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

Plaintiff filed suit against PPG, alleging that he was "seriously and permanently injured" by a piece of falling equipment. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of his motion for leave to amend his complaint. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's proffered amendment relied on the proposed parties' general responsibilities to oversee safety rather than on evidence of personal fault, as required to trigger individual liability under Louisiana law. Further, the court concurred with the district court's conclusion that the amendment only served to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Although the district court did not expressly examine the other Hensgens v. Deere & Co. factors, the court could not conclude that any of those factors tipped the scales in favor of plaintiff. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Moore v. Smith, et al." on Justia Law

The Benefits Review Board ordered Sherwin to pay respondent benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. 901-950, when respondent, a dockworker, was injured in one of Sherwin's waterside ore processing facilities. The court concluded that respondent's injury did not occur on a LHWCA-covered situs because the underground transport tunnel where respondent was injured was not used in the vessel-unloading process under section 903(a). Accordingly, the court granted Sherwin's petition for review and remanded to the Board to dismiss respondent's claim. View "BPU Mgmt., Inc., et al. v. DOWCP, et al." on Justia Law

Flugence filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in 2004 and a plan was confirmed. In 2007, she was injured in a car accident and hired an attorney. Weeks later an amended Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. In 2008 Flugence sued for personal injury. Months later, Flugence was discharged. She never disclosed to the bankruptcy court that she might prosecute a personal-injury claim. The personal-injury defendants discovered the non-disclosure and had the bankruptcy case reopened. The bankruptcy court declared that although Flugence was estopped from pursuing the claim on her own behalf, her bankruptcy trustee was not estopped and could pursue the claim for the benefit of creditors. The district court reversed with respect to estopping Flugence, stating that Flugence did not have a potential cause of action prior to her initial application for bankruptcy protection, and relied on her attorney’s advice concerning disclosure. The Fifth Circuit reinstated the bankruptcy court holding. There is a continuing duty to disclose in a Chapter 13 proceeding and Flugence met all elements of estoppel. Nothing requires that recovery be limited strictly to the amount owed creditors; after a claim is prosecuted and creditors and fees have been paid, any remaining recovery must be returned to the personal-injury defendants. View "Flugence v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Muse, Nelson, and Weiss, and two others formed DGP. The five individuals were DGP’s limited partners; its general partner was MNW LLC, consisting of Muse, Nelson, and Weiss. DGP contracted to buy Gas Solutions and Prospect agreed to lend DGP 95% of the purchase price, subject to due diligence. The agreement prevented DGP from negotiating with other lenders. Prospect’s investigation raised concerns and it informed DGP that it would not make the loan. After DGP threatened to sue, Prospect agreed to pay DGP $3.295 million as reimbursement for DGP’s expenses and DGP agreed to assign Prospect its right to buy Gas Solutions. DGP assigned the purchase contract to DGP’s general partner, MNW, owned by Muse, Nelson and Weiss, who then sold Prospect their individual membership interests, transferring the contract to Prospect. Despite a mutual release, DGP sued Prospect alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract. Prospect counterclaimed alleging breach of the covenant not to sue. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Prospect and awarded attorneys’ fees in its award. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the covenants did not bind the individuals. Under an interpretation of the agreement giving effect to all its terms, Nelson and Muse breached the agreement by funding DGP’s lawsuits and violated the release and covenant not to sue.View "Dallas Gas Partners, L.P. v. Prospect Energy Corp" on Justia Law

Serna defaulted on a loan he obtained through the Internet that was subsequently purchased by Samara. Attorney Onwuteaka, who owns Samara, obtained a default judgment and attempted to collect. Serna then filed suit in federal court, alleging that because he neither resided nor entered the loan agreement in Harris County where the judgment entered, the suit violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, venue requirement. A magistrate found Serna’s suit was untimely under the FDCPA’s one-year limitations period because he filed his complaint more than one year after Onwuteaka filed his petition in the underlying debt-collection action. The Fifth Circuit reversed, that the alleged FDCPA violation arose only after Serna received notice of the underlying debt collection action. The FDCPA provides that a debtor may bring an action “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” A violation of does not occur until the debt-collection suit is filed and the alleged debtor is notified of the suit.View "Serna v. Law Office of Joseph Onwuteaka" on Justia Law

Abilene police were investigating Alcantar for cocaine dealing. During a traffic stop, officers found cocaine. A subsequent search of his residence revealed drug paraphernalia, drug-manufacturing materials, and a dismantled 12-gauge shotgun in Alcantar’s bedroom. He was charged by the state with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Alcantar had a previous conviction for felony aggravated assault of a police officer. Alcantar was indicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and for possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) and 5871. He challenged section 922(g)(1) as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and pleaded guilty to the firearms charge. The pre-sentence report recommended a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for use or possession of a firearm in connection with another felony: the state charge of possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. Alcantar argued that despite the proximity of the firearm to the drug paraphernalia, its dissembled state, his lack of knowledge regarding assembly, and the absence of ammunition rendered the firearm useless in facilitating another offense. An ATF agent estimated it could take 10 to 30 seconds to assemble the three pieces even without instructions. The district court overruled Alcantar’s objection and imposed a sentence of 63 months. The Fifth Circuit affirmed both the refusal to dismiss the indictment and the sentence. View "United States v. Alcantar" on Justia Law

Chandler was a police officer when he joined “Dreamboard,” an online bulletin board which conditioned membership on sharing child pornography. He posted at least 117 images, most of which were children, ages eight to 14 years, posing or engaging in sexual acts with adults. Charged with: engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(g); conspiring to advertise the distribution of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251(d)(1), (e), and conspiring to distribute child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1), Chandler pleaded guilty to engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, and the other counts were dismissed. The district court calculated Chandler’s Guidelines range as 240-293 months. In the PSR, the probation officer stated that there were no factors warranting a departure or variance. The district court rejected Chandler’s motion for downward departure and imposed a sentence of 420 months of imprisonment, noting Chandler’s abuse of his public office as a law enforcement officer, his use of other people’s internet connections to attempt to hide his participation in the scheme, and his frequent posts. The Fifth Circuit remanded, holding that Chandler’s position as a police officer did not justify the increased sentence because there was no evidence that he used his position to facilitate the offense. View "United States v. Chandler" on Justia Law

Defendants Powell and Akin appealed their conviction and sentence on charges of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendants' respective motions to suppress; the evidence was legally sufficient to support Akin's conviction; while the statements admitted in evidence against Powell did not violate the Confrontation Clause under the Bruton doctrine, the prosecutor's use of these statements for cross examination purposes was in error; the prosecutor's statements, though legally inexcusable, were harmless in light of the other evidence presented at trial; the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.4 to Powell's sentence; and Powell's sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Powell, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision upholding the denial of her application for an adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Because petitioner entered the United States on a K-1 visa, she was required to marry the person who petitioned for her visa or depart the country within 90 days. Petitioner did neither, but instead, remained in the United States and subjected herself to removal and the bar to adjustment for status found in 8 U.S.C. 1255(d). Sections 1255(a) and 1255(d) announced no special rules for Violence Against Women Act, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I), self-petitioners that created an exception to the section 1255(d) bar. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Le v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Dolgencorp, operator of a Dollar General store on the Choctaw reservation, filed suit seeking to enjoin John Doe and the tribal defendants from adjudicating tort claims against Dolgencorp in the Choctaw tribal court. The underlying tort claims stemmed from Doe's suit alleging that a manager sexually molested him while he was working at the Dollar General store. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Dolgencorp's motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment in favor of the tribal defendants because Dolgencorp's consensual relationship with Doe gave rise to tribal court jurisdiction over Doe's claims under Montana v. United States. View "Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. v. MS Band of Choctaw Indians, et al." on Justia Law