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

This case concerns three orders purporting to enforce a settlement between the parties in a commercial dispute: (1) an order declaring that Vikas breached the settlement; (2) an order striking Vikas's pleadings as a sanction; and (3) a summary judgment that Vikas had procured the settlement by fraud, causing $40 million in damages.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the summary judgment for fraud and thus the court vacated the order and denied as moot Vikas's related appeals. The court also vacated the sanctions order based on either lack of subject matter jurisdiction or an abuse of discretion standard. Finally, the court vacated the ruling that Vikas breached the settlement, concluding that the district judge ignored key provisions of the settlement and failed to support his judgment with relevant record evidence. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Vikas WSP, Ltd. v. Economy Mud Products Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part petitions for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that because petitioner presented her argument that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding before the BIA in a motion for reconsideration, it is unexhausted and the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.The court also concluded that because petitioner agreed that there was probably a place where she could safely relocate within Guatemala, the BIA's determination that the government rebutted the presumption of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence for both of her particular social groups. In this case, the BIA reasonably interpreted her statement to mean that she did in fact know of a city or cities in Guatemala where it was probably safe for gay and transgender people to live. Finally, petitioner's CAT claim was adequately analyzed and the evidence does not compel a finding that she will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Guatemala. View "Santos-Zacaria v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request for modification of a law-enforcement condition. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and carrying a weapon on an aircraft. Defendant was sentenced to 65 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant argues that, by prohibiting his employment as a security guard, the district court impermissibly modified the law-enforcement condition without first holding a hearing as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32.1(c)(1).Under either the abuse of discretion or plain error standard, the court concluded that defendant's argument lacks merit. The court agreed with the district court's determination that defendant's sentence, and specifically the law enforcement supervised release condition, prohibits the employment in question. Consequently, no hearing to modify his conditions of release was required. Furthermore, even construed as a request to modify an excessively strict release condition, the court affirmed the district court's reiteration of its tailored and reasonable relationship to defendant's offenses of conviction. View "United States v. Bautista-Gunter" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the client company's motion to compel arbitration. In this case, a pipeline inspection firm hired inspectors, and their employment agreement contained an arbitration provision. After the firm sent the inspectors to work for the client company, the inspectors filed suit against the client company under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court agreed with the district court that the client company could not enforce the arbitration agreement between the inspectors and their firm. The court explained that, where, as here, the parties dispute whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between them, it takes a court to decide. Applying Texas contract law and equitable doctrines to this case, the court concluded that the client company cannot enforce the arbitration agreement. View "Newman v. Plains All American Pipeline, LP" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in sealing and ordering redaction of voluminous documents related to litigation challenging Louisiana's abortion laws without a proper legal basis, and therefore vacated the district court's sealing orders. The sealed or redacted documents include a transcript of proceedings held in open court, a famous Pennsylvania grand jury report that is available as a book on www.amazon.com and that was adapted as a motion picture, an arrest report from a police department's public website, articles from The New York Times and Rolling Stone, and an obituary from a public website. The court concluded that the district court misapprehended the nature and extent of the public's right to judicial records; on remand, the district court shall not seal or order redaction of any publicly available documents or information; the district court also used the wrong legal standard for sealing documents; and the district court erred by failing to evaluate all of the documents individually. The court issued a limited remand for the district court to evaluate the sealing orders under the proper legal standard within 30 days of the issuance of this opinion. View "June Medical Services, LLC v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The en banc court vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of conducting such proceedings as it considers appropriate and making detailed findings and conclusions concerning abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and related caselaw, and on the effect of Senate Bill 6 on the issues in this case.The court agreed with its sister circuit that, on the appeal from a preliminary injunction, issues relating to whether there is a proper suit at all can be decided, such as the existence of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and questions regarding abstention. The court concluded that it is possible on this record and briefing to make limited holdings now about whether any defendant was acting on behalf of Dallas County and about standing. In regard to abstention, the court concluded that briefing exists but is cursory. Therefore, the court ordered a limited remand for the district court to conduct such proceedings as it finds appropriate and decide whether abstention is required. Once that decision is made, the court will complete its review. View "Daves v. Dallas County" on Justia Law

Fuentes-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the U.S. after having been previously convicted of an aggravated felony (8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2)) and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that his underlying felony conviction for family-violence assault under Texas Penal. Code 22.01(a)(1) constituted an aggravated felony. While his certiorari petition was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Borden" (2021) that a crime capable of commission with “a less culpable mental state than purpose or knowledge,” such as “recklessness,” cannot qualify as a “violent felony” under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Fuentes-Rodriguez’s underlying Texas conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony only through 18 U.S.C. 16(a),2 which defines a “crime of violence” almost identically to the ACCA’s “violent felony” provision. On remand, the Fifth Circuit vacated. Fuentes-Rodriguez should not have been sentenced under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) because Texas’s family-violence assault can be committed recklessly but his conviction falls within 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1), which covers illegal reentry after conviction for a non-aggravated felony. The district court’s judgment should be reformed because section 1326(b)(2) is associated with worse collateral consequences than section 1326(b)(1). Remanding for entry of an amended judgment by the district court will reduce the risk of future confusion. A reformed judgment should reflect that Fuentes-Rodriguez was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) as an “Alien Unlawfully Found in the United States after Deportation, Having Previously Been Convicted of a Felony.” View "United States v. Fuentes-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court: Does Section 9:2800.60(B) of the Louisiana Products Liability Act bar an individual, who is shot and injured by a third-party, from bringing a design defect claim under Section 9:2800.56 against a firearm manufacturer or seller? View "Seguin v. Remington Arms Company, LLC" on Justia Law

TBB filed suit seeking to recoup losses stemming from the limitations on the operations of nonessential businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic through its commercial property insurance policy which covers business interruption losses caused by "direct physical loss of or damage to property."The Fifth Circuit concluded that the suspension of dine-in services during the COVID-19 pandemic is not a direct physical loss of or damage to property. Applying Texas law, the court concluded that the district court correctly determined that TBB's losses are not covered by either the business income and extra expense coverage (BI/EE) or the restaurant extension endorsement (REE) provision. Without coverage, the court need not address whether any policy exclusions also apply. In regard to TBB's extra-contractual claims, the court concluded that they were properly dismissed as abandoned. Finally, the court found no err in the district court's decision to deny TBB leave to amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the insurer. View "Terry Black's Barbecue, LLC v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a federal habeas application as time-barred, concluding that petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. The court stated that petitioner offers little to no support for his argument that the circumstances in his case are so extraordinary as to necessitate equitable tolling. More importantly, the court concluded that petitioner's plight is entirely self-inflicted and stems from his failure to comply with basic state procedural rules—about which he had notice. Furthermore, in responding to petitioner's initial, unexhausted 28 U.S.C. 2254 application, the State pointed out that petitioner had failed to exhaust his state remedies and that he needed to refile in state court before proceeding to federal court. Therefore, the district court did not err, much less abuse its discretion, in declining to equitably toll the limitations period under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court denied petitioner's motion to appoint counsel as moot. View "Jones v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law