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

Rodrigo Linares-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1996. In 2016, he was placed in removal proceedings while in state custody for driving without a license with prior convictions. Linares-Rivas conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), claiming his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two U.S. citizen sons. His initial counsel submitted untimely evidence, which the immigration judge considered. At a hearing in April 2018, Linares-Rivas appeared with new counsel who requested a continuance to file additional evidence, blaming previous counsel for missed deadlines. The immigration judge denied the continuance but admitted the previously submitted evidence.The immigration judge denied Linares-Rivas’s application for cancellation of removal, citing negative factors such as his two DWI convictions, frequent driving without a license, and lack of evidence of tax payments. Linares-Rivas appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), raising issues including ineffective assistance of counsel and the denied continuance. The BIA remanded the case to the immigration judge to provide a complete decision. In September 2019, the immigration judge again denied the application, finding Linares-Rivas statutorily ineligible and denying relief as a matter of discretion. The BIA affirmed the decision in March 2024.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. The court also denied the petition in part regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as it was not initially raised before the BIA. The court concluded that Linares-Rivas’s arguments did not raise a colorable legal question about the agency’s discretionary denial. View "Linares-Rivas v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Raymond Vuoncino, a corporate-finance professional, worked for U.S. Pipe Fabrication, LLC (Fabrication). After Fabrication implemented new accounting practices for inter-company sales, Vuoncino objected to these practices as potentially fraudulent. Subsequently, he was fired by an executive of Fabrication’s parent company, Forterra, Inc. Vuoncino sued Fabrication, Forterra, and two Forterra executives, alleging violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s anti-retaliation provision.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Vuoncino’s first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, denied his motion for leave to amend his complaint, and denied reconsideration of those orders. Vuoncino appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Vuoncino’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, finding the proposed amendments were time-barred and did not relate back to the original complaint. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of reconsideration, noting that Vuoncino’s motion rehashed previously rejected arguments and did not present newly discovered evidence.However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act claim against Fabrication, concluding that Vuoncino’s first amended complaint plausibly alleged that Fabrication employed him. The court found that Vuoncino’s allegations, taken as true, were sufficient to raise a plausible inference that he was a Fabrication employee. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act claims against Forterra, Bradley, and Kerfin, as Vuoncino failed to sufficiently plead that these defendants were his employer’s alter ego or that he could sue Forterra directly without establishing an employment relationship.The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vuoncino v. Forterra" on Justia Law

Karen Orr tripped on a soft drink display at a Dollar General store in Ackerman, Mississippi, and subsequently fell. After Orr's death, Sandie Keister, on behalf of Orr's estate, sued Dolgencorp for premises-liability negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. During discovery, Dolgencorp failed to produce security camera footage, data from the store’s daily planner, and safety-check data. The district court found that Dolgencorp lost or could not access this evidence. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and Keister also filed a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment for Dolgencorp on all claims and denied Keister’s motions for summary judgment and sanctions. Keister appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Dolgencorp on her premises liability claim and in denying her motion for sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed the decision. The court held that Keister failed to provide evidence that Dolgencorp breached its duty to warn Orr of the dangerous condition. Keister's arguments, including the mode-of-operation theory and the duration of the dangerous condition, were insufficient to establish Dolgencorp's liability. The court also affirmed the denial of Keister’s motion for sanctions, finding no evidence that Dolgencorp intended to deprive her of the missing evidence and noting that the request for a jury instruction became moot after summary judgment was granted.The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Keister v. Dolgencorp" on Justia Law

A mother, Samantha Estefania Francisco Castro, removed her daughter, A.F., from Venezuela, where the father, Jose Leonardo Brito Guevara, had lawful custody. Castro and A.F. illegally immigrated to the United States. Brito petitioned for A.F.'s return under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Brito's petition, finding that although Brito had established a prima facie case of wrongful removal, A.F. was now well-settled in Texas. Brito appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in its application of the well-settled exception. The appellate court found that A.F.'s young age, the instability of her residence and her mother's employment, and the uncertain immigration status of both A.F. and her mother weighed against a finding that A.F. was well-settled in the United States. The court emphasized that the Hague Convention's primary objective is to restore the pre-abduction status quo and deter parents from seeking more favorable courts across borders. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to order A.F.'s return to Venezuela. View "Guevara v. Castro" on Justia Law

Sanchez Energy Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2019 due to a downturn in the oil and gas industry caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The bankruptcy court approved a reorganization plan in April 2020, which aimed to compensate creditors with equity in a new entity. Disputes arose between secured and unsecured creditors over the allocation of this equity. The bankruptcy court sided with the unsecured creditors, awarding them a dominant stake in the new entity after hypothetically valuing various avoidance actions preserved by the reconstituted debtor.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The bankruptcy court held that the secured creditors' pre-petition liens on valuable oil and gas interests were avoidable preferential transfers. The court then proceeded to value the avoidance actions and allocated the equity shares in the new entity, Mesquite Energy, Inc., based on this valuation. The secured creditors appealed the decision, arguing that the bankruptcy court's valuation and allocation contravened the Bankruptcy Code.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the bankruptcy court's equity allocation violated the Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S.C. §§ 550(a) and (d), because it incorrectly approved more than a "single satisfaction" as a remedy for the avoided secured creditors' liens. The Fifth Circuit vacated the bankruptcy court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized that the Plan did not permit a hypothetical valuation process that disregarded the proper application of Sections 550(a) and (d) and that the secured creditors were entitled to a single satisfaction for their liens. View "Sr Secured Noteholders v. DE Trust Co" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the widows of five men killed during peaceful rallies in Nigeria, sued Willie Obiano, the former Governor of Anambra State, under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA). They alleged that Obiano ordered Nigerian military forces to shoot and kill their husbands at the rallies. Obiano, who now resides in Texas, served as Governor from March 17, 2014, to March 17, 2022. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, claiming the killings were extrajudicial and occurred under Obiano's command.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the suit, citing the common-law principle of foreign official immunity. The court agreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation, concluding that Obiano was entitled to conduct-based immunity for actions taken in his official capacity as a Nigerian official. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument for a ius cogens exception to foreign official immunity, which would have allowed for immunity to be forfeited for heinous acts such as torture or extrajudicial killings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the TVPA does not implicitly abrogate foreign official immunity. The court reasoned that the TVPA's language does not clearly indicate Congress's intent to eliminate existing common-law immunities. The court also noted that the TVPA covers a field previously governed by common law, and thus, it should be interpreted with the presumption that Congress intended to retain the substance of the common law. Consequently, the court concluded that Obiano was protected by conduct-based immunity for his official actions as a Nigerian governor. View "Jane Does 1-5 v. Obiano" on Justia Law

The Heidi Group, Inc. alleged that several Texas officials violated the Fourth Amendment and Texas law by conspiring with a private citizen to steal documents from a cloud-based file storage system. The officials moved for judgment on the pleadings and asserted various immunity defenses. The district court denied the motions in relevant part.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the case and denied the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal involved four distinct groups of orders: the denial of qualified immunity for individual capacity defendants on the Fourth Amendment claim, the denial of judgment on the pleadings for the official capacity Fourth Amendment claim, the denial of state law immunity for the individual capacity defendants on the unlawful-access claim, and the denial of judgment on the pleadings for the state law religious-discrimination claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal regarding the religious-discrimination claim and declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the official capacity Fourth Amendment claim. The court held that only Gaylon Dacus engaged in state action and was not entitled to qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment claim. The court found that Dacus used a former employee to access Heidi's documents without proper authorization, violating clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court also affirmed the denial of state law immunity for the individual capacity defendants on the unlawful-access claim, as their actions were not in good faith. The court reversed the denial of judgment on the pleadings for Johnson and Kaufman on the individual capacity Fourth Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Heidi Group v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission" on Justia Law

AllService Plumbing and Maintenance, Inc. is a small, family-owned plumbing company in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In 2009, a union organizer named Charles LeBlanc began efforts to unionize AllService’s workforce. An employee, Joe Lungrin, opposed the unionization and informed the company’s Vice President, Luke Hall, about LeBlanc’s activities. The union filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold an election among AllService’s employees. After agreeing on an election date, AllService laid off three employees. The union lost the election, and subsequently filed a complaint with the NLRB alleging that AllService violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by surveilling, threatening, and interrogating employees, and by laying off employees due to their union activities.An NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) found in 2011 that AllService violated the NLRA and ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off employees with backpay. AllService did not file timely exceptions, and the NLRB adopted the ALJ’s findings in 2012. A second ALJ calculated damages in 2013, and the NLRB ordered AllService to pay over $100,000. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning in 2014 invalidated the NLRB’s quorum, leading the Board to set aside its decision and dismiss its enforcement petition.In 2022, the NLRB issued a notice to show cause for re-adopting the 2013 ALJ decision, blaming administrative oversight for the delay. AllService objected, citing significant business losses due to floods in 2016 and 2021. The NLRB ignored these objections and adopted the 2013 decision. The NLRB then applied to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for summary enforcement of its 2022 order.The Fifth Circuit denied the NLRB’s request for summary enforcement, finding that the Board failed to prove that enforcement would be equitable. The court held that the Board’s delay and administrative neglect were extraordinary circumstances excusing AllService’s failure to exhaust specific objections. The court also granted AllService’s petition for review, finding that the Board lacked substantial evidence to attribute Lungrin’s activities to AllService and to find that the pre-election layoffs were related to union activity. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Allservice Plumbing" on Justia Law

A group of businesses and individuals in the vision care industry challenged Texas House Bill 1696, which regulates managed vision care plans by limiting the information these plans can provide to their enrollees. The plaintiffs argued that the bill imposed unconstitutional burdens on their rights of commercial speech, associational freedom, and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the bill's enforcement and the defendants, Texas officials, moved to dismiss the case, claiming sovereign immunity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claims and that the equities favored a preliminary injunction. The defendants appealed both the denial of their sovereign immunity defense and the grant of the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss as it related to Texas Insurance Commissioner Cassie Brown, finding that she had a specific duty to enforce the statute. However, the court vacated the denial of the motion to dismiss as it related to Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, determining that they did not have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the statute. The court also affirmed the preliminary injunction against Commissioner Brown, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claim and that the balance of equities favored the injunction. The court vacated the preliminary injunction as it applied to Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton and remanded the case for modification of the orders. View "Healthy Vision Association v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Houston police officers Manual Salazar and Nestor Garcia, members of the Gang Division Crime Reduction Unit, fatally shot David Anthony Salinas on July 14, 2021, following a pursuit in a sting operation. His widow, Brittany Salinas, filed a lawsuit against Officers Salazar and Garcia and the City of Houston, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Texas Tort Claims Act, and the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full. The court found that Brittany Salinas had standing to bring her claims but concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the claims against the City of Houston were meritless. Brittany Salinas timely appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Salinas based on the identifying information on his vehicle and his refusal to stop when the officers engaged their lights. The court also found that the officers did not violate Salinas' Fourth Amendment rights, as they reasonably believed he posed an immediate threat when he continuously reached within his vehicle despite their commands to show his hands. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the officers, finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity.Regarding the claims against the City of Houston, the court found no constitutional injury and affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Texas Tort Claims Act claims, as they were foreclosed by the ruling on qualified immunity and barred by case law. The court concluded that the City of Houston's sovereign immunity had not been waived. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims. View "Salinas v. City of Houston" on Justia Law