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

Richard Plezia, a Houston-based personal injury attorney, was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements, and falsifying records in a federal investigation. The charges stemmed from allegations that Plezia conspired with other attorneys and case runners to unlawfully reduce the federal income taxes owed by Jeffrey Stern. The scheme involved funneling illegal payments through Plezia to case runner Marcus Esquivel, which were then falsely reported as attorney referral fees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a fifteen-day jury trial, where Plezia was convicted on all counts. Plezia challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for one count, and the admission of certain witness testimonies. The district court denied his motions for acquittal and a new trial, and sentenced him to six months and one day in prison, followed by two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Plezia that the statute of limitations for the false statements charge was not subject to equitable tolling and vacated his conviction on that count, remanding with instructions to dismiss it with prejudice. However, the court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy and falsification charges. The court also held that any error in admitting witness testimonies was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. View "United States v. Plezia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Sonya Porretto owns Porretto Beach in Galveston, Texas. After filing for bankruptcy in 2009, her case was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding. In 2020, the bankruptcy trustee abandoned the Porretto Beach property back to her. In 2021, Porretto filed a lawsuit against the City of Galveston Park Board of Trustees, the City of Galveston, the Texas General Land Office (GLO), and its Commissioner, alleging that their actions constituted takings without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Porretto’s lawsuit. The court concluded that Porretto lacked standing to sue the GLO and its Commissioner because her complaint did not establish a causal link between their actions and her alleged injuries. The court also found that it lacked bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Porretto did not invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for her constitutional claims. Additionally, the court denied Porretto leave to amend her complaint and her motion for recusal of the presiding judge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Porretto’s claims against the GLO and its Commissioner without prejudice, agreeing that Porretto lacked standing. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal of Porretto’s claims against the Park Board and the City of Galveston, finding that the district court does have federal question jurisdiction over her constitutional claims despite her failure to cite § 1983. The case was remanded for the district court to consider alternative arguments for dismissal and the issue of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Porretto’s motion for recusal and her request for reassignment to a different judge. View "Porretto v. City of Galveston" on Justia Law

In 2023, the City of Mansfield, Texas, enacted ordinances regulating Unattended Donation Boxes (UDBs), which led to enforcement threats against Arms of Hope (AOH), a charitable organization with three non-compliant UDBs. AOH sued, claiming the ordinances infringed on its First Amendment rights. The district court found AOH likely to succeed on the merits and preliminarily enjoined the city's enforcement of the ordinances.The City of Mansfield appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, while AOH cross-appealed, arguing the district court should have applied strict scrutiny instead of intermediate scrutiny. During the appeal, the city enacted new ordinances in 2024 that addressed many of the district court's concerns and repealed the 2023 ordinances to the extent they conflicted.The Fifth Circuit determined that the new ordinances rendered the appeal and cross-appeal moot because the 2023 ordinances no longer had any effect. The court noted that the case itself was not moot, as the district court could still address any remaining issues under the new ordinances. The court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal as moot but did not vacate the preliminary injunction, as the mootness resulted from the city's voluntary actions. View "Arms of Hope v. City of Mansfield" on Justia Law

Collins Enyong Aben, a native and citizen of Cameroon, entered the United States without valid entry documents and was placed in removal proceedings. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming persecution due to his political opinion and membership in several particular social groups. Aben testified that he was targeted by the Cameroonian military for treating separatist fighters as a nurse, leading to multiple arrests, beatings, and death threats.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, citing the Third-Country Transit Bar and doubting Aben's credibility due to inconsistencies in his testimony. The IJ also found that Aben failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, and that his harm was not politically motivated but due to his occupation as a nurse. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Aben's appeal, assuming his credibility but agreeing with the IJ that he did not establish past persecution or a nexus to a protected ground. The BIA also found that Aben failed to corroborate his claims and that changed country conditions in Cameroon undermined his fear of future persecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA failed to address key evidence, including credible death threats and the imputation of a political opinion to Aben. The court held that the BIA's determinations regarding past persecution, nexus, and corroboration were not supported by substantial evidence. The court vacated the BIA's decision on Aben's asylum and withholding of removal claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court denied the petition for review regarding Aben's CAT claim, finding that he had forfeited any challenge to the BIA's determination on that issue. View "Aben v. Garland" on Justia Law

A petrochemical company, Sasol, expanded its Lake Charles, Louisiana facility and required a storage-in-transit yard. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR) was contracted to construct and lease the railyard to Sasol. The lease agreement stipulated that Sasol would pay KCSR $102 per linear foot of track annually. A dispute arose over whether the term "track" included the track within switches, which are used to divert trains from one track to another.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas found the lease ambiguous regarding whether "track" included switches. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Sasol, interpreting the lease to exclude switches from the track for which Sasol had to pay. Consequently, the court set the rent at $14,806,932 annually, less than what KCSR had invoiced, and awarded Sasol damages and interest for overpayments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court examined the lease's language and found no ambiguity. It determined that the term "track" unambiguously included the track within switches. The court noted that the lease's various references to "track" and "switches" did not imply mutual exclusivity and that interpreting them as such would lead to absurd results. Therefore, the court held that KCSR was entitled to charge for all track within the leased premises, including switches.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "The Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Sasol Chemicals (USA), L.L.C." on Justia Law

A group of individuals, declared vexatious litigants under a Texas statute, challenged the constitutionality of the statute. They filed a lawsuit against a state court judge, a state court clerk, and a state official responsible for publishing the list of vexatious litigants. The plaintiffs argued that the statute violated their First Amendment rights and other constitutional protections. They sought a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional, an injunction against its enforcement, nominal damages, and costs and attorney’s fees.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court assumed the plaintiffs had alleged an injury but concluded they lacked standing because they did not satisfy the causation and redressability elements required for Article III standing. The court also held that there was no case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the state court judge, as the judge was acting in an adjudicatory capacity, not as an enforcer or administrator of the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their injuries were not fairly traceable to the defendants' actions and would not be redressed by a favorable decision. The court also upheld the finding that there was no case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the state court judge, as the judge’s role under the statute was strictly adjudicatory. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' injuries were caused by the independent actions of state court judges who declared them vexatious litigants, not by the defendants' enforcement of the statute. View "Reule v. Jackson" on Justia Law

A sub-subcontractor, Diamond Services Corporation, entered into a contract with Harbor Dredging, a subcontractor, to perform dredging work in the Houston Ship Channel. The prime contract for the project was awarded to RLB Contracting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and RLB obtained a surety bond from Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. During the project, unexpected site conditions, including the presence of tires, caused delays and increased costs. Diamond continued working based on an alleged agreement that it would be compensated through a measured-mile calculation in a request for equitable adjustment (REA) submitted by RLB to the Corps. However, RLB later settled the REA for $6,000,000 without directly involving Diamond in the negotiations and issued a joint check to Harbor and Diamond for $950,000.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed some of Diamond's claims, including those for unjust enrichment and express contractual claims against RLB, but allowed Diamond's quantum meruit claim to proceed. The court also denied Travelers' motion to dismiss Diamond's Miller Act claims but required Diamond to amend its complaint to include proper Miller Act notice, which Diamond failed to do timely. Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of RLB and Harbor, dismissing Diamond's remaining claims and striking Diamond's untimely second amended complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment against Diamond's quantum meruit claims, holding that the express sub-subcontract covered the damages Diamond sought and that Diamond failed to provide evidence of the reasonable value of the work performed. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Diamond's Miller Act claim, as the damages sought were not recoverable under the Act. The court dismissed Diamond's appeal regarding the tug-expenses claim due to untimeliness. View "Diamond Services v. RLB Contracting" on Justia Law

Sha Kendrick Smith was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for enticing a minor to engage in prostitution. The minor victim (MV) was a thirteen-year-old runaway who was a ward of the state. Smith provided MV with a cell phone and took her to various locations where she engaged in commercial sex with multiple men, with Smith keeping the money. MV initially told Smith she was eighteen, but he later learned she was underage. MV described Smith as always carrying a gun and being feared by those who knew him. Smith was eventually arrested after MV reported her situation to the police.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas sentenced Smith to 235 months of imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. The court applied two sentencing enhancements: one under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) for undue influence over the minor and another under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) for MV’s status as a vulnerable victim. Smith objected to these enhancements, but the district court overruled his objections, adopting the presentence investigation report (PSR) and the government’s arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s application of both sentencing enhancements. It found that the district court’s determination that Smith unduly influenced MV was plausible given the evidence of Smith’s control over MV, including his age, size, possession of a gun, and the fear he instilled in others. The court also upheld the vulnerable-victim enhancement, noting that MV’s age, status as a ward of the state, and economic desperation made her unusually vulnerable, and Smith knew or should have known of her vulnerabilities. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in its findings and affirmed Smith’s sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Molecular Biologicals, a pharmaceutical start-up, entered into a Master Service Agreement with Mission Pharmacal, a third-party logistics provider, in September 2017. Under this agreement, Mission provided distribution services for Molecular’s product, Keragel, including order processing and return processing. In 2018, Mission sold $2,387,704 worth of Molecular’s products to major pharmaceutical wholesalers, but due to lack of sales, $1,780,027 worth of products were returned in 2019. Mission issued credits to the wholesalers for these returns, a process referred to as "chargeback." Initially, Molecular agreed to reimburse Mission for these chargebacks but later refused, leading Mission to file a lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a bench trial and determined that the contract did not explicitly require Molecular to reimburse Mission for the chargebacks. The court found that the contract was unambiguous in its silence on this issue and ruled that Mission could not recover the costs of the returns under either a breach of contract or quantum meruit theory. The district court awarded Mission recovery for unpaid service fees but not for the chargebacks.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the contract, when interpreted in its entirety, clearly required Molecular to reimburse Mission for the chargebacks. The term "chargeback" in the contract implied that Mission would handle the logistics and bookkeeping of returns, while Molecular would bear the financial responsibility. The court found that the district court erred in its interpretation by not considering the harmonious reading of the contract provisions. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Molecular breached the contract by failing to reimburse Mission and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Mission Pharmacal v. Molecular Biologicals" on Justia Law

Deputy James Killian responded to a domestic disturbance call at the home of Rubicela Ramirez and Francisco Gonzales. Upon arrival, Killian heard sounds suggesting a fight and entered the home without a warrant. Within the first minute, he pepper-sprayed Ramirez and Gonzales and shot their two dogs. Ramirez and Gonzales filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of their Fourth Amendment rights due to warrantless entry, excessive force, and unreasonable seizure of their dog.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Killian on the warrantless entry and excessive force claims, citing qualified immunity. However, the court allowed the unreasonable seizure claim regarding the shooting of one of the dogs to proceed to trial. The jury found Killian liable and awarded damages to Ramirez and Gonzales. Killian then moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court granted, overturning the jury's verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the warrantless entry claim, agreeing that exigent circumstances justified Killian's entry. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the excessive force claims, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that Killian's use of pepper spray and physical force was excessive and unreasonable. The court also reversed the district court's judgment as a matter of law on the unreasonable seizure claim, reinstating the jury's verdict. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the excessive force claims. View "Ramirez v. Killian" on Justia Law