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

A magistrate certified that petitioner could be extradited to Argentina to stand trial for fraud. Petitioner contended that his alleged fraud was not an extraditable offense, arguing that because the government did not establish the value of the goods he obtained, his possible jail term under domestic law could not exceed one year. Because competent evidence supported the certifying magistrate's determination that petitioner committed an offense within the scope of the extradition treaty, the court affirmed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus. View "Balzan v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, doing business as Paddle Tramps, appealed the district court's order granting a partial preliminary injunction against his use of trademarks belonging to 32 Greek Organizations. The Greek Organizations cross-appealed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that to prove unclean hands, the Greek Organizations had to show that plaintiff knowingly and intentionally infringed upon the marks with the bad faith intent to benefit from or capitalize on the Greek Organization's goodwill by confusing or deceiving buyers; the evidence was legally sufficient to allow a jury to find for plaintiff on the unclean hands issue because it supported a showing of plaintiff's lack of bad faith; the district court did not abuse its discretion in its instruction to the jury on the lack-of-excuse element of laches and on undue prejudice; and the jury's finding of undue prejudice was supported by the evidence. Therefore, the district court correctly denied the Greek Organization's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court also held that the district court properly balanced the equities in resolving this dispute and did not abuse its discretion in fashioning injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega, et al" on Justia Law

Robert C. Morris, a current Texas prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting that he was entitled to monetary damage as a result of an alleged illegal search and that, because the trial court had dismissed his conviction, he was now able to present his section 1983 claims pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey. The trial court's early release order merely concluded that Morris satisfactorily completed a sufficient percentage of his community supervision and that dismissal of the proceedings and the remainder of his term was appropriate under Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. art. 42.12 section 20. The court held that the language in the order was not equivalent to an order invalidating his conviction. The order did not include express language dismissing his indictment, nor did it state his guilty plea was withdrawn, that the verdict was set aside, or that his civil liberties were restored. Accordingly, the court held that the district judge properly concluded that Morris's claims were barred by Heck. The court also held that Morris's remaining two arguments were unavailing and therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "Morris v. McAllester, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for transporting child pornography and for possessing child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the indictment without prejudice; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting two exhibits of child pornography. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Blank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a Title VII discrimination suit against his employer, the Department of Homeland Security. At issue on appeal was whether the parties had reached an enforceable settlement. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff was bound by the terms of his attorney's settlement offer. Further, the court never held that the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee was implicated by defective representation in Title VII proceedings and plaintiff had introduced no evidence to suggest that his attorney's representation was less than competent. View "Quesada v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Liberty Mutual insured PPI and PPI was retained by several third parties to assist in planning well-drilling operations. After a well was drilled in the wrong area, PPI was sued by the third parties, PPI then sought defense and indemnification from Liberty Mutual but Liberty Mutual refused. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of PPI's breach of contract claim because it had no duty to defend. Both parties acknowledged that the duty-to-indemnify issue was now moot. Because the court affirmed the breach of contract claim's dismissal, the court affirmed the breach of the Texas Insurance Code claim and breach of the good faith and fair dealing claims. View "PPI Technology Services, L.P. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Three cases related to the Mexican reorganization of Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., a corporation organized under the laws of Mexico, were consolidated before the court. The Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders, a group of creditors holding a substantial amount of Vitro's debt, appealed from the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's recognition of the Mexican reorganization proceeding and Vitro's appointed foreign representatives under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Vitro and one of its largest third-party creditors each appealed directly to the court the bankruptcy court's decision denying enforcement of the Mexican reorganization plan because the plan would extinguish the obligations of non-debtor guarantors. The court affirmed in all respects the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the bankruptcy court in No. 12-10542, and the court affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court in Nos. 12-0689 and 12-10750. The temporary restraining order originally entered by the bankruptcy court, the expiration of which was stayed by the court, was vacated, effective with the issuance of the court's mandate in Nos. 12-10689 and 12-10750. View "Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de C.V." on Justia Law

This case arose from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico where an explosion killed 11 workers, caused the drilling platform to sink, and resulted in a major uncontrolled release of oil. At Presidential direction, those events prompted the Department of the Interior to prohibit all new and existing oil and gas drilling operations on the Outer Continental Shelf for six months. The district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the moratorium. At issue on appeal was whether the Interior's subsequent actions violated a specific provision of the court's injunction, justifying a finding of civil contempt. The court held that even though the Interior immediately took steps to avoid the effect of the injunction, the court concluded that none of those actions violated the court's order. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Hornbeck Offshore Services, et al v. Salazar, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were passengers on a chartered fishing boat insured by St. Paul Fire when they were involved in an accident with a utility boat owned by non-party Harvest Oil and insured by Steadfast Insurance Company. Steadfast subsequently appealed from the district court's order denying it summary judgment and granting summary judgment to plaintiffs. The court held that plaintiffs' contention that Steadfast failed to reserve its rights with respect to the watercraft exclusion was without merit. The court also held that, because the automatic stay did apply to plaintiffs' claim against Harvest in the 2008 case, that case had remained stayed since Harvest filed for bankruptcy and the court could not lift the stay until the bankruptcy court closes or dismissed Harvest's bankruptcy case; neither claim preclusion nor issue preclusion would prevent Harvest from litigating the issues decided in this case; and even if plaintiffs had produced sufficient evidence of inconsistent conduct to survive summary judgment, plaintiffs produced no evidence that Steadfast's conduct in this case prejudiced Harvest. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered summary judgment for Steadfast. View "Sosebee, et al v. Steadfast Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of more than five grams of cocaine base. Defendant subsequently appealed his sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), 21 U.S.C. 844(a), because the conduct giving rise to the offense took place before August 19, 2008, the date of defendant's initial indictment. The court held that defendant's five-year term of imprisonment exceeded the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by the post-FSA version of 21 U.S.C. 844(a). Furthermore, defendant's three-year term of supervised release exceeded the maximum authorized term of supervised release. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law