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

Plaintiff's suit stemmed from his allegations of negligence following foot surgery. After the case was removed from state court, the district court dismissed the complaint against the Manufacturing Defendants, and five fictitious insurance companies. Plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the fact that the medical review panel apparently still has yet to issue its opinion does not negate any “reasonable basis for predicting that plaintiffs might establish liability . . . against the instate defendants.” Therefore, the court concluded that, while the case against the Medical Defendants may be premature, they are not “improperly joined” within the meaning of the case law. The court vacated and remanded to the federal district court to remand the case to state court. View "Flagg v. Elliot" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his involvement in a drug trafficking enterprise. The district court subsequently determined that it had not addressed an important claim that defendant raised in his original 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, which the district court had denied. The district court concluded that it was proper to reopen the petition via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Reaching the merits of the petition, the district court held that defendant's trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate and granted the section 2255 petition, vacated his conviction, and granted him a new trial. The government appealed. The court concluded that this claim falls squarely within the “mistake [or] inadvertence” prong of Rule 60(b)(1). That provision’s one-year time bar has long since expired, however, and because of the exclusivity requirement discussed above, defendant cannot now bring his claim through Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instruction to reinstate the verdict and sentence. View "United States v. Fernandez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Landmark, seeking statutory damages for alleged violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C.1693, et seq., after he was charged $2.95 for an ATM withdrawal but was not given notice or informed of the fee. The district court granted Landmark's second motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At issue was whether Landmark’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer, assuming it were complete, mooted plaintiff’s individual claim and the class action claims. Finding the reasoning of the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits persuasive, the court held that an unaccepted offer of judgment to a named plaintiff in a class action “is a legal nullity, with no operative effect.” Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle. Accordingly, given that plaintiff's individual claim was not mooted by the unaccepted offer in this case, neither were the class claims. The court reversed and remanded. View "Hooks v. Landmark Indus." on Justia Law

Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to order the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to vacate its transfer to the Southern District of Indiana. The petitions were filed more than three months after the transfer and after proceedings had begun in the transferee court. The court concluded that petitioners did not timely seek review of the transfer order and therefore denied the petitions. Although petitioners could not have done so before the case was transferred, they offer no explanation for waiting more than three months before filing any petition for review. View "In Re: Red Barn Motors, Inc." on Justia Law

BP and related entities reached a settlement with a class of individuals after the Deepwater Horizon incident where the settlement agreement established a fund and an elaborate multi-tiered claims process. A provision in the agreement governs the scope and timing of the parties’ access to information about these claims as they advance through that process. In this appeal, BP challenged the district court's determination that the provision did not entitle the parties to claim specific information until an initial decision about a claim’s eligibility had been made by the settlement program. In this case, the district court's orders did not terminate all proceedings. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under either the collateral order doctrine or 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Lake Eugene Land Dev. v. BP" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Abide, alleging that Abide violated their Fourth Amendment rights while serving as the bankruptcy trustee for plaintiffs’ bankrupt estate and the bankrupt estate of their closely held corporation. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that when a bankruptcy trustee acts pursuant to an order by the district court, and the trustee’s actions pursuant to that order are the basis of the claim, the district court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit with respect to that conduct. Because the court held that the district court should not have dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, the district court may consider Abide’s 12(b)(6) motion in the first instance. The court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Carroll, Jr. v. Abide" on Justia Law

This appeal arose when plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, alleging that defendants violated various Louisiana securities laws, among other state law claims. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's order of remand on the basis that the district court lacked the discretion to abstain from hearing the case. The court concluded that the district court could not permissively abstain and equitably remand under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(1) and 1452(b) without considering the Chapter 15 bankruptcies at issue. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s decision to remand the case to state court and remanded to the district court for consideration under its bankruptcy jurisdiction. View "Firefighters' Retirement Sys, v. Citco Group" on Justia Law

BP and the Economic Property Damages Class entered into a Settlement Agreement in connection with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. At issue is the district court's order approving the Final Rules Governing Discretionary Court Review of Appeal Determinations for claims processed through the Settlement Program. After determining that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal under the collateral order doctrine, the court concluded that the parties preserved their right to appeal from the district court under the settlement agreement. The court followed its sister circuits' decisions in similar cases involving consent decrees to hold that, where a settlement agreement does not resolve claims itself but instead establishes a mechanism pursuant to which the district court will resolve claims, parties must expressly waive what is otherwise a right to appeal from claim determination decisions by a district court. In this case, the parties have preserved their right to appeal. Finally, the court concluded that the Final Rules violate the right for parties to appeal claim determinations to this court where the district court failed to provide for the docketing of its orders regarding requests for review. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Lake Eugenie Land v. BP" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a contract dispute between Amerijet and Zero Gravity where Amerijet operated parabolic flights for Zero Gravity and provided maintenance services. On appeal, Amerijet challenged the district court's anti-suit injunction and petitioned for a writ of mandamus setting aside the district court's order reopening this case after the parties purportedly settled their dispute. Amerijet argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it erred in setting aside Amerijet's voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court affirmed the injunction and denied the petition, concluding that a pre-removal answer meeting the requirements of state law suffices to preclude voluntary dismissal under Rule 41. View "Amerijet Int'l v. Zero Gravity Corp." on Justia Law

David and Toni Thompson appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing their state-law claims against Bank of America (“BOA”) and U.S. Bank, N.A. (“U.S. Bank”), arising from of the foreclosure on their home. They also appealed the exclusion of particular exhibits from the summary-judgment evidence. Because BOA did not waive its right to foreclose and made no actionable misrepresentations, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. View "Thompson v. Bank of America N.A." on Justia Law