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

Plaintiffs alleged that they contracted COVID-19 while working at two Tyson Foods, Inc (“Tyson”) facilities in Texas during the first few months of 2020. Some of them died as a result. They alleged that Tyson failed to follow applicable COVID-19 guidance by directing employees to work in close quarters without proper protective equipment. They also alleged that Tyson knew some of its employees were coming to work sick with COVID-19 but ignored the problem and that Tyson implemented a “work while sick” policy to keep the plant open.   Tyson argued that it was “acting under” direction from the federal government when it chose to keep its poultry processing plants open during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic and that the district courts erred in remanding these cases back to state court.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders. The court explained that Tyson received, at most, strong encouragement from the federal government. But Tyson was never told that it must keep its facilities open. The court wrote that from the earliest days of the pandemic all the way through the issuance of Executive Order 13917, the federal government’s actions followed the same playbook: encouragement to meat and poultry processors to continue operating, careful monitoring of the food supply, and support for state and local governments. Tyson was exhorted, but it was not directed. Thus, Tyson has not shown that it was “acting under” a federal officer’s directions” and so the court need not consider whether it meets the remaining elements of the federal officer removal statute. View "Glenn v. Tyson Foods" on Justia Law

Joanna Guijarro rented a Jeep from Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Brownsville Texas, which is owned and operated by EAN, a Delaware LLC, whose sole member is a Missouri corporation, Enterprise Holdings. The Guijarros were driving in heavy rain when Joanna lost control of the Jeep. The vehicle slammed into a concrete culvert. All three family members were injured. The Guijarros believed that a defect in the Jeep’s braking system caused the accident. They sued Enterprise Holdings and EAN in Texas state court, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, claiming that the defendants knew or should have known that the Jeep’s brakes “were in a defective and/or unsafe condition” and failed to disclose or correct the problem. The defendants removed the suit to federal court.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' remand motions, finding it apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that the Guijarros only sought to join Texas parties to escape federal court. Enterprise Holdings was properly dismissed as a defendant. Summary judgment for EAN was appropriate because Guijarro failed to produce competent evidence that the Jeep’s brakes were defective. Texas law required expert opinions that identified a “specific defect” in the vehicle and “ruled out other possible causes” for the crash. The only proof of a defect was Joanna’s lay testimony “that she applied the brakes” and the car “would not stop.” View "Guijarro v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jennifer Leonard alleged Tyler Martin rear-ended her when she stopped in traffic. She sued Martin and his insurer, Wadena Insurance Company, in Louisiana state court seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained during the accident. Martin removed the lawsuit to federal court based on the existence of diversity jurisdiction. This appeal related to a Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45 subpoena issued to third party Dr. Joseph Turnipseed requiring him to perform patient record audits and generate data about how frequently he recommends a particular course of treatment. Turnipseed, an anesthesiologist and pain management specialist, treated Leonard for neck and back pain allegedly caused by the accident. Among other treatments, Turnipseed performed a cervical radiofrequency neurotomy on Leonard. According to Turnipseed, Leonard responded favorably to the cervical neurotomy and he recommended that she undergo the procedure annually for the next five to six years. These future treatments make up a large percentage of Leonard’s life care plan and alleged damages. Defendants disputed the medical necessity of those expensive, future treatments. Turnipseed moved to quash the subpoena on undue burden grounds. The district court denied his motion to quash. He appealed. In the alternative, he sought a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to quash the subpoena. "With misgivings about the district court’s substantive ruling," the Fifth Circuit dismissed Turnipseed’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, and denied his alternative petition for a writ of mandamus for not having demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the writ. View "Martin v. Turnipseed" on Justia Law

A trooper with the Louisiana State Police was responding to a car crash when a driver, driving a tractor-trailer owned by Nu Line Transport, crashed into the parked vehicle in which Plaintiff was sitting. The trooper and his wife on behalf of themselves and their two minor children (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit in state court seeking damages for personal injury and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs alleged that the crash was proximately caused by (1) negligence on the part of the truck driver (for which the Plaintiffs sought to hold Nu Line vicariously liable), and (2) negligence on the part of Nu Line in its hiring, training, and supervision of the driver.   Before rendering a decision, the Fifth Circuit certified the following question of law to the Louisiana Supreme Court for rendition of a judgment or opinion concerning such questions or propositions of Louisiana law:   Under Louisiana law, can Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of their minor children, simultaneously maintain (1) a direct negligence claim against Nu Line for negligent hiring, training, and supervision of its employee and (2) a negligence claim against the employee for which Nu Line could be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior, (3) after Nu Line has stipulated that the employee was in the course and scope of employment when the alleged negligence occurred?   The court explained that certification was appropriate because this proceeding involves a question or proposition of Louisiana state law that is determinative of said cause independently of any other questions involved in said case and that there are no clear controlling precedents. View "Fox v. Nu Line Transport" on Justia Law

Plaintiff led police on a high-speed chase through a residential neighborhood. Once Plaintiff exited his vehicle, Defendant sheriff's deputy tased Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the deputy, claiming he violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment Rights. The District Court denied the deputy's claim of qualified immunity, finding there were material factual disputes as to whether a reasonable officer would have viewed Plaintiff as an immediate threat; whether Plaintiff's apparent surrender was a ploy to evade arrest; and whether Plaintiff was tased once or twice.The Fifth Circuit reversed. After considering the threat posed by Plaintiff in fleeing law enforcement as well as the force used by the deputy, the court determined that the deputy did not violate Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, Plaintiff was unable to overcome the bar of qualified immunity. View "Salazar v. Molina" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was severely burned when the landing gear on a tanker-trailer detached from its tractor and sank into a gravel surface, causing the tanker-trailer to tip over and spill scalding water on him. Plaintiff brought a premises liability claim against the owner of the property and product liability claims against the owner of the tanker-trailer and three related companies. The district court dismissed his product liability claims on the pleadings and his premises liability claim on summary judgment.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not apply the proper standard for evaluating the plausibility of George’s pleadings under Federal R. of Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). Further, the court held that the district court erroneously concluded that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code governed Plaintiff's premises liability claim. Thus the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "George v. SI Grp, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of the breach of contract claims that he has asserted, as a third-party beneficiary, against Defendant. The district court determined that the insurer’s duty to defend its insured, on which Plaintiff’s claims were based, was never triggered, relative to Plaintiff’s underlying personal injury suit, because the insured, N.F. Painting, Inc., never requested a defense or sought coverage.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed finding no error in the district court’s assessment under Texas law. The court explained that it is well-established, that under Texas law, despite having knowledge and opportunity, an insurer is not required to simply interject itself into a proceeding on its insured’s behalf.   Here, as stated, N.F. Painting did not seek defense or coverage from Defendant when it was served with Plaintiff’s original state court petition. The undisputed facts show that N.F. Painting chose, with the assistance of counsel, to handle Plaintiff’s personal injury claims in its own way, without involving Defendantin its defense, as it was entitled to do. And Plaintiff has put forth no evidence suggesting that Defendant was not entitled to rely on that decision. Having made that decision, it is N.F. Painting, and thus Plaintiff, as third-party beneficiary, not Defendant who must bear responsibility for any resulting adverse consequences. In other words, the law will not permit a third-party beneficiary to simply disregard an insured’s litigation decisions, i.e., essentially re-write history, merely because he has no other means of satisfying his judgment against the insured. View "Moreno v. Sentinel Ins" on Justia Law

A wrongful-death suit ended in default when a trucking company went bankrupt. That left two plaintiffs who both claimed to be the decedent’s common-law wife. The district court awarded damages to just one of them because Texas does not allow bigamy. The other putative wife maintains that the district court had to award damages to both plaintiffs.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision holding that a defaulting defendant is deemed to admit a plaintiff’s factual allegations, but the district court still may inquire whether those allegations demonstrate legal liability. In the putative wife’s amended complaint, she failed to make specific allegations regarding any of the elements of common-law marriage.The court reasoned that the statements she made were too “bare and conclusory” to be considered a well-pleaded factual allegation. After reviewing the putative wife’s complaint, the district court concluded that she and the decedent had agreed to be married, had cohabited, and had held themselves out as married. The court did not reject any of her factual allegations—it merely rejected the legal conclusion that she was married to the decedent. That rejection was proper in light of the other woman’s factual allegations.Moreover, where a plaintiff, but for the defendant’s default, would never have been able to show legal entitlement to a judgment, denial of that judgment is not itself a miscarriage of justice. There is nothing inequitable about allowing a district court to consider the facts alleged by all plaintiffs and award default judgment to only those whose claims are not precluded. View "Escalante v. Lidge" on Justia Law

After her ex-husband died in a containerboard mill explosion, Plaintiff brought a wrongful death and survival action against Defendant Packaging Corporation of America (“PCA”) and PCA employee, a supervisor alleged to have had specific responsibility for the safe operation of the tank at issue (collectively, the “Defendants”). Defendants removed the case to federal court on grounds of improper joinder and diversity jurisdiction. After denying a motion to remand, the district court granted successive motions for summary judgment that disposed of the plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s rulings on the motion to remand and the motions for summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment and held that the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s claims because the workplace accident falls within Louisiana’s workers’ compensation scheme.The primary issue is whether Plaintiff had a plausible claim against the supervisor such that he could be properly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The court held that Plaintiff failed to show that the supervisor bears personal blame for the victim’s death. Thus, the district court was correct to pierce the pleadings to ferret out glaring legal deficiencies in Plaintiffs claims against the only defendant precluding diversity jurisdiction, and the district court’s consequent finding of improper joinder and denial of Plaintiff’s motion to remand was likewise correct. Further, the court held that this workplace fatality falls within the ambit of Louisiana’s workers’ compensation scheme. View "Rolls v. Packaging Corp of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a negligence suit under Louisiana law against many parties, including Defendant, an entity that participated in a construction project at the Republic National Distribution Company (“Republic”) warehouse in New Orleans, Louisiana. Defendant’s specific role was to build a concrete mezzanine platform. Months after Defendant completed its work, Plaintiff was working on the platform when an unguarded ceiling fan struck him in the head. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The district court found that while Defendant had a general duty to provide a safe working environment and to refrain from creating hazardous conditions, it did not owe several “heightened duties” that Plaintiffs argued applied. The district court also held that Defendant did not breach its general duty because it repeatedly warned and admonished Republic about the fan, which was turned off from the date of a prior incident until the date of Plaintiff’s injury.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in Defendant’s favor, holding that Plaintiffs failed to show there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendant breached his duty to refrain from creating a hazardous condition. The court reasoned that Plaintiffs did not point to any authority which support their theory as to the breadth of Defendant’s general duty. Instead, the jurisprudence limits Defendant’s duty, particularly in circumstances where the contractor lacks control or responsibility for the worksite at the time of the injury. View "Donahue v. Makar Installations" on Justia Law