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

Plaintiff filed suit against Exxon Mobil alleging damages caused by exposure to naturally occurring radioactive material. On appeal, Exxon Mobil challenged the dismissal of its intervention based on the district court's ruling that a memorandum prepared by Exxon Mobil's in-house counsel was ineligible for the protections of the attorney-client privilege. The court concluded that the manifest purpose of the memorandum was to deal with what would be the obvious reason Exxon Mobil would seek its lawyer's advice in the first place, namely to deal with any legal liability that may stem from under-disclosure of data, hedged against any liability that may occur from any implied warranties during complex negotiations. Accordingly, the court concluded that the memorandum was privileged and vacated and remanded the judgment of the district court. View "Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Hill, et al." on Justia Law

These appeals concerned a suit filed under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and two bankruptcy proceedings. The district court concluded that the bankruptcy trustee had exclusive standing to assert the FCA claims at issue because those claims belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The court agreed with the district court that only the trustee had standing to prosecute the FCA lawsuit; affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6); and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. View "Westbrook Navigator L.L.C., et al v. Navistar, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for multiple drug and gun violations. Defendant decided to testify during trial and confessed to all of the crimes charged. At the trial's conclusion, believing no factual issue remained for the jury, the district court instructed the jury "to go back and find the Defendant guilty." As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that defendant preserved his Sixth Amendment argument for appeal. On the merits, the court concluded that the Sixth Amendment safeguards even an obviously guilty defendant's right to have a jury decide guilt or innocence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and six counts of aiding and abetting healthcare fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to justify the district court in concluding that defendant knew about the fraudulent upcoding and that the government proved defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; even assuming that the district court erred in a bench trial in excluding defendant's polygraph evidence, the court held that the error was harmless; and the district court did not err in applying an abuse-of-trust enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Willett" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court improperly engaged in the plea negotiations. The court concluded that, in this instance, the district court did more than offer generic commentary about the pros and cons of plea offers. The district court gave specific examples of negative results for defendants who rejected plea offers, it compared the evidence in defendant's case with other cases, and it suggested through a "success story" that favorable results could occur when a defendant pleads guilty. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings before a different district judge. View "United States v. Hemphill" on Justia Law

This case involved the rights to broadcast the Floyd "Money" Mayweather, Jr. v. Ricky Watton WBC Welterweight Championship Fight. On appeal, defendants challenged summary judgment in favor of J&J on its Federal Communication Act (FCA) claims pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 553 & 605. J&J alleged that defendants violated sections 553 and 605 by receiving and displaying the fight without first paying a licensing fee to J&J. The court concluded that J&J failed to meet its summary judgment burden under section 553 where there was at least a dispute of material fact as to whether defendants fell into the "safe harbor," that precluded the imposition of liability on the majority of cable recipients - customers of cable providers. This exclusion constrained the reach of the statute by exempting from liability those individuals who receive authorization from a cable operator. The court joined the majority of circuits in holding that section 605 does not encompass the conduct presented here: the receipt or interception of communications by wire from a cable system. The court concluded that the plain language of the statute compelled this interpretation. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Mandell Family Ventures L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for embezzling government funds, witness tampering, and several other offenses related to her work at a Mississippi housing authority. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial following the playing of an unobjected-to tape recording in court in which she stated that no jury would convict her of the charged offenses. Even assuming that defendant had made a timely objection to the evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where the tape recording was highly probative of defendant's intent to retaliate against SDRHA employees who cooperated with the FBI's investigation, and she was on trial for three counts of retaliation. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions on all counts. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court should have sequestered the jury or changed the trial venue due to negative media coverage surrounding the trial. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence of thirty-two months imprisonment was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a Louisiana state court judge under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985, alleging a deprivation of civil rights. The judge presided over a custody proceeding between plaintiff and his ex-wife. Plaintiff moved to recuse the judge based on his suspicion that the judge had a social relationship with his ex-wife. The motion was denied. Plaintiff later renewed the recusal motion and the judge issued an order recusing himself, citing his friendship with the ex-wife. Plaintiff then filed this suit seeking monetary damages. Plaintiff alleged that the judge and his ex-wife conspired to make false statements at the first recusal hearing. The court concluded that when the judge testified, he was testifying as a witness in an adversarial proceeding and thus was absolutely immune from section 1983 liability. The court also concluded that the section 1985 claim was inadequately pled because a violation under section 1985 required class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirator's action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Moffett v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's suit against her former employer, the USPS, arose out of events that occurred during her employment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's dismissal of her complaint. The court concluded that the collective bargaining agreement between the union of which plaintiff was a member and the USPS did not clearly and unmistakably require her to resolve claims arising under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, through arbitration; the court agreed with the district court that the agreement’s incorporation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701, was sufficiently clear and unmistakable to waive her right to bring claims under that statute in federal court; and plaintiff no longer had standing to seek injunctive relief because she has retired. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Gilbert v. Donahoe" on Justia Law

Baker Botts and Jordan Hyden served as debtor's counsel to ASARCO during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy and helped ASARCO confirm a reorganization plan that paid all of its creditors in full. At issue on appeal was whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in authorizing a 20% premium to Baker Botts and 10% premium to Jordan Hyden for their unusually successful fraudulent transfer litigation. Also at issue was whether the bankruptcy court was authorized, consistent with 11 U.S.C. 330, to award attorneys' fees to the firms for defending their fee application in court. The court affirmed as to the fee enhancements awarded to Baker Botts and Jordan Hyden where the district court's 85-page opinion on fees described with specificity and in detail Baker Botts's "rare and exceptional" performance and where Jordan Hyden's attorneys were an integral part of the successful team effort. The court reversed as to additional fee awards for litigation concerning fee applications, concluding that section 330(a) does not authorize compensation for the costs counsel or professionals bear to defend their fee applications. View "Asarco, L.L.C., et al. v. Jordan Hyden Womble Culbreth" on Justia Law