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

Defendant was convicted of distribution of a controlled substance. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of a lesser-included-offense instruction and the district court's admission of baggies of cocaine into evidence. The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that simple possession of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 844(a) was not a lesser-included offense of distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a lesser-included offense jury instruction. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the baggies into evidence where any prejudice attributable to these baggies was outweighed by their probative ability to link defendant to the DEA agent's purchase. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ambriz" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs became eligible for an award of overtime wages after a jury found plaintiffs, executive managers of Party City, were misclassified by their employer as exempt under the the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. At issue on appeal was how much overtime pay Party City owed to its employees under the FLSA. The court held that the record evidence clearly showed that plaintiffs were paid a fixed weekly salary and were expected to work fluctuating weekly hours. Therefore, the district court's 55-hour method of calculating unpaid overtime damages was error, because it miscomprehended the employment arrangement and utilized a divisor of 55 in calculating plaintiffs' regular rate of pay rather than applying a divisor equal to the number of hours actually worked in such workweek. Accordingly, the court reversed the erroneous amount of damages awarded and vacated the amount of actual damages, remanding for recalculation. The court also vacated the award of liquidated damages and the amount of attorneys' fee award, remanding for reconsideration. View "Ransom, et al. v. M. Patel Enterprises, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, members of a certified class of securities fraud plaintiffs whose certification order was vacated in 2004 (the Drnek action), filed a class action in 2009 reciting the same claims previously outlined in the Drnek action. The district court concluded that plaintiffs' claims have been extinguished because they filed their class action more than five years after the Drnek court vacated its certification order. The court held that the Drnek court's vacatur of certification caused American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah tolling to cease and the statute of repose to resume running. Because plaintiffs brought this action after the statute of repose expired, their claim has been extinguished. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hall, et al. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others, filed suit against several governmental and private parties after her husband died in a training accident at the Texas Department of Public Safety Training Academy. Because this case involved important and determinative questions of Texas law as to which there was no controlling Texas precedent, the court certified questions to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the receipt of benefits under Texas Labor Code 417.002. View "Carty v. Texas Dep't of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a general partnership comprised of two musicians, filed suit alleging copyright infringement against defendant, Lakewood Church, over the use of a song entitled, "Signaling Through the Flames." Plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate its voluntary dismissal under Rule 60(b), which the district court granted. Defendant appealed. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice was a final proceeding under Rule 60(b) and the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. View "Yesh Music, et al. v. Lakewood Church, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a nonsubscriber action under Texas Labor Code 406.033 against her employer, Home Depot, claiming that Home Depot's negligence caused her on-the-job-injury. On appeal, Home Depot appealed the district court's remand after Home Depot removed the case to federal court. Because the policy underlying 28 U.S.C. 1445(c) and this court's instruction that ambiguities in removal statutes should be construed against removal, the district court construed section 1445(c) in favor of remand. Accordingly, the court had no authority to review such remand orders and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. View "Ernewayn v. Home Depot USA, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved the foreclosure sale of certain property owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of their claims against BAC and NDE under the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), Tex. Fin. Code 392.304(a), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 17.41 et seq., and Texas common law. The court concluded that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim against BAC for misrepresenting the status or nature of the services that it rendered. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the TDCA claims under section 392.304(a)(14) as to that basis, remanding for further proceedings. Consequently, the court also reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' request for an accounting from NDE. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Miller, et al. v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conditions of supervised release stemming from his conviction for possessing and attempting to possess child pornography. The court concluded that although the district court failed to provide any explanation of reasons supporting defendant's sentence, this error did not constitute reversible plain error because defendant was sentenced to a within-Guidelines sentence of 30 months and defendant failed to demonstrate how a fuller explanation would have altered his sentence. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the district court's imposition of the special conditions because he could not demonstrate that any error affected his substantial rights. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not orally pronouncing the challenged standard conditions where the subject conditions were categorized as "standard" in the judgment form and there was record evidence supporting these conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rouland" on Justia Law

Defendant, a psychiatrist, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; six counts of health care fraud relating to six specific patients; six counts of false statements relating to health care matters relating to six specific insurance claims; one count of money laundering; and two counts of engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from unlawful activity. Defendant raise numerous issues on appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. The court concluded that the only errors that the court found - the erroneous application of two sentencing enhancements and the failure to inquire whether either party requested that the jury determine forfeiture - related to sentencing and thus clearly did not require reversal of the convictions. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, W-G, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., after W-G terminated his employment. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for W-G on the ADA claim, concluding that plaintiff was "currently engaging" in illegal drug use and was fired "on the basis of such use," and that plaintiff did not qualify for the safe harbor under section 12114(b). The court also affirmed summary judgment in favor of W-G on plaintiff's FMLA claim where no reasonable jury could find that he was denied reinstatement for any reason other than his refusal to continue his FMLA leave period for the express purpose for which it was taken, which was completing his drug dependency treatment. View "Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp., et al." on Justia Law