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

Defendant appealed the district court's imposition of a three-year term of supervised release as part of his criminal sentence. Defendant objected to the reasonableness of the 46 months of imprisonment and then added, "[a]lso [I] object to the term of supervised release that's imposed as an upward departure," to which the district court responded, "[t]hank you, sir." The court held that, in light of the district court's particularized remark at sentencing, defendant's sentence did not constitute error, plain or otherwise, Accordingly, the sentence was affirmed and the case remanded for amendment of the written judgment to conform to the oral sentence. View "United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former NFL player, filed suit seeking more generous disability benefits under the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plan, affirming its benefits determinations that plaintiff was only eligible for "Inactive" player disability benefits instead of the more generous "Football Degenerative" disability benefits he sought. The court held that the district court did not err by applying abuse of discretion review to the Retirement Board's 2011 benefits determination; the district court did not err in using abuse of discretion instead of a heightened standard of review when considering the arbitrator's decision; and the district court's decision affirming the Retirement Board's 2006 and 2011 benefits determination on the merits under the abuse of discretion standard was correct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plan. View "Atkins v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a related case currently pending in a United Kingdom Litigation, which arose from contractual disputes related to the exploration, development, and operation of oil blocks in Kurdistan, Iraq. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred by granting a motion to quash certain discovery subpoenas before plaintiff had an opportunity to respond in opposition and by not providing any reasons on the record for its decision. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded with instructions to allow plaintiff a reasonable period to respond to the motion and, thereafter, to provide written or oral reasons for the basis of its ruling. Otherwise, the district court was fully empowered to resolve these discovery disputes in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion. View "Texas Keystone, Inc. v. Prime Natural Resources, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 264-month sentence following his guilty plea to sexual exploitation of children. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a two-level enhancement for distribution of explicit materials involving a minor under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(3). The court affirmed the application of the enhancement and concluded that the district court properly determined that a co-defendant's distribution of images that defendant helped to create was relevant conduct attributable to defendant. View "United States v. Odom" on Justia Law

This case arose when American Airlines filed a lawsuit alleging state-law causes of action for breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective business relations. On appeal, Sabre challenged the district court's award of attorney's fees to American pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). The court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to American based on its assessment that Sabre did not have objectively reasonable grounds to believe removal of the case from state court to federal district court was legally proper. View "American Airlines, Inc. v. Sabre, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the host of a nationally syndicated radio show and the author of several books, appealed an adverse judgment in his suit against various defendants for copyright infringement, breach of contract, and tortious interference. Defendants cross-appealed the denial of attorneys' fees. Because the court agreed that the facts of this case supported the creation of an exclusive license as to the first work at issue, and an implied nonexclusive license as to the second work at issue, the court affirmed the jury's verdict that defendants did not infringe on plaintiff's copyrights. The court rejected the remaining challenges to the district court's judgment and affirmed in all respects. View "Baisden v. I'm Ready Productions, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Mississippi citizen, brought suit against the driver of a rental car, her passengers, and an Enterprise Rent-A-Car for a traffic accident. Defendants who are individuals are foreign nationals, believed to be from Great Britain. Various attempts at service were made but all failed. After granting two extensions of time, the district court dismissed the suit for lack of service. At issue was the timing requirement Rule 4 placed on foreign service of process. The court adopted a flexible due-diligence standard. The court also concluded that because Mississippi's statute of limitations likely barred refiling, this suit should not have been dismissed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Lozano v. Bosdet, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his non-Guidelines sentence of 108-months of imprisonment for illegal reentry. The court held that the district court did not lack jurisdiction to impose the 108-month sentence. The court held, however, that given the entire sentencing hearing, particularly the district court's implicit threat to raise defendant's sentence if he questioned the non-Guidelines sentence, the court concluded that the 108-month, non-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable because it constituted a clear error in judgment in balancing the sentencing factors under the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded the judgment. View "United States v. Gerezano-Rosales" on Justia Law

National Union brought this suit against AEC, seeking contribution to National Union's settlement of claims arising from the crash of a helicopter operated by National Union's insured. On appeal, National Union challenged the Texas district court's choice-of-law ruling and the Hawaii district court's refusal to allow jurisdictional discovery regarding AEC's Hawaii contacts before transferring the case. Because the court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals of the Hawaii district court's orders, the court agreed with the Texas district court's choice-of-law ruling, and affirmed the judgment. View "National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. American Eurocopter Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plains Capital and Boardwalk appealed a judgment finding them liable for conversion of the proceeds from a sale of a car that was subject to a tax lien. Boardwalk sold the car and gave the proceeds to Plains Capital to get Plains Capital to release the title, and Plains Capital applied the money to the taxpayer's debt. The IRS attempted to obtain the proceeds by levy after Plains Capital had applied the money to the debt, so Plains Capital claimed it no longer had any of the property. The court held that neither party was liable for conversion under Texas law but that Plains Capital was liable for failure to honor a tax levy. Because the court found that Plains Capital was liable for failure to honor a tax levy, interest accrued from the date it failed to honor the levy until the date the judgment was satisfied, at the underpayment rate in I.R.C. 6621(a)(2). Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Boardwalk Motor Sports, Ltd., et al." on Justia Law