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

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss in a Bivens action brought by plaintiff, alleging that defendant, an agent for the Department of Homeland Security, used excessive force to effectuate an unlawful seizure. The court concluded that plaintiff's action is precluded by the court's binding case law in Oliva v. Nivar, 973 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed, 89 U.S.L.W. 28 (U.S. Jan. 29, 2021) (No. 20-1060). In Oliva, the court held that Bivens claims are limited to three situations and plaintiff's case presents a new context. The court explained that the incident between the parties involved defendant's suspicion of plaintiff harassing and stalking his son, not a narcotics investigation as was the case in Bivens. Furthermore, defendant did not manacle plaintiff in from of his family, nor strip-search him; defendant did not discriminate based on sex; and defendant did not fail to provide medical attention. Furthermore, in this case, as in Oliva, separation of powers counsels against extending Bivens. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims against defendant. View "Byrd v. Lamb" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit joined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the Fair Labor Standards Act preempts redundant state law tort claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation when the state's law does not provide for minimum wages and overtime compensation. In this case, Mississippi does not have state labor laws governing minimum wage or overtime, so it would be impossible for Employees to state a claim for wage and hour violations under state law independent of the FLSA. Furthermore, it would be impossible for Employees to state a claim under the FLSA because sovereign immunity bars suit against the DOC. The court explained that the state law claims based on violations of the FLSA similarly fail because of preemption. Therefore, the court concluded that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. The court affirmed all dispositions of the district court. View "Aldridge v. Mississippi Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for engaging in a monetary transaction in property derived from a specified unlawful activity. Although defendant entered a plea agreement, when it came time to plead guilty, he requested two continuances based on his fears about traveling to the courthouse during the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court declined and ordered defendant to obtain housing in the Northern District of Texas. Although the district court had previously allowed defendant to reside in Alabama, the court concluded that defendant's reluctance to appear calls into question his ability to comply with the district court's conditions.The Fifth Circuit concluded that defendant's claim regarding the in-person rearraignment is not an immediately appealable collateral order, and thus dismissed that portion of the appeal and did not address its merits. However, the court addressed the merits of the claim questioning the housing requirement and concluded that it did not violate defendant's Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail. The court explained that, where a defendant expresses his reluctance to appear at such an in-person hearing, a district court can reasonably amend release conditions to ensure his appearance. The court also concluded that the district court's housing requirement did not violate procedural due process. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments against the housing requirement and affirmed the housing condition. View "United States v. Emakoji" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted panel rehearing; denied rehearing en banc; withdrew its prior opinion; and substituted the following opinion.Frank Williams, Jr. filed suit in Louisiana state court against his former employer, Lockheed Martin, seeking to recover damages for asbestos-related injuries. After Williams passed away, his children were substituted as plaintiffs. Lockheed Martin removed the case under federal officer removal jurisdiction and the district court granted summary judgment for Lockheed Martin, issuing sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel for improper ex parte communications.The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court properly considered the full state-court record as it existed at the time of removal and Lockheed Martin has met the requirements for federal officer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(2)(1). In this case, Lockheed Martin alleged the requisite nexus and has stated sufficient facts to make out a colorable Boyle defense. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to any of the challenged discovery orders.The court applied Louisiana law and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin on plaintiffs' survival and wrongful death claims. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing sanctions on plaintiffs' attorney and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $10,000 in attorney's fees. View "Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp." on Justia Law

After St. Charles filed suit against BCBS in Louisiana state court for state law fraud and abuse-of-right claims, BCBS removed the action to federal court. St. Charles had filed its third-amended petition and produced documents listing claims that involved patients insured under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA).The Fifth Circuit concluded that the appropriate course is for the district court to determine on remand whether St. Charles's waivers defeat federal officer jurisdiction, because the issue was neither a basis for the district court's decision nor extensively briefed by either party, and because the record was not fully developed in the district court. If St. Charles's waiver of FEHBA-governed claims does not settle the matter, the district court's jurisdiction hinges on a proper analysis of federal officer removal. Weighing the district court's remand order against the clarified test for federal officer removal in Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286, 290 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), the court concluded that the district court erred in its analysis. First, the district court applied St. Charles I too narrowly in determining that BCBS was not "acting under" OPM merely because St. Charles's claims "do not arise out of procedures dictated by OPM." Furthermore, even though the district court stated that the "causal nexus" element "ha[d] no bearing on the [c]ourt's decision in this case," the court concluded that this issue should be revisited on remand. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's remand order and remanded for further proceedings. View "St. Charles Surgical Hospital, LLC v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted in a second superseding indictment on eight charges of false use of a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1543, and eight charges of misuse of a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1544. The Government now agrees that the convictions under section 1544 must be vacated based on insufficient evidence.The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for false use of a passport and held that there was ample evidence, both direct and circumstantial, to conclude that defendant used fraudulent passports to open accounts at various banks in the Houston area. Because the court has determined that there is insufficient evidence to support defendant's section 1544 convictions for misuse of a passport, the court need not address defendant's argument that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment as to those charges. Finally, the court also held that defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred in allowing certain lay opinion testimony and failed to demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in its loss calculation. Accordingly, the court vacated the section 1544 convictions and affirmed the section 1543 convictions. View "United States v. Masha" on Justia Law

After the bankruptcy court awarded fees to the bankruptcy debtor's counsel for work performed prior to the appointment of a trustee, creditors appealed the fee award to the district court. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's vacatur of the fee award, concluding that the district court improperly assessed the benefit of counsel's services to the estate from hindsight, rather than assessing the reasonableness and likely benefit from the time the services were rendered. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to reinstate the bankruptcy court's fee award; denied the motion to dismiss the trustee from the appeal for lack of standing; denied the motion to dismiss as moot; and denied as moot the alternative motion to vacate the district court's judgment. View "Edwards Family Partnership, LP v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Exeter and Exeter's parent company, Enzo, in an action brought by plaintiff, a former employee, for breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and plaintiff abandoned his remaining arguments challenging the exclusion of his evidence.The court also concluded that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's contract claim, based on the Profits Interest Units Agreement, failed as a matter of law; the district court correctly concluded that, absent evidence of a valid severance agreement, plaintiff's breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law; the district court properly adjudicated plaintiff's fraud claims as a matter of law; and the district court correctly determined that plaintiff's conduct in connection with the transactions before the district court was inequitable, precluding any equitable remedy.The court noted that three-quarters of the record in this case was sealed from the public and that the public's right of access to judicial proceedings is fundamental. The court urged litigants and the court's judicial colleagues to zealously guard the public's right of access to judicial records. View "Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Finance Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Union Pacific, alleging that Union Pacific violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by suspending her, and later terminating her, in retaliation for her 2016 lawsuit against the company and her 2018 internal complaint. Plaintiff also alleged that Union Pacific violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and the Texas Labor Code (TLC) by retaliating against her because of her requests for union representation. The district court granted Union Pacific's motion to dismiss.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII claim, concluding that she plausibly alleged a causal link between her 2018 internal EEO complaint and her subsequent suspension and termination. However, the court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the RLA claim for lack of jurisdiction, and that plaintiff's RLA claim is preempted by plaintiff's TLC claim. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims. View "Wright v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a "no alcohol" special condition after defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and one count of transporting an illegal alien. The court concluded that where, as here, the defendant has a history of substance abuse and drug-related arrests such that the court reasonably believes he is an "abuser" of drugs, it is within the district court's discretion to require substance abuse treatment and prohibit the use of intoxicating substances, including alcohol, as special conditions of supervised release—even when there is no evidence in the record of alcohol abuse specifically. View "United States v. Vigil" on Justia Law