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

Nabors appealed the district court's denial of its motion to compel the arbitration of plaintiff's age discrimination claim. When plaintiff began working for Nabors, plaintiff signed an Employee Acknowledgment Form indicating his agreement to resolve disputes through the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program. The court reversed the district court's order and remanded for entry of an order compelling arbitration because the court found that plaintiff agreed to conclusively resolve this dispute through arbitration. View "Klein v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P." on Justia Law

Western appealed a bankruptcy court order confirming a Chapter 11 cramdown plan and denying Western's motion for relief from the automatic stay. The court expressly rejected Matter of Windsor on the River Associates, Ltd. and joined the Ninth Circuit in holding that 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(10) did not distinguish between discretionary and economically driven impairment. In light of the record in this case, the court could not conclude that the district court clearly erred in its section 1129(a)(3) analysis, particularly as the court has recognized that a single-asset debtor's desire to protect its equity could be a legitimate Chapter 11 objective. The court emphasized, however, that the court's decision did not circumscribe the factors bankruptcy courts could consider in evaluating a plan proponent's good faith. Because the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in confirming the Village's plan, Western's theory of cause necessarily also failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Western Real Estate Equities v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a twelve-level adjustment to his base offense level for his previous commission of a drug trafficking offense. Because defendant did not object to the application of the adjustment, the court reviewed for plain error. Concluding that the sentencing error, if any, did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, the court declined to exercise its discretion to correct it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Duque-Hernandez" on Justia Law

First American appealed the district court's grant of CNA's motion for summary judgment. First American challenged the district court's conclusion that a claims-made-and-reported policy's requirement that conditioned coverage on CNA's receiving of a written report of a claim within the policy's effective period was enforceable in a Direct Action case under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 22:1269(B)(1). The policy at issue was a Lawyers Professional Liability Policy. The court concluded, in light of its precedent and the Louisiana Supreme Court's holdings in Anderson v. Ichinose and Hood v. Cotter, that the Direct Action Statute did not trump the reporting provision in CNA's claims-made-and-reported policy's insuring clause, which required that a claim be reported to CNA within the Policy's effective period. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in CNA's favor. View "First American Title Ins. Co. v. Continental Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of possession of child pornography and three counts of distribution of child pornography. The court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the inculpatory emails found on one of his email accounts; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; and defendant's convictions were not multiplicitous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Woerner" on Justia Law

Sundown claimed that Mid-Continent prematurely tendered the limits of Sundown's primary and umbrella policies while undercutting Sundown's ability to defend a class action suit for environmental damage following Hurricane Katrina and Rita. The court held that the district court did not err when it held that there was no cause of action under Texas common law for breach of an insurer's duty of good faith and fair dealing in the context of third-party claims; Texas rather than Louisiana law governed Sundown's claims for breach of the duty; and the district court did not err in holding against Sundown on its statutory claims for unfair settlement practices. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Eland Energy Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against a law enforcement officer, the City of Amarillo, and other defendants, alleging that the officer had wrongfully arrested him two years earlier. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his suit because he failed to show good cause for the delay in perfection of service. Because the district court's warning of dismissal and grant of extensions accompanied by generous allotments of time did not influence plaintiff to effect service properly, the court could not say that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's claim. View "Thrasher v. Amarillo Police Dept, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff had petitioned under 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) for review of his denied naturalization application but the district court determined that he could not demonstrate good moral character as a matter of law, a prerequisite of naturalization. The court affirmed and held that a "hearing de novo" within the meaning of section 1421(c) encompassed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 review on summary judgment; consideration of prior conduct was appropriate where the conduct was relevant to assessing the applicant's moral character or present conduct indicated poor moral character; affidavit evidence of present conduct, without more, could not create a genuine issue of material fact as to moral character where it conflicted with probative evidence of prior conduct; and collateral estoppel applied to an applicant's testimony in naturalization proceedings where that testimony, if credited, attacked an essential premise underlying a prior criminal conviction. View "Kariuki v. Tarango, et al" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a government contract to dredge a portion of the Houston-Galveston navigation channel. At issue was the scope of a corporate officer's personal liability under 31 U.S.C. 3713 (the Priority Statute). The court concluded that the decision of a corporate officer rendered pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7101 et seq., was a "claim" within the meaning of the Priority Statute; a debtor's representative had "notice" of that claim, necessary to trigger personal liability under the Priority Statute, when he had actual knowledge of its existence, whether or not he consulted counsel as to its validity; no genuine issue of material fact remained, and the government was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the affirmative defenses and denying the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Renda" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted with possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and conspiracy to do the same. Defendant transported four pounds of methamphetamine that was secreted within a cooler. A jury reasonably found that he conspired to distribute the drugs, and the government permissibly used financial documents to undermine his alibi. Because he was not a minor participant in the conspiracy and obstructed justice when he testified, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Perez-Solis" on Justia Law