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

Employees of Smith International, Inc. filed a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The employees, known as reamers, supervised the use of Smith’s underreaming tool on offshore drilling rigs. They were paid an annual salary plus daily-rate job bonuses, with their total annual compensation exceeding $100,000. The employees argued that they were misclassified as exempt from overtime requirements and sought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney fees.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana conditionally certified the action as a collective action. Later, the claims of some plaintiffs were severed into separate individual actions, while others continued as a collective action. The district court consolidated the five proceedings for all purposes except for trial. After discovery, both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Smith’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the employees were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay guarantee as bona fide executives. The employees appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that each employee met the criteria for the bona fide executive exemption under the FLSA. Specifically, the employees satisfied the salary basis test, the salary level test, and the job duties test. The court found that the employees were paid a guaranteed annual salary, which was not subject to reduction based on the quality or quantity of work performed, and that the additional daily-rate compensation did not defeat their qualification for the exemption. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Smith International, Inc. View "Venable v. Smith International" on Justia Law

In the early morning of December 21, 2019, Corey Spiller went to assist his girlfriend, Dashanelle Moore, after her minor car accident on a Houston expressway. While conversing with officers at the scene, Sergeant Jared Lindsay arrived and directed Moore to a nearby truck stop for further procedures, instructing Spiller to follow in his car. When Spiller questioned the officers about Moore, Lindsay became enraged, seized Spiller by the neck, and slammed him onto a parked car, leading to a scuffle where Spiller was tased and arrested. The charges against Spiller were later dropped.Spiller filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lindsay, Harris County, Harris County Constable Precinct 7, and Chief Constable May Walker, alleging excessive force, false arrest, bystander liability, retaliation, and ADA violations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed claims against Harris County, Precinct 7, and Walker for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment for Lindsay on the basis of qualified immunity. Spiller appealed, challenging the summary judgment on his Fourth Amendment excessive force, false arrest, First Amendment retaliation, and bystander liability claims against Lindsay, and the dismissal of his Monell claim against Harris County.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Lindsay on the excessive force claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Lindsay's use of force was excessive and whether Spiller's actions justified such force. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings on the false arrest and First Amendment retaliation claims, concluding that Lindsay had probable cause for Spiller’s arrest. The court also upheld the dismissal of Spiller’s Monell claim against Harris County for failing to allege specific facts linking his injury to a county policy or custom. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Spiller v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Two whistleblowers, John M. Barr and John McPherson, challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) calculation of their award amounts under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The case involves Life Partners Holdings, Inc., which was found guilty of extensive securities fraud from 1999 to 2013. In 2012, the SEC filed a civil action against Life Partners, resulting in a $38.7 million judgment. Life Partners subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid the appointment of a receiver. The bankruptcy court appointed a Chapter 11 trustee, and a reorganization plan was confirmed in 2016.The SEC posted a Notice of Covered Action in 2015, inviting whistleblowers to apply for awards. Barr and McPherson submitted applications. The SEC’s Claims Review Staff initially recommended denying Barr an award and granting McPherson 23% of the collected sanctions. After objections, the SEC revised its decision, granting Barr 5% and McPherson 20% of the collected amounts. The SEC argued that the bankruptcy proceedings did not qualify as a “covered judicial or administrative action” or a “related action” under the Dodd-Frank Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the SEC’s motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee did not constitute “bringing an action” under the Dodd-Frank Act. The court found that the ordinary meaning of “action brought” refers to initiating a lawsuit or legal proceedings, which did not apply to the SEC’s involvement in the bankruptcy case. The court also rejected the argument that the SEC’s actions in the bankruptcy case were a continuation of its enforcement strategy. Consequently, the court denied the petitions for review, upholding the SEC’s award calculations. View "Barr v. SEC" on Justia Law

Two defendants, Arturo Cuellar ("AC") and Ricardo Quintanilla, were involved in a scheme to bribe city commissioners in Weslaco, Texas, to secure contracts for an infrastructure project. The bribes were intended to influence the awarding of contracts to Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) and Briones Consulting and Engineering, Ltd. Quintanilla bribed Commissioner Gerardo Tafolla, while AC bribed Commissioner John Cuellar (JC). Leo Lopez, a consultant for CDM and Briones, facilitated the bribes. The scheme involved multiple meetings and payments, with both commissioners taking actions to favor CDM and Briones. The city paid approximately $42.5 million to CDM, Briones, and LeFevre, with Lopez distributing funds to AC and Quintanilla.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas convicted Quintanilla and AC of various federal offenses, including conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud, honest-services wire fraud, federal program bribery, conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, and money laundering. Quintanilla was sentenced to 200 months in custody, while AC received 240 months. Both were also ordered to pay fines, special assessments, restitution, and forfeiture amounts. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court addressed several issues raised by the defendants, including claims of constructive amendment of the indictment, sufficiency of the indictment, recusal of the district judge, and evidentiary rulings. The court found that the government did not constructively amend the indictment and that the evidence supported the convictions. The court also held that the district judge did not need to recuse herself and that the evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion. The court concluded that the defendants' arguments were either forfeited, not meritorious, or both. View "USA v. Quintanilla" on Justia Law

Juan Jose Paramo, the defendant-appellant, is involved in a legal dispute with Banco Mercantil de Norte, S.A. and Arrendadora y Factor Banorte, S.A. de C.V. (the Banorte Parties). The Banorte Parties allege that Paramo committed large-scale fraud in Mexico and fled to the United States. They are pursuing a civil lawsuit in Mexico and sought discovery in the U.S. under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to locate and seize Paramo’s assets. The Banorte Parties filed an ex parte request for discovery assistance, which the district court granted, authorizing subpoenas for Paramo and two other individuals.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Banorte Parties' petition and authorized the subpoenas. Paramo filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the discovery request was overly broad and that the Intel factors favored him. The district court denied Paramo’s motion in a brief order without waiting for his reply or holding a hearing. Paramo appealed the decision, arguing that the district court failed to provide reasoning for its denial and violated local rules by not allowing him to file a reply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide any reasoning for its decision to deny Paramo’s motion to quash. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that district courts must explain their decisions when granting or denying motions to quash § 1782 subpoenas to allow for effective appellate review. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to provide a reasoned decision. The court did not address the substantive arguments regarding the Intel factors or the scope of the discovery request. View "Banco Mercantil de Norte, S.A. v. Paramo" on Justia Law

Paola Connelly, a non-violent marijuana user, was charged after El Paso police responded to a "shots fired" call at her home. Her husband, John, was found firing a shotgun at a neighbor's door and was arrested. Paola admitted to occasionally using marijuana for sleep and anxiety. A search of their home revealed drug paraphernalia and several firearms, including a pistol owned by Paola. She was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of a controlled substance and 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3) for providing firearms to an unlawful user.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Paola's motion to dismiss the charges. However, after the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Rahimi, the District Court reconsidered and found that §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) were facially unconstitutional and that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to Paola under the Second Amendment. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that while historical and traditional regulations may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon, they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage. The court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the charges against Paola as applied to her but reversed the facial challenges to §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3). The court concluded that there are circumstances where these statutes could be constitutionally applied, such as banning presently intoxicated individuals from carrying firearms. View "United States v. Connelly" on Justia Law

A 28-year-old man, Steven Mitchell Qualls, died in police custody from a methamphetamine overdose. Qualls had been taken to a hospital for chest pains and agitation but was arrested for public intoxication after refusing to leave. He was booked into the Jasper City Jail, where his condition worsened. Despite showing signs of severe distress, including vomiting black liquid and screaming in pain, officers did not seek medical help. Qualls died approximately 33 hours after being booked.Qualls’s mother, Frances E. Sims, sued the City of Jasper and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to Qualls’s serious medical needs in violation of the 14th Amendment. The district court dismissed claims against one officer and the city but denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds for the remaining officers. Sims then moved to bifurcate the trial into separate liability and damages phases, arguing that evidence of Qualls’s past behavior would unfairly prejudice the jury. The district court denied the motion, and the jury found for the defendants. Sims’s motion for a new trial was also denied.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 refusing to bifurcate the trial. The court reasoned that the evidence of Qualls’s past behavior was relevant to the officers’ defense, as it could show they did not recognize the severity of his condition. The court also found that standard trial practices, such as objections and limiting instructions, could mitigate any potential prejudice. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and the denial of a new trial. View "Sims v. City of Jasper" on Justia Law

A man who has lived in the United States for thirty years, married to a U.S. citizen and father to U.S. citizens, has been attempting to adjust his immigration status for seventeen years. His third application was denied in 2021 due to the use of an incorrect birthdate, which was deemed to constitute fraud. The man sought review in district court, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. He then appealed this decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case, stating that decisions regarding the adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility are within the discretion of USCIS and are not subject to judicial review. The court cited 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) and § 1182(i)(2), which preclude judicial review of such discretionary decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of denials of applications for adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility, regardless of whether the judgment is made in removal proceedings. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Patel v. Garland, which interpreted the statute to broadly preclude judicial review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under § 1255. The court acknowledged the potential for governmental errors but concluded that the statutory language clearly barred judicial review in this context. View "Momin v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Guillermo Gray, sued Killick Group, L.L.C. for wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Gray, an experienced welding and coding inspector, performed inspection services for Killick on a project-by-project basis through his own company, Veritas Inspectors, Inc. He used his own equipment and submitted invoices under his business name. In a previous criminal court proceeding, Gray had sworn that he was self-employed to obtain an essential-need license after a DWI conviction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment to Killick, holding that Gray was judicially estopped from claiming employee status under the FLSA due to his prior sworn statement of being self-employed. The court also dismissed Gray’s breach of contract and quantum meruit claims. Gray appealed, seeking reversal only on the FLSA claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court reviewed the use of judicial estoppel for abuse of discretion and found that Gray’s previous self-employed statement was inconsistent with his current claim of being an employee. However, the court chose to resolve the appeal by determining whether Gray was an employee under the FLSA. Applying the economic-realities test, the court concluded that Gray was an independent contractor. The court considered factors such as Gray’s control over his work, his investment in his business, his ability to profit, the skill required for his job, and the project-based nature of his work. All factors supported the conclusion that Gray was not economically dependent on Killick and was thus an independent contractor, not an employee under the FLSA. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Killick. View "Gray v. Killick Group" on Justia Law

Christopher Wooten was arrested in February 2016 for driving while intoxicated (DWI) with a blood alcohol level of .265. Due to his prior DWI convictions, he was charged with felony DWI under Texas law, which escalates penalties for repeat offenders. Wooten had a history of DWI and other felony convictions, including a 1983 DWI for which he received a probationary sentence. This 1983 DWI was used as an element of the 2016 felony DWI charge, and his other felonies were used to justify a habitual offender enhancement, leading to a potential sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison.Wooten initially agreed to plead guilty in exchange for an eight-year sentence, but the state trial judge rejected this agreement. He then agreed to a thirteen-year sentence and waived one of the felony enhancements. Despite this, Wooten attempted to appeal, but the state appellate court dismissed his appeal due to the waiver in his plea agreement. Wooten filed multiple state habeas applications, all of which were denied. He also filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court denied, finding that his claims could not overcome the relitigation bar under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Wooten's habeas petition. The court held that any error by the state court in using the 1983 DWI as an element of the felony DWI charge was harmless because Wooten had other felony convictions that could have satisfied the requirements for the felony DWI and habitual offender enhancement. The court also found that Wooten's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim did not warrant relief because he failed to show that he would not have pleaded guilty if his counsel had advised him differently. View "Wooten v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law