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

Appellant and his children brought tort claims against Placid in connection with the allegedly asbestos-related illness and death of his wife. On appeal, appellants challenged the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's grant of Placid's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed, concluding that appellants were unknown creditors whose pre-petition claims were discharged by Placid's constructive notice and that Placid's notice was not substantively deficient. The court has never required bar date notices to contain information about specific potential claims and neither the Bankruptcy Court nor Rules require bar date notices to apprise creditors of potential claims. The court held that because a bar date notice need not inform unknown claimants of the nature of their potential claims, Placid's notices were substantively sufficient to satisfy due process. View "Williams, Sr., et al. v. Placid Oil Co." on Justia Law

Elizabeth Mosley, a volunteer driver for LogistiCare, provided non-emergency medical transportation services for Medicaid patients using an automobile insured by State Farm. After Mosley was involved in an accident in which she was driving and Pearlie Graham was injured, Graham's heirs filed suit against Mosley and LogistiCare in Mississippi state court. State Farm filed suit in federal court seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Mosley or LogistiCare in the underlying action. The court concluded that collateral estoppel did not prevent State Farm from litigating the "for a charge" exclusion contained in the insurance policy in the present case; the allegations do not sufficiently trigger the "for a charge" exclusion and therefore do not absolve State Farm of its duty to defend LogistiCare and Mosley; the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm as to the duty to defend; but the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm as to the duty to indemnify. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Mosley, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry. The court concluded that an offense defined by Louisiana Revised Statutes section 14:34, as narrowed pursuant to the modified categorical approach, qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 because it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the person of another. Because section 14:34 criminalizes aggravated batteries committed by administering poison, which does not necessarily entail the destructive or violent use of physical force, the statute as a whole does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence. In this case, the court may narrow the statute of conviction under the modified categorical approach to exclude the possibility that defendant was convicted of aggravated battery committed by means of poisoning. The court concluded that the offense for which defendant was convicted necessarily had as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the person of another and therefore qualifies as a crime of violence under section 2L1.2. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Herrera-Alvarez" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's Final Judgment which rejected the government's efforts to tax Burnett Ranches as a "farming syndicate" tax shelter per I.R.C. 464. The court agreed with the district court that an otherwise qualified individual who has participated in management of the farming operation for not less than five years comes within the Active Participation Exception in section 464(c)(2)(A), irrespective of the fact that the legal title of such individual's attributable interest happens to be held in the name of her wholly owned S corp. rather than in her own name. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's lift of the stay of its earlier ruling and made final judgment in favor of Burnett Ranches. View "Burnett Ranches, Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to reentry of a deported alien. The government withheld an additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b) for pretrial acceptance of responsibility solely because defendant refused to waive his right to appeal. Amendment 755 to the Sentencing Guidelines became effective after defendant was sentenced but while this appeal was pending. Amendment 755 provides that the government should not withhold a section 3E1.1(b) motion based on interests not identified in section 3E1.1, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive his right to appeal. Concluding that the amended Guidelines applied to this case, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Palacios" on Justia Law

ACL sought a declaratory judgment that certain vessels chartering agreements with DRD were void ab initio. The district court dismissed based on the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action where ACL's position in the declaratory judgment action clearly contradicted its earlier position in a related proceeding that the charters were valid, which had been accepted by the district court. View "American Commercial Lines, L.L.C. v. D.R.D. Towing Co., L.L.C." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 211 kilograms of marijuana. The district court found that defendant was responsible for 2,648.8 additional kilograms of marijuana as relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines. The resulting increase in his base offense level, combined with the effects of other challenged sentencing factors, enhanced his prison sentence substantially. The court rejected defendant's Sixth Amendment contention, which requires facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence to be found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the government breached its plea agreement by advocating for the obstruction of justice enhancement and failing to recommend the acceptance of responsibility reduction. The court concluded that there was no indication on the record that this affected his mandatory minimum sentence and the district court did not plainly err in sentencing defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hinojosa" on Justia Law

This case concerned gypsum wallboard (Chinese drywall) manufactured by Chinese companies and sold to United States companies. Homeowners experienced problems with the drywall and affected parties sued entities involved in the manufacturing, importing, and installing of the drywall. This appeal encompasses three cases in the Chinese Drywall multidistrict litigation - Mitchell, Gross, and Wiltz. Picking up where the court left off in Germano v. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd., the court held that personal jurisdiction lies over Taishan Gypsum Company, Limited, and Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Company, Limited, in their respective cases. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to vacate the preliminary default entered in Mitchell. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation" on Justia Law

Petitioners appealed the judgment of the Tax Court rendered pursuant to I.R.C. 7483. The court affirmed the Tax Court's judgment sustaining the Commissioner's determination that petitioners had an income tax deficiency and an accuracy-related addition to tax for 2007 as the result of unreported income and disallowed deductions for charitable contributions. View "Gunkle, et al. v. CIR" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Medicaid beneficiaries with near total disabilities, filed suit after being denied coverage for ceiling lifts under a categorical exclusion in the state's implementing Medicaid regulations. The district court granted summary judgment for the state. The court concluded that, under binding precedent, plaintiffs have an implied private cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to pursue their challenge; the state must comply with the requirements of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., but the Act does not preempt the state's categorical exclusions; and therefore, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment and denied the motion to vacate. View "Detgen, et al. v. Janek" on Justia Law