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

Plaintiff filed a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) against the Administrators of the Tulane Education Fund (“Administrators”), alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant and Plaintiff appealed arguing that the district court’s ruling was erroneous.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Administrators. Plaintiff argued that the district court improperly required her to demonstrate that her proffered comparators were strictly identical. The court found that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not present evidence that any male physician shared characteristics that would render them similarly situated. Further, even if Plaintiff established a prima facie case, her claim would not succeed because she did not rebut Defendant’s non-discriminatory reasons for declining to renew her contract.   The court further affirmed summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could not establish that her protected conduct was the “but for” reason for the alleged adverse employment action.   Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. The court found that although Plaintiff endured severe treatment by her supervisor, she did not establish that the treatment was based on her gender. View "Saketkoo v. Admin Tulane Educ" on Justia Law

Appellee sued officers asserting various Section 1983 claims including excessive force, unreasonable seizure due to an arrest without probable cause, malicious prosecution, violation of her First Amendment rights for arresting her in retaliation for filming the officers, and violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court held that disputed issues of material fact barred summary judgment on the excessive force claim and that, viewing the facts in Appellee’s favor, the officers violated a clearly established right.   The Fifth Circuit denied Appellee’s motion to dismiss, reversed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded with instructions that Appellee’s claims be dismissed.                                                                                        The court analyzed the officers’ actions and found that their conduct was not so objectively unreasonable as to violate Appellee’s constitutional rights. First, Appellee’s minor injuries weigh in favor of finding qualified immunity. Second, qualified immunity can apply even when only one factor weighs against the plaintiff. Finally, it was reasonable of Appellants to believe that, in light of Appellee’s interjections, comments, resistance, and indignation, some degree of force would be necessary to subdue her. The court further held that even if the officers violated Appellee’s constitutional rights, the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. View "Solis v. Serrett" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to narcotics possession and at his sentencing hearing, the court stated that if Defendant were to return to this country, he would be required to report to the nearest probation office within 72 hours. A week later the district court entered a written judgment that included an immediate-reporting requirement. Defendant challenged the written judgment’s inclusion of the immediate-reporting requirement.     The Fifth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s judgment and affirmed the decision.   The court held that there is no material difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment. The court reasoned that at sentencing the Defendant heard he would have to report to the probation office if he reentered the country, and he said nothing. Therefore, Defendant cannot complain when the judgment later clarified the reporting obligation. The court explained that it has previously asked the district court to amend a written judgment’s immediate-reporting requirement to the orally announced 72-hour-reporting requirement. However, those decisions were non-binding, nonprecedential, and unpublished. Therefore, the court declined to follow them. View "USA v. Perez-Espinoza" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Appellant for capital murder in the death of a police officer. The Fifth Circuit rejected Appellant's last-minute efforts to stop the imposition of his sentence.The Fifth Circuit held that Appellant is unlikely to prevail on his request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”), and he is unlikely to succeed on his Sec. 1983 claim. In addressing habeas, the court rejected Appellant's request for COA on his future-dangerousness claim, and his request for COA on his Lackey claim. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of a stay of execution and dismissal of the 1983 claim and denied the COA.Here, Appellant argued his death sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it was based in part on the jury’s finding of a “probability that Appellant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.” The court explained that reasonable jurors would not find it debatable whether Sec. 2244(b)(1) barred this claim. Further, the court reasoned that it’s undebatable that this claim is procedurally defaulted. Additionally, the court held substantive meritlessness is an independent ground for refusing a COA on Plaintiff’s future-dangerousness claim. Finally, the court held that Plaintiff’s claim is not a method-of-execution challenge; it is a challenge to the validity of his death sentence. It is therefore not cognizable under Sec. 1983. View "Buntion v. Collier" on Justia Law

N&W filed a maritime limitation action in federal district court after Plaintiff was injured on a ship owned by N&W Marine Towing. The district court initially stayed Plaintiff from prosecuting claims against N&W in other forums, however, the court lifted its stay after Plaintiff made certain stipulations.The Fifth Circuit reasoned that under the Limitation of Liability Act, shipowners “may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for limitation of liability.” The Limitation Act allows shipowners to limit their liability for an array of incidents, as long as the incident giving rise to liability occurred without the p knowledge of the owner.Here, after N&W filed its limitation action, three parties filed claims: Wooley, Turn Services, and RCC. However, RCC and N&W settled, and Turn Services assigned its claims to Plaintiff, leaving him as the only remaining claimant. The court found that Plaintiff’s stipulation both recognized the district court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the limitation proceeding and stated that Plaintiff would not seek to enforce a damage award greater than the value of the ship and its freight until the district court had adjudicated the limitation proceeding. Thus, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by lifting the stay and allowing Plaintiff to pursue remedies in other forums. Further, the court found that N&W’s arguments regarding removal are not relevant to the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by lifting the stay. View "Wooley v. N&W Marine Towing" on Justia Law

Vista Health Plan, Inc., a small health insurance company in Texas, was assessed risk-adjustment fees that exceeded its premium revenue, causing the company to cease operations. The company and its parent, Vista Service Corporation, (collectively, Vista) sued HHS, HHS Secretary, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and CMS Administrator Seema Verma (collectively, the HHS Defendants), challenging the risk-adjustment program and two rules promulgated pursuant to the program.The Fifth Circuit explained that determining whether the district court’s “final judgment” was truly an appealable judgment is necessary to establish whether the court has jurisdiction. The court explained that it has recognized an exception to the general rule and determined it had jurisdiction “when the agency would be unable to later appeal the issue that is the subject of the remand order,” such as when “all that is left for remand is a ministerial accounting.”Here, though the district court denied summary judgment as to Vista’s procedural due process claim, the court then explicitly entered a “Final Judgment” stating “nothing remains to resolve ... the case is hereby CLOSED”— suggesting the court “end[ed] the litigation on the merits.” The court held that the district court, in denying summary judgment on Vista’s procedural due process claim and then remanding it for further proceedings, did not yet fully dispose of the case., Thus, there was no appealable final judgment, and the court lacks jurisdiction to reach the substance of Vista’s appeal. View "Vista Health Plan v. HHS" on Justia Law

Dynamic CRM Recruiting Solutions sued UMA Education in Harris County district court for alleged misappropriation of Dynamic’s software in breach of their licensing agreement (“the Agreement”). UMA removed the action to federal district court, which in turn remanded it to state court based on the parties’ contractual forum selection clause.The Fifth Circuit found that the forum state is Texas, and the Agreement provides that its interpretation shall be governed by Texas law. The court reasoned that contractual choice-of-law clauses are generally valid under Texas law unless they violate one of the limitations set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Sec. 187 (1971), and neither party here has argued that this clause is invalid on this ground.Further, since the Agreement provides that disputes arising thereunder must be “brought before the district courts of Harris County”, UMA has contractually waived its right to remove the suit. UMA also argued that the district court abused its discretion in allowing Dynamic to drop its claims for conversion, quantum meruit, lien foreclosure, and violations of the TTLA. The court found that it need not reach the jurisdictional point because the district court properly allowed Dynamic to amend its complaint. Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling. View "Dynamic CRM v. UMA Education" on Justia Law

A fifteen-year-old boy was shot and killed by Defendant, a then-officer responding to a 911 call about possible underage drinking. The boy’s family and friends sued Defendant and the City of Balch Springs alleging excessive force. Later, Defendant was separately convicted of murder. The district court denied Defendant’s summary judgment motion claiming qualified immunity.On appeal, Defendant argued that the facts at the moment of the threat are undisputed and urged the court to exercise jurisdiction over the case on the issue of materiality. The court found that the resolution of this factual dispute is material because it affects both whether Defendant’s use of force was reasonable and whether the force he used violated clearly established law. The court found that if a jury accepts Plaintiffs’ version of the facts as true, particularly as to what occurred in the moments before Defendant shot at the car, the jury could conclude that the officers violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established right to be free from excessive force. Thus, because the factual dispute is material, the court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the propriety of the summary judgment denial. The court dismissed Defendant’s interlocutory appeal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Edwards v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Defendant is an elected constable in Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff is his counterpart in adjoining Waller County. After a 911 caller reported that Plaintiff had aimed a gun at him on a local tollway in Harris County, Defendant’s deputies stopped and questioned Plaintiff, then released him minutes later.Plaintiff sued Defendant, who asserted qualified and statutory immunities. Defendant argued that the stop was lawful, Defendant wasn’t present at the time, and state law shields him from the tort claims. But the district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss.At issue is whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and if Texas law immunizes Defendant from Plaintiff’s tort claims. The court found that because reasonable suspicion supported the investigatory stop, Plaintiff did not adequately plead an unreasonable seizure. Further, Plaintiff failed to plead a colorable constitutional violation. Thus, absent constitutional violation, Defendant can’t be liable for supervising one, ratifying one, or failing to train his deputies to avoid one.Next, as for the state claims, Plaintiff sued Defendant for defamation and IIED. The court found that the critical issue is whether Defendant’s actions are linked to his job responsibilities. Here, the connection exists, therefore Defendant is entitled to dismissal and his immunities bar all claims against him. View "Smith v. Heap" on Justia Law

This case arises from a dispute regarding a joint financial venture between Noble Capital Fund Management, L.L.C. (“Noble”) and US Capital Global Investment Management, L.L.C. (“US Capital”). Noble created two separate funds, collectively the “Feeder Funds."Noble and the Feeder Funds initiated a JAMS arbitration against US Capital, alleging various claims including the breach of contractual and fiduciary duties. US Capital was unable to pay the arbitration fees, and the JAMS panel terminated the arbitration.On November 24, 2020, Noble and the Feeder Funds sued US Capital in Texas state court for various claims including fraud and fraudulent inducement. US Capital appeals the denial of its motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings and the denial of its motion to transfer.The court explained the Federal Arbitration Act requires that, where a suit is referable to arbitration, judicial proceedings be stayed until arbitration "has been had." Here, there is no arbitration to return this case to and parties may not avoid resolution of live claims by compelling a new arbitration proceeding after the first proceeding failed. Further, the court found no pendent jurisdiction over the denial of the motion to transfer. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling and dismissed the appeal of the district court’s denial of the motion to transfer. View "Noble Capital Fund v. US Capital Global" on Justia Law