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

Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory relief and specific performance concerning a life insurance policy. At issue was whether any of the several notices that the insurance company sent plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:905, which outlined notice requirements for lapsing life insurance policies. The court concluded that the district court erred in finding that December 21, 2010, was the operative date for section 22:905 purposes, and therefore abused its discretion in denying the insurance company's motion to alter or amend the judgment. The language of section 22:905 supported the conclusion that the payment that was "due," "payable," and required to be paid was the payment at the end of the grace period, on February 11, 2011. Given the insurance company's compliance with the notice requirements, plaintiff could not claim that the company failed to provide it with fair notice. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in the insurance company's favor. View "Johnston & Johnston v. Conseco Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, alleging that after fulfilling his two-week training obligation with the Army Reserve, he was terminated in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301-4335, and Texas Government Code 613.001-613.023. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to apply collateral estoppel to the ALJ's finding in a state administrative proceeding where a finding that plaintiff was discharged due to a disagreement about military service was not the equivalent of a finding that the County was motivated by his military status to discharge him; the court did not analyze the possible collateral estoppel effects of the ALJ's decision on a section 4312 claim because no one has briefed it; and the technical failure to plead all the currently presented defenses did not prevent consideration of them. The court also concluded that section 613.021 established venue in state court and had no effect on the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in federal court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment. View "Bradberry v. Jefferson County, Texas" on Justia Law

TFE filed suit against the Commission seeking an injunction and a declaration that the relevant portions of the Texas Election Code violated the First Amendment as applied to TFE. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of Tex. Elec. Code 253.094(a) - which prohibits corporations from making an unauthorized political contribution - and 253.003(b) - where an individual may not knowingly accept a political contribution - against TFE and the Commission appealed the injunction. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction because TFE was likely to succeed on the merits and because the manifest equities weighed in favor of equitable relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order granting the injunction. View "Texans for Free Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Commission, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his federal habeas petition. Petitioner alleged that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose an alleged jailhouse confession to the murder by Laura Hall. The court concluded that it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that petitioner's counsel would not have offered an alternate-perpetrator defense at trial rather than seeking conviction on a lesser offense. Given the jailhouse context of Hall's confession and its lack of corroboration and detail, the state court reasonably could have concluded that Hall's statement could not overcome the overwhelming problems with an alternate-perpetrator theory. Accordingly, fairminded jurists could conclude that Hall's confession was immaterial within the meaning of Brady and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Pitonyak v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former mayor of New Roads, Louisiana, appealed his conviction and sentence for corruption-related offenses. Defendant's convictions stemmed from the use of his position as Mayor to promote the Cifer 5000, a waste container cleaning system business, in the city and elsewhere in exchange for cash and other things of value. The court affirmed the district court's decision not to give an entrapment instruction because defendant made no plausible showing of lack of predisposition. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its evidentiary findings. In regards to the district court's valuation of defendant's bribery activity, because the court concluded that a loss calculation for the EPA letter that defendant wrote was appropriate on remand, and because the district court's reasoning with regard to the private investor letter relied in part on defendant's general expectation to generate "a large sum of money," the court deemed that closer scrutiny was advisable regarding the valuation of the private investor letter. However, the record supported the district court's determination that defendant expected to receive at least $250,000 in his role in the kickback scheme. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Nelson, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff became eligible for an award of unpaid overtime wages after her employer misclassified her as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court's application of the "Fluctuating Workweek" (FWW) method of calculating overtime was not warranted in this case. The court held that the record evidence showed that there was no agreement between plaintiff and her employer that she would receive a fixed weekly wage to work fluctuating hours. Therefore, there was no basis on these facts to apply the FWW method of calculating plaintiff's overtime premiums using the half-time multiplier. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated, remanding for recalculation. View "Black v. SettlePou, P.C." on Justia Law

The State challenged the district court's determination that Mississippi's Stop Notice statute, Miss. Code Ann. 85-7-181, was facially unconstitutional. In a separate appeal, Noatex challenged the district court's denial of its motion for further relief and stay of an appeal bond determination. In Case No. 12-60385, the court affirmed the district court's determination that the Stop Notice statute was a facially unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process, and denied King's motion to withdraw its appeal where King and the State both presented the same arguments concerning the constitutionality of the statute. In Case No. 12-60586, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Noatex's motion for further relief because the fees requested were for another lawsuit that continued to be contested even after the declaratory judgment, and affirmed the district court's stay of Noatex's appeal bond because there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's implicit denial of Noatex's Rule 7 motion. View "Noatex Corp. v. King Construction of Houston, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of conspiracy and drug offenses, as well as unlawful use of communications facilities. Defendant argued that the district court plainly erred by allowing two alternative jurors to take part in the jury deliberations. The court dismissed the appeal because defendant waived his right to appeal in a sentencing agreement. View "United States v. Walter" on Justia Law

Under a Power Sales Agreement, the Authorities granted Entergy the right to oversee the generation of power and to purchase the generated power. Plaintiffs filed suit against Entergy after their properties were flooded and eroded after the Authorities and Entergy opened spillway gates during certain times. Because the state law property damages claims at issue here infringed on FERC's operational control, the court held that they were conflict preempted. Accordingly, the court held that the district court properly concluded that the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791-828c, preempted plaintiffs' claim for negligence. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in its entirety. View "Simmons, et al. v. Sabine River Authority, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction restraining state officials from conducting executions with pentobarbital procured from compounding pharmacies. The court concluded that there was no evidence in the record that the drug was very likely to cause needless suffering. Because plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, the court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief without examining the other prongs. View "Whitaker, et al. v. Livingston, et al." on Justia Law