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

Plaintiff, the captain of a crew boat, filed suit against his employer and his supervisor under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 50101, and general maritime law, seeking maintenance and cure and damages. All parties cross-appealed the district court's judgment. The court concluded that the district court's finding that plaintiff merely strained his back while lifting a hatch cover is not clearly erroneous; the district court's findings regarding the weather and condition of the seas at the time and location of the incident are not clearly erroneous; the district court properly ruled against plaintiff on all of his unseaworthiness claims; the district court's finding that defendants were not negligent is fully supported by the record; the court vacated the maintenance and cure award against the supervisor where the maintenance and cure duty extends only to the seaman's employer; and the McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp. rule precludes plaintiff from obtaining maintenance and cure from his employer in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment to the extent the district court rejected plaintiff's Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims; vacated the awards against the employer and supervisor in their entirety; and rendered judgment in favor of the employer and supervisor. View "Meche v. Key Energy Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

RLB filed suit seeking to limit its liability to the value of the dredge vessel, "Jonathan King Boyd," after a fatal allision between a fishing boat and the Vessel's dredge pipe. Claimants had previously filed suit against RLB in state court for personal injuries and property damage, and for the wrongful death of one occupant. Claimants argue that RLB missed the Limitation of Liability Act's, 46 U.S.C. 30501 et seq., six-month jurisdictional deadline for invoking the protections of the Act. The court concluded that claimants established that the pre-suit writing from their counsel to RLB's counsel conveyed the reasonable possibility that RLB faced a claim exceeding the value of the Vessel. Therefore, RLB had written notice under the Act earlier than six months before it filed its limitation action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of RLB's complaint as time-bared. View "RLB Contracting, Inc. v. Butler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Deputy Arnold and Sheriff Graves, alleging violations of federal and state law after Arnold fatally shot their father while responding to a 911 call that the father was threatening to commit suicide. Plaintiffs also filed suit against ReliaStar to recover $179,000 they allege ReliaStar owes them under the father's accidental death policy. The district court granted Arnold and Grave's motions for summary judgment and granted ReliaStar's motion for summary judgment. The court held that Arnold did not violate the father's Fourth Amendment rights when he entered the father's home without a warrant because he had an objectively reasonable belief that the father would imminently seriously injure himself, and the district court did not err in granting Arnold's motion for summary judgment on the warrantless entry claim because Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity; Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate the father's constitutional right to be free from excessive force; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Arnold on the assault and battery claims, the false imprisonment claims, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; the district court correctly granted Graves's motion for summary judgment; and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for ReliaStar where the record was replete with factual evidence that ReliaStar relied on in determining that the father's death was not accidental, demonstrating that ReliaStar could have reached its determination without resorting to the conflict of interest at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rice, et al. v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's award of damages in a medical malpractice suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., contending that the district court should have applied the Texas periodic payment statutory scheme, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 74.501-507. The court agreed, vacating the district court's judgment insofar as it failed to fashion a damages award similar to that contemplated by the Texas periodic payment statutory scheme and awarded post-judgment interest not in compliance with 31 U.S.C. 1304(b)(1)(A). The court remanded for further proceedings.View "Lee, Sr., et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

McClendon was the president and sole shareholder of NIA Insurance, for which Springfield served as Chief Financial Officer. In 2007, McClendon accused Springfield of theft and fired him. NIA and McClendon sued Springfield in Texas state court, claiming theft and conversion. Springfield answered and counterclaimed, alleging defamation. The suit court jury determined that Springfield was entitled to $341,000 in actual damages for defamation. Later, McClendon filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Springfield filed a successful adversary proceeding, seeking to have the debt arising from the jury award declared non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). The bankruptcy court determined that McClendon inflicted a willful and malicious injury upon Springfield. The district court and Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and that the bankruptcy court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to McClendon.View "McClendon v. Springfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the VA asserting wrongful-death and survival causes of action under Louisiana law. After the VA denied plaintiffs' claim, they filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the administrative notice of claim filed by Plaintiff Pleasant was sufficient to give the agency written notice of the decedent's children's claims sufficient to enable the agency to investigate and to place a value on the claims, and was therefore sufficient to preserve the claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.View "Pleasant, et al. v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the widow of the deceased, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims that individual defendants used excessive force against her husband and that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims. The court concluded that the record presented genuine issues of material fact from which a jury could conclude that excessive force was used against the husband. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether any or all of the individual defendants may proceed to trial on a theory of direct liability for use of force or, in the alternative, on a theory of bystander liability. The district court should also consider whether individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in regards to the deliberate indifference claim and the municipal liability claim for failing to provide adequate training. View "Kitchen v. Dallas County Texas, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a products liability suit against generic and brand-name manufacturers of the prescription drug metoclopramide, alleging that her long-term use of generic metoclopramide caused her to develop tardive dyskinesia and that manufacturers provided misleading and inadequate warnings. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the pleadings for the generic manufactures under Rule 12(c) on plaintiff's failure-to-warn, design-defect, and express-warranty claims because the claims were preempted by federal law; affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the brand-name manufacturers under Rule 12(b)(6) because the claims were barred by Louisiana state law where plaintiff never ingested Reglan manufactured by brand-name manufacturers; even if Louisiana law did not apply, plaintiff has not established that name-brand defendants owed her a duty of care; and denied plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Johnson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

U.S. Border Patrol Agent Mesa, standing in the United States, shot and killed Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, a fifteen-year-old Mexican citizen, standing in Mexico. Hernandez's family filed suit against the United States, Agent Mesa, and Agent Mesa's supervisors, alleging a number of claims. Hernandez was gathered with a group of friends on the Mexican side of a cement culvert that separated the two countries, playing a game that involved running up the incline of the culvert, touching the barbed-wire fence, and then running back down the incline. Agent Mesa fired at least two shots at Hernandez, one of which struck him in the face and killed him. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the United States where the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for any of the claims asserted against it; affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of the supervisors where plaintiffs failed to establish that either supervisor was personally responsible for the alleged constitutional violations; and reversed the judgment in favor of Agent Mesa, holding that, in light of Boumediene v. Bush, plaintiffs can assert a Fifth Amendment claim against the agent and that they have alleged sufficient facts to overcome qualified immunity. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Hernandez, et al. v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband filed suit against Wal-Mart after she fell while entering through an automatic sliding door at a Wal-Mart store and sustained injuries. At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart based on its conclusion that the defect in the door threshold was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. The court concluded that the district court erred in extending Mississippi's so-called "categorical exemption" to defective thresholds; the fact that the alleged defective condition changed suddenly and without warning was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that it created an unreasonable or unusually dangerous condition; and plaintiffs point to evidence in the record indicating that Wal-Mart may not inspect the doors to ensure they are functioning correctly and that despite an internal policy calling for daily inspections, the assistant manager of the store had no knowledge of that policy. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Wal-Mart and the dismissal of both plaintiffs' claims, remanding for further proceedings. View "Cox, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law