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

Defendants, manufacturers and distributors of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels, jointly removed this case to federal district court on the grounds that (1) the action was a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(1)(B), or (2) the action was a mass action under the CAFA. The State moved to remand the case to state court and the district court granted the motion. Because it was undisputed that there were more than 100 consumers, the court found that there were more than 100 claims at issue in this case. Further, no disqualifying exceptions to the term "mass action" was applicable. Consequently, the suit qualified as a mass action under the CAFA and the court found removal to be proper. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a successive federal habeas petition, contending that he was mentally retarded and ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The district court denied relief, but granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the state court's determination that petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he had significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning was unreasonable. The court concluded that the state court's determination was not unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lewis v. Thaler" on Justia Law

The Corps contracted with Atlantic for the construction of a child development center and Atlantic entered into a Subcontract Agreement with J-Crew for labor and materials. The Subcontract Agreement included a forum-selection clause, which provided that disputes shall be litigated in Virginia courts. Ignoring the forum-selection clause, J-Crew filed suit against Atlantic in Texas. Applying 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), the district court denied Atlantic's motion to transfer, finding that Atlantic had not met its burden of showing why the interest of justice or the convenience of the parties and their witnesses weighed in favor of transferring the case to Virginia. Atlantic subsequently petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to dismiss or transfer the case. Because the court found that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by considering enforcement of the forum-selection clause under section 1404(a), instead of under Rule 12(b)(3) and section 1406; and by conducting its analysis under section 1404(a), the court denied the petition. View "In re: Atlantic Marine Const Co. Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute over annuity payments. Counter Defendants, RSL, appealed the district court's decision to abstain based on the doctrine of Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States. Under the Colorado River doctrine, a court could abstain from a case that was part of parallel, duplicative litigation under "exceptional circumstances." The court examined the six relevant factors under Colorado River and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should determine whether RSL was entitled to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. 3. The district court must determine in the first instance whether any issues or claims decided by the state court were entitled to preclusive effect. View "Saucier v. Aviva Life and Annuity Co." on Justia Law

This was a direct appeal from the bankruptcy court involving a dispute with contract vendors. The court held that the reservation language in the Reorganization Plan was sufficiently specific and unequivocal under In re United Operating, LLC. The court could not find, however, that the Litigation Trustee had standing to sue each of the appellees here. The Reservation Plan specifically carved out released claims. Accordingly, the Litigation Trustee lacked standing to bring, and the bankruptcy court was without jurisdiction to hear, any such claims. Therefore, the court vacated the bankruptcy court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Compton v. Aker Pusnes AS, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant, an inmate on death row, challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment concerning his claim that Mississippi's lethal injection procedures violated his Eight Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Because Baze v. Rees precluded the remedy sought, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Thorson v. Epps, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his age-discrimination claims under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 21. After defendant investigated the allegation that plaintiff falsified his work and determined that he had, defendant terminated his employment. Because plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that his age was a motivating factor in his termination or that defendant created a hostile work environment, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc." on Justia Law

An indictment charged defendant with being a felon in possession (Count 1) and for being a felon in possession of ammunition (Count 2). On appeal, defendant subsequently challenged his convictions and sentence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; no material variance existed between the indictment, which charged defendant with possession of a firearm and a box of ammunition, and the proof at trial, which showed a loaded firearm and two boxes of ammunition; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to impeach its witness with a prior inconsistent statement; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting defendant's prior inconsistent statement; the government did not engage in misconduct during closing argument. The court held, however, that defendant's sentences violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and therefore vacated the sentences, remanding for dismissal for one of the counts of the indictment. View "United States v. Meza, III" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The court held that the district court committed plain error by structuring his sentence to be served concurrently with a discharged state sentence and consequently, defendant's substantial rights were seriously effected. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Kirklin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Texas state prisoner, exhausted his state remedies and moved to file a habeas corpus petition. The district court dismissed the application without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2244, holding the petition was a second or successive petition. The court held that there was no precedent for holding a claim previously dismissed without prejudice for failure to meet the exhaustion requirement was a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2) if refiled after exhaustion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, holding that petitioner's petition was not a second or successive petition within the meaning of section 2244. View "Strickland v. Thaler" on Justia Law