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

In 2018, DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. (DB&A), a management consulting firm, hired Justin Pethick as a regional vice president of sales. In 2020, Pethick accepted a job offer from The Randall Powers Company (the Powers Co.), a competitor. After Pethick joined the Powers Co., some prospective DB&A clients hired the Powers Co. DB&A alleged that Pethick stole its trade secrets and used them to poach clients.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas excluded DB&A’s damages expert under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing DB&A’s lack of evidence of damages. DB&A appealed, contesting the exclusion of its expert and the summary judgment on its misappropriation of trade secrets claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that to prevail on a misappropriation of trade secrets claim under Texas law, a plaintiff must show that a trade secret existed, it was acquired through a breach of a confidential relationship or discovered by improper means, and the defendant used the trade secret without authorization. The court found that DB&A failed to identify specific trade secrets within its databases and did not provide evidence that Pethick or the Powers Co. used or disclosed any trade secrets. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of DB&A’s misappropriation claim on these alternative grounds. View "DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. v. Pethick" on Justia Law

Former employees of Shriners Hospitals for Children were terminated for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccination. They sued their employer, its agents, and the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services, alleging violations of their right to refuse the vaccine under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Statute, and various Texas state laws.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed all claims. It found no personal jurisdiction over the agents due to the fiduciary shield doctrine, determined that Shriners was not a state actor when it implemented the vaccination policy, and ruled that the EUA Statute did not apply. The court also dismissed the claims against the Commissioner, concluding she was not liable for failing to stop Shriners from enforcing the policy. The state-law claims were dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It agreed that there was no personal jurisdiction over the agents and that Shriners was not a state actor when it adopted the vaccination policy. The court also held that the EUA Statute did not apply to Shriners in its capacity as an employer and that the Commissioner was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a clearly established right requiring her intervention. The appellate court modified the dismissal of the state-law claims to be without prejudice and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Pearson v. Shriners Hospitals" on Justia Law

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) adopted a rule requiring current lessees of offshore drilling facilities in the Gulf of Mexico to obtain financial assurance bonds to cover potential future decommissioning liabilities. Several states and industry groups sued to vacate the rule, arguing it imposed undue financial burdens. The American Petroleum Institute (API), representing a broad range of oil and gas companies, sought to intervene in defense of the rule, claiming its members had unique interests in upholding it.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied API's motion to intervene. The court found the motion procedurally defective because API did not attach a proposed answer to its motion, as required by local rules. Substantively, the court concluded that API failed to demonstrate that BOEM would inadequately represent its interests, a necessary showing for intervention as of right. The court also denied permissive intervention, suggesting that API could present its unique perspective through an amicus brief instead.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of API's motion to intervene. It held that API did not overcome the presumption that BOEM adequately represented its interests, as API failed to show any specific adversity of interest or actions by BOEM that were contrary to API's interests. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of permissive intervention, agreeing that API could effectively present its views as an amicus curiae. Thus, the district court's order denying intervention was affirmed. View "Louisiana v. Burgum" on Justia Law

Adam Earnest, Christopher Randell, and James Klish were involved in preparing and filing fraudulent tax returns through Sunbelt Tax Services, a company owned by Earnest. They falsely claimed millions of dollars in education credits for their clients. Previously, Earnest and Randell had worked at American Tax Service, where they engaged in similar fraudulent activities. Despite being audited and penalized by the IRS for these activities, they continued their fraudulent practices at Sunbelt. The IRS discovered that Sunbelt filed 4,509 tax returns claiming $4,899,653 in education credits without proper documentation.The defendants were charged in February 2022 with conspiracy to defraud the United States and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns. After a seven-day trial, a jury found Earnest, Randell, and Klish guilty of conspiracy, and Earnest and Randell were also found guilty of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns. The government estimated a total tax loss of $10,078,767, which included returns filed at both American and Sunbelt. The district court overruled objections to this calculation but conservatively estimated the loss to be between $3.5 million and $9.5 million. Earnest was sentenced to 100 months, Klish to 50 months, and Randell to 70 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the admission of evidence from their time at American, the summary chart exhibit, and claims of constructive amendment of the indictment. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Earnest's conviction for aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return and upheld the district court's tax loss calculation and denial of a mitigating role reduction for Klish. View "United States v. Earnest" on Justia Law

Relators Tiffany Montcrief and others filed a False Claims Act suit against Peripheral Vascular Associates, P.A. (PVA), alleging that PVA billed Medicare for vascular ultrasound services that were not completed. The claims were categorized into "Testing Only" and "Double Billing" claims. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Relators, concluding that PVA submitted knowingly false claims. A jury found these claims material and awarded approximately $28.7 million in damages against PVA.The district court granted partial summary judgment to Relators on the issues of falsity and knowledge of falsity. The jury found that the claims were material and caused the Government to pay out money. The district court entered judgment against PVA, including statutory penalties and treble damages. PVA appealed, challenging the district court's grant of partial summary judgment and certain rulings during and after the trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on the Testing Only claims but remanded for a new trial on damages. The court reversed the partial summary judgment ruling on the Double Billing claims, vacated the final judgment, and remanded for a new trial consistent with its opinion. The court concluded that the district court erred in interpreting the CPT–4 Manual and in concluding that the Manual required PVA to create separate, written reports for vascular ultrasounds before billing Medicare. The court also found that the district court abused its discretion in relying on Relators' post-trial expert declaration to calculate damages. View "Montcrief v. Peripheral Vascular" on Justia Law

Talos ERT, L.L.C. (Talos) hired DLS, L.L.C. (DLS) to remove corroded piping from an oil-and-gas platform off the Louisiana coast. During the project, a 129-pound pipe fell and struck Walter Jackson, a DLS employee, resulting in his death. Jackson’s widow, Vantrece Jackson, and his son, Y.J., represented by his mother, Anika Warner, sued Talos for wrongful death. The suits were consolidated, and the case proceeded to trial.The jury found Talos 88% at fault for Jackson’s death and awarded significant damages to both plaintiffs. Y.J. was awarded $120,000 in special damages and $20,000,000 in general damages. Mrs. Jackson was awarded $987,930 in special damages and $6,600,000 in general damages. Talos filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and alternatively moved for a new trial or remittitur. The district court denied the JMOL and new trial motions but granted a partial remittitur, reducing Y.J.’s general damages to $4,360,708.59 and Mrs. Jackson’s to $5,104,226.22. Plaintiffs declined a new trial on damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Talos’s renewed JMOL motion, finding sufficient evidence to support both theories of liability: vicarious liability and independent negligence. The court also upheld the denial of a new trial on liability, noting the jury’s verdict was supported by the evidence.Regarding damages, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s application of the maximum recovery rule for Y.J.’s award, using a factually similar case, Rachal v. Brouillette. However, the court vacated Mrs. Jackson’s general damages award and remanded for redetermination of remittitur, as the district court’s comparison case, Zimko v. American Cyanamid, was not factually similar. The court found no plain error in the alleged prejudicial statements made by Plaintiffs’ counsel during the trial. View "Warner v. Talos ERT" on Justia Law

In May 2019, Hezron Stuart committed two armed robberies at gas stations in Houston. He was indicted on two counts of Hobbs Act robbery and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. While awaiting trial, Stuart assaulted a prison officer, leading to an additional indictment. The cases were consolidated and later transferred to Judge Rosenthal. During the trial, the jury was instructed on the charges, and the government presented evidence linking Stuart to the robberies, including testimony about a prior assault involving the same gun used in the robberies.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially joined the robbery and assault charges. During the trial, the court severed the assault charge, instructing the jury to disregard any mention of it. Stuart, representing himself, cross-examined witnesses and contested the identification evidence. The court limited his ability to question a witness about specific pending charges, which Stuart argued violated his confrontation rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the May 7 assault, as it was relevant to establishing Stuart's identity as the robber. The court also found no reversible error in the district court's and prosecutor's mention of the prison assault charge, as it was mitigated by the court's instructions to the jury. Additionally, the court ruled that Stuart's confrontation rights were not violated by limiting cross-examination about the witness's specific charges. Finally, the court determined that Stuart's right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delays were largely attributable to his own actions. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "USA v. Stuart" on Justia Law

In 2015, bipartisan legislation repealed the U.S. ban on crude oil exports, leading to expanded efforts to export U.S. crude oil. This case involves an administrative challenge to a construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for expanding operations at the Moda Ingleside Crude Export Terminal in Texas. The expansion includes constructing new docks and a turning basin, requiring dredging and discharging material into U.S. waters. The Corps conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) and approved the permit. Plaintiffs, including Native American tribes and an environmental association, sued to invalidate the permit, claiming violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied summary judgment for the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment for the Corps, concluding that the Corps had adequately studied the environmental impacts of the proposed expansion. The court found that plaintiffs had associational standing but had waived certain claims by not raising them in summary judgment briefing. The court also found that plaintiffs forfeited claims related to increased vessel traffic by not raising them during the notice-and-comment period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the Corps did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its environmental impacts analysis, including its assessment of cumulative impacts and climate change. The court found that the Corps's EA was sufficient and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required. The court also agreed that plaintiffs had forfeited arguments related to increased vessel traffic. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Indigenous Peoples v. U.S. Army" on Justia Law

In 2010, Thomas Steven Sanders kidnapped and murdered a twelve-year-old girl, L.R., after killing her mother, Suellen Roberts. Sanders was apprehended and confessed to the crimes. He was prosecuted under federal law and, in 2014, a jury in the Western District of Louisiana convicted him of kidnapping and murder, sentencing him to death on both counts.Sanders appealed, raising numerous challenges to his convictions and sentences. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Sanders argued that the district court erred by not ordering a competency hearing, denying his motion to suppress statements made during interrogation, and violating the Double Jeopardy Clause by imposing two sentences for one act. He also challenged the jury selection process, the death-qualification of the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of victim impact testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and the constitutionality of the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA).The Fifth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a competency hearing or in denying the motion to suppress. However, the court agreed with Sanders that his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as Congress did not authorize cumulative punishment for violations of § 1201(a) and § 924(j). Consequently, the court vacated Sanders’s conviction and sentence under Count Two of the indictment.The court rejected Sanders’s other arguments, including those related to jury selection, death-qualification, sufficiency of the evidence, victim impact testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and the constitutionality of the FDPA. The court concluded that Sanders’s sentences were not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor and that the cumulative-error doctrine did not apply. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Jeremy Jason Schnur, previously convicted of multiple felonies including aggravated battery, burglary, and robbery, was indicted for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Schnur was apprehended by law enforcement at the Hard Rock Casino in Biloxi, Mississippi, where he was found in possession of a loaded Canik 9mm semiautomatic pistol. Schnur moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to him. The district court denied his motion, and after a bench trial, found him guilty.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Schnur's motion to dismiss the indictment. Schnur waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial based on stipulations regarding his possession of the firearm and his felony convictions. The district court found Schnur guilty and sentenced him to seventy-eight months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $3,000 fine. Schnur appealed the decision, maintaining his as-applied Second Amendment challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) de novo. The court held that the Second Amendment's plain text covers Schnur's conduct, but the government demonstrated that disarming Schnur is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court cited precedents indicating that individuals with violent criminal histories, like Schnur's aggravated battery conviction, can be constitutionally disarmed. The court also referenced Schnur's robbery and burglary convictions, which further supported the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in Schnur's case. View "United States v. Schnur" on Justia Law