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

Louisiana's Patient's Compensation Fund served two objectives: (1) fostering a stable market for affordable insurance and (2) ensuring that victims of malpractice could recover for their injuries. Louisiana's Act 825 provided that any person who performed an abortion was liable to the mother of the unborn child for any damage occasioned or precipitated by the abortion. Plaintiffs, three healthcare providers, challenged the constitutionality of Act 825 facially, as applied to physicians enrolled in the Fund "who face or will face medical malpractice claims related to abortion," and as applied under the circumstances of this case. The court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge subsection (A) of Act 825; plaintiffs had standing to challenge subsection (C)(2); the case was not moot; and the Eleventh Amendment did not bar plaintiffs' challenge to subsection (C)(2). On the merits, the court concluded that Act 825 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where subsection (C)(2) was rationally related to the promotion of informed consent. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court striking down subsection (C)(2). The court vacated its judgment regarding subsection (A) and dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction. View "K. P., et al. v. LeBlanc, et al." on Justia Law

Issuer Banks appealed the district court's dismissal of their negligence claim as third party beneficiaries of Heartland's contracts with other entities. This case arose out of a group of hackers' breach of Heartland's data systems, compromising confidential information belonging to customers of Issuer Banks. Mindful that the New Jersey Supreme Court has long been a leader in expanding tort liability, and in light of the lack of a developed record illuminating any contractual remedies available to Issuer Banks, the court held that, in this instance, the economic loss doctrine did not bar Issuer Banks' negligence claim at this stage of the litigation. The court declined to decide on the remaining complex issues that Heartland raised. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Heartland Payment Sys., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). On appeal, he challenged the district court's imposition of a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) based on his prior SNAP violation. In light of United States v. Garcia, the court concluded that the district court correctly found that defendant's prior violation of SNAP and his acknowledgement of the violation satisfied the requirement that there be "interaction" between the agency and the defendant. The July 9 letter at issue found that defendant was responsible for violating food stamp regulations on four occasions by accepting benefits in exchange for ineligible merchandise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court did not err in applying section 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) to enhance defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Nash" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Nepalese citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he was subjected to past persecution and feared future persecution based on his political opinion and membership in a particular social group, the Nepal Student Union. The court remanded the case because the IJ's finding, as affirmed by the BIA, that petitioner failed to prove the necessary nexus that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion, was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Sharma v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The State appealed a preliminary injunction and stay of execution granted to a death-row inmate who was convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepson. The court concluded that there was no violation of the Due Process Clause from the uncertainty that Louisiana has imposed on the inmate by withholding the details of its execution protocol. The district court abused its discretion by granting the inmate's untimely motion for a stay. Even assuming arguendo that the motion was timely, there was no equitable basis for further delay because the inmate was not entitled to injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court reversed the preliminary injunction and stay of execution. View "Sepulvado v. Jindal" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of health-care fraud in connection with his durable medical equipment (DME) business. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and the district court's order of restitution. The court concluded that, in light of all the evidence, there was no meaningful probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant, even if it had heard his mother and another unidentified individual testify that defendant was law-abiding. Accordingly, such error was harmless and the court affirmed defendant's conviction. The court also concluded that, by calculating restitution on the basis of the presentence investigation report's exaggerated "ceiling," the district court indisputably awarded restitution for claims outside the scope of the charged conspiracy. Because doing so was plain error, the court vacated the restitution award and remanded for recalculation. View "United States v. De Leon, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant, a former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). On appeal, defendant challenged her sentence and conviction, which stemmed from defendant's use of her political influence and power to further the objectives of a criminal enterprise. The court concluded that the voir dire in this case was sufficient and rejected defendant's challenges to the Government's use of peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky; there was no merit to defendant's assertion that she would be unable to raise a Double Jeopardy argument were she ever prosecuted a second time for conspiracy to violate RICO predicated on the same conduct alleged in the indictment; and the district court plainly erred in calculating the sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment based on money laundering instead of mail fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convict, but vacated the sentence, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Pratt" on Justia Law

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq., requires that certain employers provide written notice within 60 days in advance of any "mass layoff" at a "single site of employment." Plaintiffs filed suit against Signal, alleging that Signal's reduction in employment constituted a mass layoff under the WARN Act and Signal violated the Act by failing to provide proper notice. The district court concluded that Signal's two facilities constituted a single site of employment because they fell into a regulatory exception for "truly unusual organizational situations," and thus, workforce levels were to be measured across both facilities. The district court also concluded that the "snapshot" date of June 24, 2009, was representative of ordinary employment levels at Signal. The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that there was a mass layoff under the Act where the parties have stipulated that there was a mass layoff during the 90-day period following July 24, 2009, the date of the first layoff alleged by plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davis, et al. v. Signal Int'l Texas GP, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, chicken growers, filed suit and obtained a money judgment against PPC for damages arising from PPC's unlawful attempt to manipulate or control poultry prices. The court concluded that PPC's conduct was merely the legitimate response of a rational market participant to changes in a dynamic market. If a firm inadvertently over-produces a good and drives down prices, it did not break the law by cutting production so that prices could recover. Therefore, the court held that PPC did not violate the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), 7 U.S.C. 181 et seq., by reducing its commodity chicken output. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of PPC. View "Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Agerton, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their former employer seeking deferred compensation payments. The district court held that plaintiffs' deferred compensation arrangements in their Employment Agreement contracts with the employer constituted a plan under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Because plaintiffs' deferred compensation arrangements did not necessitate an ongoing administrative scheme, there was no ERISA plan. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that plaintiffs' state law claims were not preempted by ERISA. View "Cantrell, et al. v. Briggs & Veselka Co." on Justia Law