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

In 2010, the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill released crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Matthew Williams, the plaintiff, performed oil spill clean-up work in the Gulf that summer. On September 24, 2020, Williams was diagnosed with chronic pansinusitis, an inflammatory condition of the nasal passages. Williams filed a lawsuit against BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Co., alleging that his condition was caused by exposure to oil, dispersants, and other chemicals during the cleanup work. Williams presented two expert witnesses, Dr. Michael Freeman and Dr. James Clark, to establish causation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi reviewed the case. BP filed motions to exclude the expert reports under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Williams lacked admissible expert testimony to establish causation. The district court granted BP’s motions to exclude the expert testimonies and the motion for summary judgment, leading Williams to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the district court’s exclusion of Dr. Freeman’s testimony, finding it unreliable as it did not properly apply the differential etiology approach. Similarly, the court found Dr. Clark’s testimony unreliable due to errors in his report, including references to another case and incorrect assumptions about benzene concentrations. Without admissible expert testimony, Williams could not establish specific causation, a necessary element in toxic tort cases. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of BP. View "Williams v. BP Expl & Prod" on Justia Law

William Navarre purchased a house that had been damaged by two hurricanes in 2020. The previous owners, Bal and Rita Sareen, had received insurance payments from AIG Property Casualty Company but had not assigned their post-loss insurance rights to Navarre at the time of the sale. Navarre filed a lawsuit against AIG, claiming he had been assigned these rights as of the purchase date. However, the formal assignment document was not executed until January 2023, well after the lawsuit was filed and after the prescriptive period for the claims had expired.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of AIG, concluding that Navarre lacked standing to file the lawsuit because the assignment of rights had not been executed at the time he filed the suit. The court also noted that the prescriptive period for the claims had expired by the time the assignment was executed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the documents Navarre relied on (Addendum A and the Side Letter) did not constitute a present assignment of rights but rather contemplated a future assignment. Since the formal assignment was not executed until January 2023, Navarre did not have standing to sue when he filed the lawsuit in June 2022. Additionally, the court held that the prescriptive period for the claims had expired by the time the assignment was executed, and thus, Navarre could not retroactively cure the deficiency in his original petition. View "Navarre v. AIG Prop Cslty" on Justia Law

Ronnie Alexander was arrested and detained in Henderson County Jail while awaiting trial. He falsely informed jail officials that he was suicidal to be transferred out of the group holding cell. Consequently, he was moved to the jail's suicide-prevention cell, known as the "violent cell," which lacked basic amenities such as a toilet, running water, or bedding, and had lights on at all hours. Alexander was housed there for five days before being released. He subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the conditions of his confinement and the adequacy of the jail's mental health services.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the defendants' motions to dismiss Alexander's federal and state-law claims. The court found that Alexander failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Taft defendants, Henderson County, and the correctional officers. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Alexander's remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the conditions of the violent cell were reasonably related to the legitimate governmental interest of protecting suicidal inmates from self-harm. The court found that the conditions, although harsh, were not punitive and did not violate Alexander's constitutional rights. The court also determined that the mental health care provided to Alexander met the constitutional minimum required, and there was no deliberate indifference by the Taft defendants or the county. Consequently, Alexander's claims were dismissed. View "Alexander v. Taft" on Justia Law

An employee at an Apple retail store in New York City, Jordan Vasquez, was involved in union organizing efforts with the Communication Workers of America. During a conversation with his senior manager, Stephanie Gladden, Vasquez claimed that Gladden asked him about his union activities, which he denied being involved in. Gladden, however, testified that Vasquez himself brought up the topic of unions. Additionally, Apple managers removed union flyers from the breakroom table, citing general housekeeping and non-solicitation policies.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Apple violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by coercively interrogating Vasquez and by removing union literature from the breakroom. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) credited Vasquez's account over Gladden's and concluded that Apple had engaged in unfair labor practices. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ's findings and ordered Apple to cease and desist from these violations and to post a remedial notice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that substantial evidence did not support the NLRB's conclusions. The court determined that Gladden's conversation with Vasquez did not constitute coercive interrogation under the totality of the circumstances, noting the lack of employer hostility or threats of reprisal. The court also found that Apple consistently enforced its housekeeping and non-solicitation policies, removing various non-union materials from the breakroom, and thus did not discriminatorily target union literature.The Fifth Circuit granted Apple's petition for review and reversed the NLRB's findings, concluding that Apple did not violate the NLRA in either instance. View "Apple v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Detective Genaro Hernandez, a Dallas Police Department detective, was involved in a shooting investigation outside The Green Elephant bar in August 2019. Hernandez, who also worked for the Stainback Organization, allegedly pursued false charges against the bar's owner, Shannon McKinnon, and a security guard, Guadalupe Frias, to benefit his private employer. Despite the Special Investigation Unit finding no criminal offense by the plaintiffs, Hernandez bypassed standard procedures and directly sought prosecution from the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, leading to the plaintiffs' indictment for tampering with evidence. The charges were later dropped when Hernandez's conflict of interest was revealed during Frias's trial.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Hernandez, alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution, and state-law claims for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and civil conspiracy. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the federal malicious-prosecution claim but allowed the federal false-arrest claim and the state-law claims to proceed. Hernandez appealed, arguing he was entitled to governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Hernandez's actions, despite being motivated by personal interests, fell within the scope of his employment as a detective. The court held that Texas law provides broad immunity to state actors for actions within their employment scope, regardless of intent. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's decision denying dismissal of the state-law claims and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining federal claim. View "Frias v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

A real estate developer, HK Baugh Ranch, LLC, petitioned the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) to release its undeveloped land, River Bend Ranch, from the certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) issued to Crystal Clear Special Utility District (Crystal Clear). Crystal Clear, a federally indebted utility district, sued the PUC’s Chair and Commissioners in federal court, alleging that Texas Water Code § 13.2541, which allows for decertification, was preempted by 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). This federal statute protects certain federally indebted utilities from curtailment of their service areas while their loans are outstanding.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction preventing the PUC from decertifying River Bend Ranch. The district court applied the “physical ability” test from Green Valley Special Utility District v. City of Schertz, determining that Crystal Clear likely made its service available to HK Baugh and was thus entitled to the protections of § 1926(b). The court concluded that § 1926(b) likely expressly preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541, resolving the remaining preliminary injunction factors in favor of Crystal Clear.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Crystal Clear would likely satisfy the “physical ability” test. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in holding that § 1926(b) expressly preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether § 1926(b) otherwise preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541 and to address all preliminary injunction factors as necessary. The preliminary injunction remains in place pending further proceedings. View "Crystal Clear v. HK Baugh Ranch" on Justia Law

In 1991, three singers—Di Reed, Tonya Harris, and Joi Marshall—formed the vocal group Jade, which achieved significant success in the early 1990s. The group disbanded in 1995, and the members pursued individual careers. In 2018, the three agreed to a reunion tour and jointly applied for the "JADE" service mark, which was approved in 2019. However, the reunion tour did not materialize, and in 2021, Marshall and Harris performed with another singer, Myracle Holloway, under the JADE mark, leading Reed to file a lawsuit.Reed sued Marshall, Harris, and Holloway in the Southern District of Texas, alleging Lanham Act violations, including trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition, as well as Texas state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that Reed could not allege Lanham Act claims against her co-owners of the mark or Holloway, who performed with their permission.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Lanham Act does not authorize claims between co-owners of a trademark. It affirmed the district court's summary judgment, stating that co-owners of a mark cannot sue each other for infringement or dilution under the Lanham Act. The court also found that Reed's unfair competition claims could not survive summary judgment and that there was no supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas law claims. The court emphasized that co-owners have the right to use the mark as they please, and a valid licensee of one co-owner cannot be liable to another co-owner for infringement. View "Reed v. Marshall" on Justia Law

The City of Dallas amended an ordinance regulating the short-term lending industry, which TitleMax of Texas, Inc. claimed severely harmed its business. TitleMax sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the amendment was preempted by state law and violated its due course of law guarantee under the Texas Constitution. TitleMax requested a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the amendment until a trial on the merits, but the district court denied this request.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reviewed the case and denied TitleMax’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The magistrate judge found that while TitleMax demonstrated potential irreparable harm, it did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. The district court accepted this recommendation, leading TitleMax to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that TitleMax did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on its preemption and due course of law claims. The court found that the amended ordinance did not prohibit all Credit Services Organizations (CSOs) or Credit Access Businesses (CABs) from operating, but rather regulated their business models. Additionally, the court determined that TitleMax did not have a constitutionally protected interest in operating its business profitably under the due course of law guarantee. The court held that the ordinance was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest in protecting low-income borrowers. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. View "TitleMax of Texas v. City of Dallas" on Justia Law

Sidney Kimble was convicted of two drug-trafficking felonies. After serving his sentences, he was found in possession of a handgun and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. Kimble argued that this lifelong prohibition violated his Second Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Kimble's motion to dismiss the indictment, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen did not overrule Fifth Circuit precedent upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). Kimble then pleaded guilty but retained the right to appeal the constitutionality of the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Kimble. The court reasoned that the Second Amendment allows Congress to disarm individuals deemed dangerous, and drug trafficking is inherently dangerous. The court found that historical and legal precedents support the disarmament of individuals involved in drug trafficking due to the intrinsic violence associated with the drug trade. Therefore, the court affirmed Kimble's conviction under § 922(g)(1). View "USA v. Kimble" on Justia Law

Officer Alexandra Weaver took a fourteen-year-old child, J.M., from her home during a child welfare investigation. The child and her parents sued, claiming Weaver searched the apartment and seized the child in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Weaver appealed the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that Weaver was not entitled to qualified immunity and denied summary judgment on three claims: the Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search of the apartment, J.M.’s Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure, and the Fourteenth Amendment claim for procedural due process. Weaver then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the warrantless search of the apartment was not justified by exigent circumstances, and no other exception applied. The court also found that J.M. was seized without a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances, violating her Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, the court held that the procedural due process claim was valid because J.M. was seized without a court order or exigent circumstances, and this violation was clearly established by precedent.The Fifth Circuit concluded that Weaver was not entitled to qualified immunity on any of the claims and affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment. View "McMurry v. Weaver" on Justia Law