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

Vanderbilt sued to foreclose against appellees for defaulting on their installment payments on a mobile home and appellees responded by claiming that they had been released from any underlying debt on the retail installment contract. Intervenors claimed that Vanderbilt, CMH, and their parent company CHI, had filed false liens on their land as collateral for appellees' retail installment contract. The court affirmed the judgment and award of damages with respect to intervenors' claims. The court reversed and remanded the judgment as to Vanderbilt's claims against appellees, as well as appellees' counterclaims. View "Vanderbilt Mtge. and Fin. Inc. v. Flores, et al." on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood obtained a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of regulations which stated that health care providers participating in a Medicaid-like program must not perform or promote elective abortions. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of these regulations, reasoning that the regulations likely violated Planned Parenthood's rights to free speech and association, and denied them equal protection of the laws. The court held that the district court issued the preliminary injunction based on a wholesale assessment of the regulations' constitutionality, which gave insufficient attention to Texas' authority to subsidize speech of its choosing within its programs. Accordingly, the order of the district court granting the preliminary injunction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Planned Parenthood Assoc., et al. v. Suehs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her social security disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ improperly disregarded evidence from her treating physicians without re-contacting him to obtain further documentation. Because (1) the ALJ had no duty to re-contact that physician where the record contained sufficient evidence from other physicians and (2) any error was harmless even if the ALJ were required to re-contact the doctor, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jones v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the district court's judgment denying his petition for habeas relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan. Petitioner argued that Martinez invalidated the district court's conclusion that he procedurally defaulted on his certificate of appealability issues. The court concluded that Texas procedures did not mandate that ineffectiveness claims be heard in the first instance in habeas proceedings and they did not by law deprive Texas defendants of counsel-and court-driven guidance in pursuing ineffectiveness claims. Therefore, the court held that petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Martinez for his ineffectiveness claims, as Texas procedures entitled him to review through counselled motions for new trial and direct appeal. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's motion to vacate the district court's judgment. View "Ibarra v. Thaler" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant liable to plaintiff under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.54, for injuries caused by a defect that rendered one of its stucco pumps unreasonably dangerous. The central disputes on appeal were whether the theories offered by plaintiff's experts met the standards for scientific reliability under the Federal Rules of Evidence and whether the jury's imposition of liability for a defect in "construction or composition" of the pump could stand. The court held that none of the expert evidence was improperly admitted and that there was no basis to set aside the jury's finding of a defect under Section 9:2800.55. The court considered the comparative fault challenges, plaintiff's Rule 50 motion on a design defect under Section 9:2800.56, and finally, explained why the increase in the medical award was appropriate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict as modified by the district court. View "Roman v. Western Manufacturing, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, developer of a passive radio frequency identification (RFID) system for commercial use, alleged a number of Texas claims against a group of software companies in state court. Defendants moved the suit to federal court and obtained a dismissal from the district court on the basis that all of plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Copyright Act, 28 U.S.C. 1338. The court held that the complete preemption doctrine applied in copyright preemption cases; plaintiff had pled factual allegations that at least in part fell outside of the scope of copyright; and defendants have argued enough of a basis for preemption on plaintiff's conversion claim to stay in federal court. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana's Act 490, which amended Louisiana's Outpatient Abortion Facility Licensing Law of 2001. The district court granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss, holding that the claims were not ripe. The court affirmed because plaintiffs have failed to show that hardship would result from withholding court consideration at this time. View "Choice Inc. of Texas, et al. v. Greenstein" on Justia Law

An FCC investigation concluded that Jerry and Deborah Stevens operated an unlicensed FM radio station from their Austin, Texas residence in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934. The FCC issued a forfeiture order in the amount of $10,000. Thereafter, the government brought an action to enforce the forfeiture in district court pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(a). The Stevenses moved to dismiss the enforcement action, arguing that the FCC lacked jurisdiction to regulate intrastate broadcasts and that section 301 did not apply to radio broadcasts. The district court denied the motion, determining it did not have jurisdiction to consider legal challenges to the validity of an FCC forfeiture order in a section 504(a) enforcement action. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Stevenses' legal defenses in the government's action to enforce the forfeiture order, as the Stevens failed to raise legal challenges to the validity of the order in a timely petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals. View "United States v. Stevens" on Justia Law

David Scruggs pleaded guilty to a one-count superseding information charging misprision of a felony. After he was released from prison but before the conclusion of his term of supervised release, Scruggs filed a motion to vacate conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. After a hearing, the district court denied Scruggs's section 2255 motion and granted a certificate of appealability on three issues. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the information charged an offense against the laws of the United States, Scruggs's claim that, under Skilling v. United States, the district court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea was without merit; (2) Scruggs failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest; and (3) Scruggs failed to show that alleged governmental misconduct induced him to plea guilty. View "United States v. Scruggs" on Justia Law

Debtor filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13. After Debtor filed her petition and plan, the Trustee objected to confirmation of the plan, asserting that Debtor's petition and plan were not filed in good faith and that the amount of attorney's fees sought by Debtor was unreasonable. The bankruptcy court overruled the Trustee's objection and approved Debtor's Chapter 13 petition and plan and the requested legal fees and advanced legal costs. The district court reversed, finding that Debtor's plan was filed in bad faith. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and affirmed the bankruptcy court, holding (1) it was not clearly erroneous for the bankruptcy court to find Debtor's plan was not an attempt to abuse Chapter 13 but rather a responsible decision given her particular circumstances, and thus, the district court erred when it reversed the bankruptcy court on the ground that Debtor's plan was filed in bad faith; and (2) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded $2,800 in attorney fees to Debtor's counsel. View "Sikes v. Crager" on Justia Law