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

The claims on appeal relate to the 2010 explosion aboard the "Deepwater Horizon," an offshore drilling rig, and the consequent discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order certifying a class action and approving a settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court concluded that the district court was correct to conclude that the applicable requirements of Rule 23 were satisfied in this case. Whether or not BP's arguments regarding Exhibits 4B and 4C were correct as a matter of contract interpretation, neither class certification nor settlement approval were contrary to Article III in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon, et al." on Justia Law

Acting as receiver, the FDIC conveyed substantially all of WaMU's assets and liabilities to JPMorgan Chase, including certain long-term real-estate leases. At issue was whether the owners of the leased tracts could enforce the leases against Chase by virtue of the FDIC's conveyance. The court held that, in the interest of maintaining uniformity in the construction and enforcement of federal contracts, the landlords did not qualify as third-party beneficiaries. The court concluded, however, that the landlords have "standing" to prove the content of the Agreement and that the Agreement, properly construed, was a complete "assignment" sufficient to create privity of estate under Texas law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Excel Willowbrook, L.L.C., et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's application of the vulnerable-victim enhancement to his sentence after pleading guilty to receipt, distribution, and possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of children. The court doubted that the district court correctly applied the vulnerable-victim enhancement here, but any error was harmless where it was apparent from the record that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had the Guidelines range been properly calculated and the Government had shown that the improperly calculated Guidelines did not influence the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

EMS appealed the district court's order denying its motion to remand its suit against the City to the state court from which it was removed. The court concluded that removal was improper because none of the claims in EMS's state court civil action satisfied either the federal question or diversity requirements of original jurisdiction; the district court's prior jurisdiction over the claims asserted in City v. CLECO, which were now dismissed, did not vest the district court with jurisdiction over EMS's claims; regardless of how factually intertwined with EMS's suit, the district court's retention of jurisdiction over the post-settlement matters could not substitute for original jurisdiction for the purpose of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367 or removal under section 1441, given that EMS's claims were not asserted in the same proceeding as the claims in City v. CLECO; and, if Baccus v. Parrish retained any precedential value, it was distinguishable and inapposite in this instance. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Energy Mgmt. Servs. v. City of Alexandria" on Justia Law

Over the creditor's protests, the trustee sought to settle the claims at issue, and the creditor ultimately re-acquired them at auction. The bankruptcy court then found that the creditor had paid the trustee's attorney's fees even after the two had become adverse over the settlement issue, and dismissed the adversary proceeding based on its inherent power to sanction a party for abuse of judicial process. The district court affirmed and the creditor appealed. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court had constitutional authority to enter final judgment in this adversary proceeding; because the creditor failed to file a timely motion requesting the bankruptcy court to abstain, and because the claims at issue were "core" in nature, the district court's decision not to abstain was proper; and because the bankruptcy court failed to find by clear and convincing evidence that the creditor acted in bad faith, it erred in invoking its inherent sanction power. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cadle Co. v. Moore, III, et al." on Justia Law

The district court granted habeas relief in favor of petitioner, finding that he is mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for execution based on Atkins v. Virginia. The state appealed the district court's imposition of a permanent injunction enjoining the State from executing petitioner. The district court concluded that the state court was required to provide petitioner with the funds necessary to develop his claims. The court concluded that the district court erred in its determination that the state court decision was not entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) where there was no Supreme Court decision that has held that prisoners asserting Atkins claims were entitled to expert funds to make out a prima facie case. Similarly, the state court's judgment did not violate 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2) where petitioner did not contend that he presented a prima facie showing of mental retardation before the state court and, therefore, waived his claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief. View "Brumfield v. Cain, Warden" on Justia Law

Vantage filed suit against defendant in Texas state court on various state law claims arising from defendant's role as a director of Vantage. Defendant moved to federal court and Vantage appealed the district court's denial of its motion to remand to state court. The court reversed and remanded with instructions that the district court remand to the state court because Vantage is a corporation with foreign citizenship and defendant is a foreign citizen. As in Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., there are aliens on both sides of the litigation, complete diversity is lacking, and there can be no diversity jurisdiction. View "Vantage Drilling Co. v. Su" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their sentences and convictions stemming from their involvement in a health care fraud scheme. The court concluded that, although it would have been preferable for the district court to provide a cautionary instruction to the jury on the permissible purpose of the Medicare and Medicaid violations at issue, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested limiting instruction; the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant Clardy's convictions; the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the Government to cross examine Clardy on the blank prescription forms she signed, the cash-only policy at two pain management clinics, and the letter from the anonymous party; and the district court did not err in its intended loss calculation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Imo, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a superseding information charging him with removing property to prevent seizure and aiding and abetting. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's restitution order. The court concluded, after reviewing the whole of the record, that defendant's valid appeal waiver did in fact bar his right to appeal the restitution order. The court also concluded that defendant waived his Eighth Amendment claims because the appeal waiver in defendant's signed, written plea agreement waived his right to appeal his sentence with only three specific exceptions. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Keele" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court vacated the conviction and sentence because the district court expressly declined to make factual findings that could have had a determinative impact on the outcome of the suppression hearing. The court remanded for further findings to ascertain, inter alia, whether the police officer asked defendant for consent to search his car. View "United States v. Guzman" on Justia Law