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

Petitioner, convicted of murder while committing a robbery, appealed the district court's denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment and motion for stay of execution. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate circumstances that were sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief from final judgment under Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion and, consequently, denied his stay of execution. View "Diaz v. Stephens, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against North American after the moving company severely damaged or loss some of plaintiff's items. Because plaintiff's claims arose out of the interstate shipment of her possessions, the Carmack Amendment, 29 U.S.C. 14706 et seq., provided the sole and exclusive remedy. The district court granted summary judgment for North America, determining that her claim for damages did not satisfy regulatory requirements. The court concluded that plaintiff's demand letter unequivocally requested that North American remit payment totaling $182,750.00 and constituted a written communication containing facts sufficient to identify the shipment, asserting liability, and making claims for the payment of a specified amount under 49 C.F.R. 1005.2(b). The plain language of the regulation's minimum filing requirements required nothing more. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for North America and remanded for further proceedings. View "Williams v. N. Amer. Van Lines of Texas, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Lowe's challenging the Plan Administrator's denial of benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., Plan. The court reversed the district court's grant of relief from the denial of benefits and award of benefits because the court found that the Plan Administrator did not abuse its discretion where the Plan Administrator was not operating under a conflict of interest and was vested with the power to interpret the terms of the Plan. View "Porter v. Lowe's, et al." on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry following removal, the district court applied an eight-level enhancement based on a prior conviction for an aggravated felon, a New York state misdemeanor conviction for third-degree sexual abuse of a fifteen-year-old. The court rejected defendant's arguments that his misdemeanor conviction could not be considered an aggravated felony where the court applied the modified categorical approach to determine that defendant's conviction satisfied the generic offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

G&M filed suit against BP, asserting that it was a co-owner of both the pumping station and the land on which it sits and seeking an accounting for all revenue and profit that BP made from the pumping station. The district court granted summary judgment for BP where BP contended that the St. Julien Doctrine prescribed G&M's claim and contested G&M's assertion of co-ownership. The court concluded that the St. Julien Doctrine did not apply in this case where the bare existence of the pumping station did not demonstrate G&M's consent or acquiescence to a servitude. Nor could G&M's inaction in the expropriation action serve as the basis for finding this final element of the St. Julien Doctrine. Because G&M never acquired an ownership interest in the pumping station, the resolution of this issue turned on whether those profits were the "civil fruits" of the co-owned Tract. The district court reversed and remanded to the district court to further consider whether the profits were civil fruits of the Tract and, if so, whether G&M was therefore entitled to an accounting. View "Gulf and Miss. River Transp. Co., Ltd. v. BP Oil Pipeline Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to file a U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 motion for downward departure based on substantial assistance. The court concluded that the Government retained its discretion to determine whether to file a section 5K1.1 motion and defendant failed to show that the Government committed error, much less plain error, in its refusal to file the motion. The court also concluded that a memorandum recently issued by the Attorney General did not afford defendant sentencing relief where, even assuming that defendant met the requirements contained in the memorandum, the memorandum was issued after defendant was charged and convicted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). At issue on appeal was whether a violation of Texas Penal Code 22.01 (reckless assault) constituted a violent felony as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). The court concluded that a violation of section 22.01 falls squarely within the parameters of the criminal conduct contemplated in Begay v. United States, which aimed to limit the application of the ACCA to crimes that involved conduct that was purposeful, violent and aggressive in nature. Reckless assault under section 22.01 required proof that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk and in doing so, caused bodily injury to another. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence of 188 months' imprisonment. View "United States v. Espinoza" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of an insurance dispute between TMM, which owned a shopping center, and OCIC, which insured the property. At issue was the extent of damage that was caused to the property during a hailstorm. An appraisal was conducted but the district court set aside the appraisal award and had the case proceed to trial where an advisory jury assessed a damage award. The court held that the appraisal award was incorrect in that it excluded damage to the HVAC unit from the award, but that the rest of the award should remain unaffected by this determination; the appraisers did not exceed their authority when they considered causation issues, and therefore the appraisal award should not have been set aside; OCIC was only obligated to pay the amount articulated in the award, plus the cost of repair for the HVAC system; and, therefore, OCIC fulfilled the terms of the insurance contract when it tendered the amount articulated in the award and the cost of the repair to the HVAC system to TMM. Accordingly, the court held that there was no breach of contract and TMM's cross-appeal was moot. The court reversed and remanded so that the district court could reinstate the appraisal award. View "TMM Investments, Ltd. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, members of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee for the Chinese Drywall MDL, claimed that technology counsel for Cataphora made defamatory statements that were aimed at, and caused harm in, Louisiana, thereby grounding personal jurisdiction in that state. The court concluded that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants because plaintiff failed to make a showing that the statements' focal point was Louisiana. The court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded with instructions to transfer the matter to the United States District Court of the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. View "Herman, et al. v. Cataphora, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., against the Army after plaintiff, an employee of a private Army contractor, was injured on the job when he tripped and fell. Plaintiff sued the Government for negligence and premises liability because he found that the workers' compensation benefits he received through his employer's policy was insufficient to cover his needs. Under Texas law, general contractors who require subcontractors to provide workers' compensation insurance to their employees and who pay for that coverage were "statutory employers" protected by the exclusive-remedy provision. In this instance, the parties agreed that the Government has taken the basic steps it needed to take to avail itself to the exclusive-remedy rule as a statutory employer. The court concluded that, because plaintiff did not allege a lack of notice or prejudice from any lack of notice, the federal government was in "like circumstances" as a Texas statutory employer. Accordingly, plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits were his exclusive remedy, and his claims against the Government were properly dismissed. View "Willoughby, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law