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

After a Texas condo association suffered property damage during Hurricane Harvey, it filed a property-damage claim against its insurer. When the insurer refused to pay, the association filed suit for breach of its insurance contracts.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the association, holding the insurer liable. Applying de novo review, the court held that the association established coverage and that the insurer failed to prove that an exclusion applies. In this case, the association met its burden to show that its boat slips are covered in the absence of an applicable exclusion. Furthermore, in the face of an affidavit tending to establish that the boat slips were not destroyed by a "flood," the insurer could not carry its legal burden to prove one of the "flood" exclusions by submitting nothing. The court explained that this is particularly true where the policy exclusions on their face do not apply to the loss of the association's boat slips. Finally, the insurer conceded in the district court that the association's boat slips are covered by the storage provision, and the insurer cannot rely on the governmental-body exclusion. View "Playa Vista Conroe v. Insurance Company of the West" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to health care fraud after operating a chiropractic clinic that fraudulently billed insurance companies for services he performed without a license. Defendant was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay the defrauded insurance companies $514,576.29 under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA). The Act generally allows the government to garnish any of the defendant's property to satisfy a restitution order. The district court issued writs of garnishment for accounts defendant maintains with brokerage firms and life insurance companies.Applying de novo review, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the Sixth Circuit that the child-support exemption only applies to money akin to salary and wages—meaning amounts received directly for labor such as "bonuses, tips, commissions, and fees." Because this does not describe defendant's retirement accounts, the court affirmed the judgment garnishing those accounts. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Johnson and Goings' convictions and sentences for the armed robbery of two banks and one credit union and related firearms offenses. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Johnson's convictions for brandishing a firearm during the armed robbery of the credit union and his two convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm; the evidence was sufficient to support Goings' convictions for armed robbery of the credit union and for brandishing a firearm during that robbery; the district court's response to a jury note did not violate Goings' right to due process where there is no reasonable likelihood that the district court's response influenced the jury; and the district court did not plainly err by applying a six-level sentencing enhancement to Johnson's sentence under USSG 3A1.2(c)(1) for assaulting a law enforcement officer in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury during the offense or while fleeing. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the magistrate judge's grant of PNC Bank's motion for summary judgment for foreclosure, concluding that the magistrate judge lacked subject matter jurisdiction to conduct proceedings and to enter a final judgment. Finding Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (2003), distinguishable from this case, the court could not say that PNC's consent to trial by magistrate judge was clear and unambiguous because its express statement of non-consent is flatly inconsistent with its subsequent conduct. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "PNC Bank v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). In this case, the district court instructed the jury that the Government had to prove: (1) defendant knowingly possessed a firearm; (2) he had been convicted previously of a felony; (3) at the time of possession, he knew he had a prior felony conviction; and (4) the firearm possessed traveled in interstate commerce.The court concluded that the jury instructions complied with the rule set forth in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2194 (2019). The court explained that the district court clearly instructed jurors as to the relevant principles of law and thus did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's request for a jury instruction. View "United States v. Trevino" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to acquire a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer by false or fictitious statement. Defendant and her husband served as illegal straw-purchasers in a weapons-trafficking arrangement.The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err when it instructed defendant as to the elements of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6). The court rejected defendant's contention that the reasoning in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019) -- which held that, in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm -- extends to section 922(a)(6). Plaintiff argued that, to convict for conspiracy to violate section 922(a)(6), the government must prove not only that she knowingly made a false statement but also that she made such statement to a seller she knew to be a licensed dealer. However, the court explained that Rehaif does not compel such a conclusion and that Rehaif expressly limited its application in relation to other portions within subsection (g). The court concluded that, even if Rehaif compels the inclusion of the scienter requirement for which defendant advocates for prosecutions under sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2), that is not the crime of which she pleaded guilty. Furthermore, section 371 does not contain the "knowingly" requirement included in section 924(a)(2). Even after Rehaif, and even for prosecutions under sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2), the court has continued to adhere to its long-held view of what the government must prove under section 922(a)(6). The court also rejected defendant's claim for selective or vindictive prosecution based on her appeal waiver. Finally, the court dismissed defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

This diversity action brought by plaintiffs involves a dispute concerning a sinkhole that emerged near the decades-long salt-mining activities of one of the defendants. The district court approved the settlement and defendant appealed.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the settlement agreement leaves plaintiffs with claims against Texas Brine for post-sinkhole damages, and it affects Texas Brine's ability to seek indemnification and contribution from the pre-2012 Insurers for those claims. The court explained that such a settlement is certainly proper if Texas Brine did not have any right to indemnification or contribution from the pre-2012 Insurers for post-sinkhole damages. The court applied Louisiana law and concluded that Texas Brine has failed to meet its burden to show that the post-sinkhole claims were covered under the 2011 Zurich policy. Therefore, Texas Brine has failed to show plain legal prejudice from the settlement agreement, and that it has a right to contribution or indemnification from the pre-2012 Insurers for the post-sinkhole claims. The court concluded that the settlement thus did not affect any such right and Texas Brine lacks standing as a non-party to object to the settlement. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "LeBlanc v. Texas Brine Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the Commission's final rule prohibiting the manufacture and sale of any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of any one of five phthalates.The Fifth Circuit held that EMCC has standing to bring its challenge to the Final Rule and the court has jurisdiction to review the Final Rule. The court also held that the Commission procedurally erred by not providing an adequate opportunity to comment on the rule and by failing to consider the costs of a portion of the rule. Having reviewed the record and the Final Rule, the court can discern the Commission's path for each of the six decisions at issue and held that its explanations are not "so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." Because there is a serious possibility that CSPC will be able to remedy its failures, the court concluded that remand, rather than vacatur, was appropriate in this case. View "Texas Association of Manufacturers v. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim under the Fair Debt Practices Act. Plaintiff filed suit after a debt collector spoke with plaintiff's sister over the phone, alleging that the debt collector violated the Act's prohibition on communicating with third parties about a consumer's debt. However, the court concluded that the conversation between plaintiff's sister and the debt collector was not a "communication" as defined by the statute. In this case, even taking the pleaded facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the conversation between the debt collector's representative and plaintiff's sister did not convey any information regarding a debt, either directly or indirectly. Rather, the representative mentioned "an important personal business matter," which does not even suggest the existence of a debt, much less provide information about it. View "Fontana v. HOVG LLC" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms of marijuana. The court held that defendant's sentence is based on his initial guideline range because that range played a relevant part in the framework the sentencing judge used in imposing his sentence. The court also held that the guideline range applicable to defendant is his initial guideline range of 292 to 365 months. The court explained that Amendment 780 lowered the guideline range applicable to defendant from 292 to 365 months to 262 to 327 months. Therefore, the court remanded for the district court to determine whether a reduction of defendant's sentence is warranted. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law