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

BPRE filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief and then filed an adversary complaint in the bankruptcy court alleging various state-law tort and contract claims against RML. The bankruptcy court entered a final judgment denying relief and the district court affirmed. In Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court determined that the bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to enter final judgment on the debtor's state-law counterclaim even thought the statute conferred such authority. Although the strict holding in Stern limited bankruptcy-court authority in one isolated respect and the question presented was a narrow one, its sweeping reasoning was broad and logically must be applied to BPRE's claims here. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded, concluding that the bankruptcy court lacked Article III standing to enter final judgment on BPRE's claims. View "BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, but the district court subsequently vacated the jury verdict and granted a new trial, while denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on double-jeopardy grounds. In consolidated appeals, the government challenged the grant of a new trial and defendant challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court concluded that there was no error in the direct examination of a deputy marshall. Even if there was error, there was no prejudice. Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no basis in which to set aside a jury verdict. Because the district court erred in ordering a new trial, the court reversed that order and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict and to proceed with sentencing. The court dismissed defendant's appeal as moot. View "United States v. Poole" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in a health care fraud conspiracy. The court affirmed defendant St. Junius's conviction and sentence; affirmed defendant Ramos's conviction and sentence; affirmed defendant Spicer's conviction and sentence; but vacated Spicer's terms of supervised release and remanded for resentencing where the Government conceded that the district court's award of restitution exceeded the losses derived from the conduct for which Spicer was convicted. If the district court imposes restitution, it should be limited to the losses suffered as a result of the crimes for which Spicer was convicted. View "United States v. St. Junius, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against PSEG alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and other statutes. The court concluded that the district court did not err in submitting the first special verdict question - "Was a Plaintiff a qualified individual with a disability?" - where the jury-instruction definitions of "disability" and "qualified individual" properly conformed to the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The court also concluded that the district court did not err in submitting the third special verdict question - "Was a Plaintiff a qualified individual with a disability?" Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in either jury interrogatory, there was no need to consider whether an error required reversal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Neely v. PSEG Texas LP, et al." on Justia Law

After South Louisiana Ethanol filed for bankruptcy, CHS filed suit contending that South Louisiana Ethanol's option contract with Plaquemines constituted the assignment of a litigious right under Louisiana law, entitling CHS to redeem the litigious right by reimbursing Plaquemines for the cost of the option contract plus interest. The district court granted Plaquemines's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the sale fit within the statutory judicial-sale exception to redemption, as described by Bluefields S.S. Co. v. Lala Ferreras Cangelosi S.S. Co. and its predecessors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the law at issue did not apply to judicial sales. View "CHS, Inc. v. Plaquemines Holdings, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood and others filed suit seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of two amendments to the laws of Texas concerning abortions (H.B. 2). Two provisions of H.B.2 were at issue: first, the requirement that a physician performing or inducing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than thirty miles from the location where the abortion is provided; and second, the limitations on the use of abortion-inducing drugs to a protocol authorized by the FDA. The district court held that parts of the legislation were unconstitutional and granted the requested injunctive relief. The State appealed and filed an emergency motion to stay the district court's permanent injunction. The court concluded that the State has made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits in regards to the hospital-admitting privileges provision. There was a substantial likelihood that the State would prevail in its argument that Planned Parenthood failed to establish an undue burden on women seeking abortions or that the hospital-admitting-privileges requirement created a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. The court also concluded that the State has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, at least in part, as to its appeal of the injunction pertaining to medication abortions. Accordingly, the court stayed the injunction pertaining to medical abortions with certain exceptions. The State has made an adequate showing as to the other factors considered in determining a stay pending appeal. The court granted the motion for stay pending appeal. View "Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Abbott, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the police chief, filed suit against defendant, the mayor, alleging unconstitutional retaliation as well as state tort law claims. On interlocutory appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order denying qualified immunity and plaintiff cross-appealed the district court's dismissal of one of his tort claims. Because the court concluded that plaintiff acted pursuant to his official job duties, the court need not consider the remaining prongs of the First Amendment retaliation test since he could not show that defendant violated his First Amendment rights. Therefore, the court remanded, concluding that the district court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's cross appeal, declining to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a state law tort claim in an interlocutory appeal of the district court's order denying qualified immunity. View "Gibson v. Kilpatrick" on Justia Law

Defendants Henry and Chikenna Jones were convicted of Medicare fraud charges. The government indicted Henry in three separate cases: the Ngari case; the Jones case; and the McKenzie case. Chikenna was indicted in the Jones and McKenzie cases. The court concluded that Henry's prosecution in the McKenzie case did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause where the conspiracies in the Ngari and the McKenzie cases were two separate conspiracies. Further, the court concluded that there was no multiplicity violation. In regards to Chikenna, the court concluded that the district court did not violate her constitutional right to choose her retained counsel when it denied her motions for substitution of counsel where the needs of fairness and the demands of the court's calendar weighed against granting the substitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Performance, One Beacon, and others for damages stemming from a personal injury that he sustained while working on a fixed platform. After the parties settled, the suit proceeded to trial, and the district court found Performance 15% at fault for the accident and awarded plaintiff $200,000 in damages. The court concluded that, in light of the evidence presented at trial, it was not implausible for the court to find that Richard John Boutte, as the designated signalman for the blind lift, was significantly more at fault for plaintiff's injuries than was Shalico Andow, a Performance employee. Because the district court took a permissible view of the evidence in finding Andow only 15% at fault, the court affirmed that determination. Because Performance failed to show that borrowed employee status should be applied here, the court affirmed the district court's holding that Andow was not a borrowed employee. Finally, a general damages award of $65,000 was much closer to what Louisiana courts would award plaintiff based on the facts. Because $200,000 was more than 133% of $65,000, the district court's award of general damages was excessive as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court remitted the general damage portion of plaintiff's award to $86,450. View "Delahoussaye v. Performance Energy Services, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for conspiracy involving, inter alia, theft of Postal Service mail from a "collection box." Defendant was involved in a conspiracy to steal mail, harvest identifying information, and cash forged paychecks. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's calculating of her offense level. The court held that Application Note 4(C)(ii)(I) to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 permitted the district court to presume that there was at least 50 victims when calculating an offense level in a case that involved one or more Postal Service receptacles: absent probative evidence that the actual number of victims exceeded 50, however, the district court could not presume more than 50, irrespective of the number of such receptacles that were involved. In this instance, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing where defendant should have received only the 4-level U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) enhancement applicable to cases involving at least 50 victims but not 250 or more. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law