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

Plaintiff, a former assistant attorney general for the Louisiana DOJ, claimed that LDOJ discriminated against her by declining to provide a free on-site parking space to accommodate her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and violated the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq., by terminating her employment in retaliation for charges she filed with the EEOC. The court concluded that, because the district court erred in requiring a nexus between the requested accommodation and the essential functions of plaintiff's position, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of the retaliation claim because the LDOJ has offered a non-retaliatory explanation for plaintiff's dismissal and because plaintiff has presented no evidence of pretext. View "Feist v. State of Louisiana" on Justia Law

Spring Street, seeking to recover against Bayou and its owner Douglas Lam on defaulted promissory notes, claimed that certain transfers that defendants made were fraudulent: (1) Bayou's transfer of "hard assets" to LT Seafood when LT Seafood took over Bayou's retail operations at the 415 East Hamilton location; (2) Douglas Lam's transfer of his 49% interest in LT Seafood to DKL & DTL; and (3) DKL & DTL's subsequent transfer of this 49% interest to Vinh Ngo. The court concluded that Spring Street could pierce DKL & DTL's corporate veil on the basis of fraud and impose individual liability on the LLC members. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Spring Street with regard to these claims. However, the court concluded that Ten Lam and Ngo have raised a genuine dispute of fact as to both which "hard assets" Bayou transferred to LT Seafood and the value of those assets on the date of the transfer. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment in regards to Spring Street's fraudulent transfer claim against Lam and Ngo for the amount of $150,000 and remanded for further proceedings. View "Spring Street Partners v. Lam, et al." on Justia Law

Title V of the Clean Air Act (CCA), 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f, established an operating permit program to assure compliance with the CAA's requirements during a facility's ongoing operation. In this case, LDEQ petitioned for review of an EPA objection to three title V permits issued by LDEQ to Nucor for an ironmaking facility near the town of Convent, Louisiana. The court dismissed the petition for judicial review because the court lacked jurisdiction where the EPA has not taken final action to issue or deny a permit under title V. View "LA Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Mexico, petitioned for review of DHS's reinstatement of a previously-issued order of removal against petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he acquired citizenship from his U.S. citizen father at birth. The court concluded that petitioner met the requirements of INA 301 and 309 and acquired U.S. citizenship from his father at birth. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Iracheta v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her secondary employer, Keppel Amfels, alleging that it violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1), by discouraging her primary employer, staffing agency Perma-Temp, from seeking her reinstatement after an FMLA-authorized maternity leave. The court concluded that, because plaintiff failed to create a fact issue that Keppel Amfels's actions went beyond what the relevant FMLA statutory regulatory provisions allowed, her claims failed regardless of whether intent was an element of her claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Keppel Amfels. View "Cuellar v. Keppel Amfels, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Unum denied plaintiff's claims of long-term disability and sought more than $1 million in reimbursements for benefits paid. Unum denial was based on emails it had received from plaintiff's former companion indicating that plaintiff was engaged in activities that were inconsistent with her asserted disability. The district court found that there was substantial evidence to support Unum's denial of benefits, but, nonetheless, held that the denial was procedurally unreasonable because Unum did not fulfill its duty to "consider the source" of the emails. The court concluded that, in evaluating whether a plan administrator wrongfully denied benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., it has never imposed a duty to investigate the source of the evidence. The court held that the burden was on the claimant to discredit evidence relied on by the plan administrator. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court, finding that Unum did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiff benefits. View "Truitt v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America" on Justia Law

Trout Point sought to enforce a defamation-based default judgment that they obtained against defendant in Nova Scotia, Canada. Defendant, owner and operator of a public affairs blog, published entries on his blog alleging a link between Aaron Broussard, the former Parish President of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, and Trout Point Lodge and others. At issue was the newly-enacted Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act), 28 U.S.C. 4102. The court affirmed the district court's determination that Trout Point could not satisfy its burden under the SPEECH Act of showing that either (A) Nova Scotian law provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in defendant's case as would be provided by the First Amendment and relevant state law, or (B) defendant would have been found liable for defamation by a Mississippi court. View "Trout Point Lodge, Ltd., et al. v. Handshoe" on Justia Law

Adam appealed the district court's denial of its motion to appoint an arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., after determining that the challenges to the appointment presented procedural questions to be decided by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over Adam's post-judgment motion to appoint an arbitrator under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. On the merits, the court rejected Adam's argument on appeal that the district court was required to intervene on grounds that a lapse had occurred in the appointment process; rejected Adam's argument that the district court was required to reach the merits of Adam's request to reinstate the mediator; and rejected Adam's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Adam Technologies Int'l v. Sutherland Global Servs." on Justia Law

This tax refund suit is one among several arising from a series of limited partnerships managed by AMCOR in the 1980s. Taxpayers asserted that the IRS erroneously assessed additional taxes and interest against them in connection with their investments in various partnerships in the 1980s and sought refunds of the federal income taxes and penalty interest paid. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the statute of limitations claims. Concluding that the district court did have jurisdiction over the penalty claims, the court held that, under Weiner v. United States, the assessment penalty interest against taxpayers was erroneous as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government and rendered judgment for taxpayers on this issue. View "Irvine, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for knowingly distributing at least 50 grams of cocaine base. The court concluded that the district court was incorrect in stating that the testimony regarding the prior possession and concomitant statement were intrinsic evidence. The court concluded, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the prejudicial effect of such evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The court further concluded that there was no error in the procedure followed by the district court with respect to defendant's brother's testimony and defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kinchen" on Justia Law