oklahoma, which dismissed the case without prejudice and transferred it to the Northern District of Texas. First amended his complaint multiple times, asserting claims of fraud, breach of warranty, and failure of essential purpose. The district court dismissed the fraud claims against AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, and AGCO Finance for lack of particularity and granted summary judgment in favor of AGCO Finance on the warranty claims. The case proceeded to trial on the remaining claims, where the jury found that First knew or should have known of the fraud by April 13, 2017, and awarded him $96,000 in damages. However, the district court entered judgment in favor of Rolling Plains based on the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It vacated the district court’s judgment as a matter of law in favor of Rolling Plains, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury’s selected date for the statute of limitations. The case was remanded for retrial on when First’s cause of action accrued. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of fraud claims against AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, and AGCO Finance, and upheld the summary judgment in favor of AGCO Finance on the warranty claims. View "First v. Rolling Plains Implement Co." on Justia Law

The case involves Lion Elastomers, a synthetic rubber manufacturer, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Lion Elastomers had been found guilty of unfair labor practices by the NLRB for threatening, disciplining, and discharging an employee, Joseph Colone, for engaging in protected activities. The NLRB applied the Atlantic Steel standard to assess whether Colone's behavior lost its protected status. However, before the appeal of the Board’s decision had been briefed, the NLRB issued a new interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in a case called General Motors, which overruled Atlantic Steel. The NLRB then sought a remand to apply this new interpretation to the Lion Elastomers case.The case was remanded to the NLRB by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, instead of applying the new interpretation from General Motors as expected, the NLRB used the remand proceeding to overrule General Motors and return to the Atlantic Steel standard. Lion Elastomers argued that the NLRB exceeded the scope of the remand and violated its due-process rights during the remand proceeding.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lion Elastomers. The court found that the NLRB had exceeded the scope of the remand by not applying the General Motors standard as expected. The court also found that the NLRB had violated Lion Elastomers's due-process rights by not giving the company an opportunity to be heard before deciding to overturn General Motors. The court vacated the NLRB's decision and remanded the case back to the NLRB, instructing it to apply the General Motors standard to this case. View "Lion Elastomers v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law