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

The United States filed an in rem civil forfeiture complaint on the property, alleging that Carlos Alberto Oliva-Castillo was the true of owner of the property and that Oliva purchased the property with proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs. Dr. Carlos Ricardo Tirado Tamez filed an answer and amended answer to the complaint claiming to be the owner of the property. Dr. Tirado and his wife are the claimants. On appeal, Dr. Tirado challenged the district court's default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Tirado's Venue Motion; the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that claimants had been properly served; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering discovery sanctions resulting in default judgment against Dr. Tirado. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. 200 Acres of Land Near FM 2686" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against oil and gas companies and their insurers, alleging that aspects of the companies' pipeline activities impeded water flows and commercial navigation, causing economic damages. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim in favor of two defendants, DIGC and Willbros. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a maritime tort against DIGC and Willbros. Further, the court adopted the Golden State rule where a defendant is alleged to be a corporate successor to a maritime tortfeasor but is not accused of having engaged in tortious conduct. In this case, plaintiffs' allegations that Dow is the "predecessor" to DIGC and that DIGC operated under an Army Corps permit originally issued to Dow do not show that an exception to Golden State's default rule of nonliability plausibly applies. Without more, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for successor liability against DIGC. View "In re: Louisiana Crawfish Producers" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the indictment of Stacey Jackson for solicitation of bribes, theft of federal funds, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. The Times-Picayune appealed the denial of its motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum that required the newspaper to produce, for in camera review as part of Jackson's criminal defense, identifying information about two anonymous commenters. Because the Times-Picayune complied and delivered the documents during the period between the subpoena and this appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "United States v. Jackson, et al." on Justia Law

Blessey filed suit against Jeffboat for breach of contract over a dispute regarding the purchase price of barges. The court did not reach the merits of the appeal because it concluded, under Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., that it did not have jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of Blessey's motion for partial summary judgment. In this case, Blessey seeks the court's review of the district court's disposition of a question of law, but its appeal does not fit the Becker exception because the district court conducted a jury trial. Further, even if the court were to assume arguendo that the court did not have jurisdiction, the court would affirm the district court's denial of partial summary judgment on the merits. The court also concluded that, by adducing some of the same extrinsic evidence at trial that it had sought to exclude in its motion in limine, Blessey waived its right to challenge the district court's admission of that evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Blessey's motions for partial summary judgment and in limine. View "Blessey Marine Services, Inc. v. Jeffboat, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against PNC, alleging federal and state claims related to PNC's sale of her property at foreclose. PNC moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The district court granted PNC's motion with respect to the federal claims; concluded that the Substitute Trustees were properly joined and thus there was not complete diversity as to the state law claims; and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remanded to state court. The court concluded that PNC satisfied its burden of proving improper joinder of the Substitute Trustees and Mr. Vaillancourt, the remaining parties to the suit are diverse. Therefore, the district court had diversity jurisdiction over the state law claims at the time of remand and the exercise of that jurisdiction is mandatory. Consequently, the district court erred its decision to remand. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Vaillancourt v. PNC Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Swareks filed suit against Herman Derr and DPI in Chancery Court, alleging that Derr and his corporation breached a contract for the sale of Mississippi farmland. Derr died while the action was pending and years later, Derr Heirs filed suit against the Swareks in the German Regional Court seeking a declaratory judgment that they were not liable for any claims arising from the putative land contract. After the initiation of the German lawsuit but before the decision of the Regional Court, the Swareks dismissed all of their claims against Derr with prejudice and withdrew a pending motion to substitute the Derr Heirs in the Mississippi action. The Regional Court dismissed the Derr Heirs' claim but the German Higher Regional Court reversed. Subsequently, the Derr Heirs returned to Mississippi and attempted to enforce a German order for costs in federal district court. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enforce the German cost award where the Higher Regional Court's decision to sidestep the comity determination and readjudicate claims that had already been settled in the Chancery Court violated the Mississippi public policy of res judicata and the Swarek's right to permanently terminate their claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Derr, et al. v. Swarek, et al." on Justia Law

After filing for bankruptcy, Houston Refining, L.P., suspended matching contributions to its employees' 401(k) plans. The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, acting on behalf of itself and its local unions (collectively "Union"), filed a grievance under the then-current collective bargaining agreement seeking resumption of the matching contributions. Houston Refining refused to process the grievance, claiming that the suspension was not a grievable issue. Months later, the Union commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court to compel Houston Refining to arbitrate the grievance under the CBA. Houston Refining agreed to submit the matter to arbitration. Following a two-day hearing, the arbitrator rendered an award in favor of the Union. Houston Refining filed suit in the district court seeking to vacate the arbitral award, and the Union counterclaimed to enforce the award. The district court found that because the Settlement Agreement evinced the parties’ clear agreement to have the arbitrator decide questions of arbitrability, its review of this issue would be deferential. On the merits, the district court upheld the arbitrator’s finding that Houston Refining violated portions of the CBA, but concluded that the arbitral award’s remedy was ambiguous in certain respects. The district court accordingly denied the company’s motion and granted the Union’s motion in part, but remanded to the arbitrator for clarification of the award’s monetary value, among other issues. Houston Refining appealed, arguing that the district court erred in deferring to the arbitrator’s determination of the grievance’s arbitrability. According to the company, because the parties never agreed in clear and unmistakable terms to give the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the district court was obligated to decide the issue independently. The Fifth Circuit found after review of the matter that "the party contending that an arbitrator has authority to decide arbitrability 'bears the burden of demonstrating clearly and unmistakably that the parties agreed to have the arbitrator decide that threshold question.'" In this case, the Union did not meet its burden, and therefore the district court erred in failing to decide arbitrability “just as it would decide any other question that the parties did not submit to arbitration, namely, independently.” The Court reversed and remanded this case to the district court to decide arbitrability issues raised by this opinion, "independently" without deference to the arbitral decision.View "Houston Refining, L.P. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs launched a collateral attack on a related bankruptcy proceeding in federal district court under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, claiming that they were never properly served before the bankruptcy court entered judgment against them and held them in contempt. The district court subsequently dismissed the case for want of federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that there is federal-question jurisdiction where the declaratory judgment action raised several federal questions.View "Jacuzzi, Sr., et al. v. Pimienta" on Justia Law

Nuance appealed the district court's order remanding this case back to the arbitration panel for clarification of the arbitration award concerning an alleged breach of a corporate merger agreement. The court dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction because a district court order remanding a case back to an arbitration panel for clarification is not a final order.View "Murchison Capital Partners, L.P., et al v. Nuance Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed suit against defendants arising out of his alleged work-related exposure to asbestos and subsequent illness. One of the original defendants was DuPont. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended petition where he added for the first time claims against Elliott, which contracted with DuPont. On appeal, Elliott challenged the district court's order remanding this action to Louisiana state court and its order denying Elliott's motion for reconsideration. The court held that where a party removes a case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442, a later-served defendant preserves it right to a federal forum under section 1442 by asserting the grounds for same in its answer filed after removal. In this case, Elliott asserted its government contractor defense in the very first pleading it filed, such that it preserved its claim to a federal forum, and the district court erred in holding to the contrary. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded.View "Humphries v. Elliott Co." on Justia Law