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

Southern Recycling brought a petition for exoneration or limitation of liability under the Limitation of Liability Act. The petition arose from an accident during shipbreaking operations that killed one worker and injured another. Claimants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court explained that the jurisdictional question of whether DBL 134 is a vessel is antecedent to the merits in a limitation action, rather than intertwined with the merits, and thus the district court did not err in applying the usual Rule 12(b)(1) standard and resolving factual disputes about the physical characteristics of the structure. The court also concluded that Southern Recycling failed to demonstrate that, based on its physical characteristics, DBL 134 had no been removed from navigation. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that DBL 134 was not longer a "vessel," but instead was a "dead ship." Finally, Southern Recycling has not shown why it needed further discovery or what material evidence further discovery could have produced that was not already available to it. View "Southern Recycling, LLC v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

El Paso County and BNHR, a community organization headquartered in El Paso, filed suit challenging the government's use of funds allocated for 10 U.S.C. 284 and 2808 purposes to construct a wall on the southern border. The district court enjoined defendants from using section 2808 funds to build the border wall but declined to enjoin defendants from using section 284 funds.The Fifth Circuit held that El Paso County and BNHR do not have standing to challenge either the section 2808 or section 284 expenditures. The court concluded that a county's loss of general tax revenues as an indirect result of federal policy is not a cognizable injury in fact. In this case, El Paso County only alleges a loss of general tax revenue, and thus has not established a cognizable injury in fact sufficient to establish standing to challenge the government's section 2808 expenditures. Even if El Paso County's alleged economic injury were cognizable, the county fails to demonstrate that the injury is redressable by a favorable decision in this case. The court explained that an order granting relief against the section 2808 expenditures would not rescind the proclamation and accordingly would not redress any harm caused by the proclamation. Therefore, the alleged reputational injuries do not provide El Paso County standing to challenge the section 2808 expenditures. Furthermore, BNHR failed to establish standing to challenge the government's section 2808 expenditures by establishing an injury in fact. In this case, BNHR's single vague, conclusory assertion that the organization had to divert resources is insufficient to establish that the section 2808 construction has "perceptibly impaired" the organization's ability to carry out its mission. Likewise, the court concluded that El Paso County and BNHR do not have standing to challenge the government's section 284 expenditures. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs; vacated the district court's injunction enjoining the section 2808 expenditures; and remanded for dismissal of all claims for lack of jurisdiction. View "El Paso County v. Trump" on Justia Law

This case arises out of R. Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme. Plaintiffs filed suit against SEI and SEI's insurers, seeking to hold SEI liable under the control-person provision of Louisiana Securities Law. In this case, plaintiffs allege that SEI is liable for STC's violations under the control-person provision of Louisiana Securities Law based on SEI's contractual relationship with STC.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to SEI and its insurers, holding that SEI was not a control person under the statute. The court need not determine whether the investors must establish that SEI had control over STC's day-to-day operations because plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact that SEI directly or indirectly controlled STC's primary violations. Because the district court properly granted summary judgment to SEI, the court also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on all claims against the insurers. View "Ahders v. SEI Private Trust Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in an action brought by the estate of Rosa Bonilla, a woman who committed suicide while in custody. In regard to the episodic acts or omissions claims, the court was reluctant to hold that generalized evidence of an inmate's mental illness invariably indicates a substantial risk of self harm. In this case, the circumstances of Bonilla's arrest, booking, and detention did not raise questions concerning her mental stability or capacity for self-harm; she had no suicidal tendencies; and evidence indicates that Bonilla did not request medical help, and her behavior in detention was unremarkable prior to her suicide. Therefore, the evidence did not give rise to reasonable inferences that the individual defendants were aware of Bonilla's suicidal tendency, much less that they disregarded the risk. Furthermore, plaintiffs' episodic acts or omission claim would fail because Defendants Dickerson and Shafer are entitled to qualified immunity.In regard to claims against Orange County, the court concluded that the record does not support plaintiffs' theory that Orange County has a pervasive policy or custom of allowing detainees to self-classify their risk of self-harm. The court also concluded that there was no policy or custom of unreasonably delaying prescriptions. In this case, a jury would have to resort to impermissible speculation to conclude that there was a "direct causal link" between the alleged constitutional violation—defendants' failure to distribute Xanax to Bonilla during her 10-hour stay—and her death. View "Estate of Rosa Bonilla v. Orange County" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants William Joseph Dubin and David Fox Dubin's convictions and sentences for charges arising from a scheme to defraud Texas’ Medicaid program. William, a licensed psychologist, formed a corporation that was an enrolled Medicaid provider. David, William's son, worked for the corporation.The court held that David waived his challenge to the Government's amended indictment by failing to raise his defense until a post-trial motion for ineffective assistance of counsel; the evidence was sufficient to support David's conviction for conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, aggravated identity theft, and aiding and abetting; and the evidence was sufficient to support William's conviction for conspiracy to pay and receive healthcare kickbacks, offering to pay, and paying, illegal remunerations. The court also upheld the legality of the restitution award and forfeiture orders. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err by failing to adjust William's sentence downward based on a lower restitution amount. View "United States v. Dubin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Peoples Health Network in an action brought by former employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court concluded that the employees' job duties fall within the administrative employee exemption to the statute.The court agreed and concluded de novo that the evidence created no genuine issue of material fact and the district court had ample support from the record to conclude that plaintiffs were salaried employees; plaintiffs' primary job duties directly relate to the management or general business operations of Peoples Health or its customers; and plaintiffs' primary job duties included the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. The court also concluded that the district court applied the correct standard of review, and the district court made clear in its conclusion that it was applying the summary judgment standard to Peoples Health's burden of proving the administrative exemption by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Jones v. New Orleans Regional Physician Hospital Organization, Inc." on Justia Law

Future Proof filed suit against Coors for trademark infringement, claiming that consumers would confuse Coors' hard seltzer beverage "Vizzy" with Future Proof's hard seltzer beverage "Brizzy."The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Future Proof's motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Future Proof cannot determine a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. In this case, the district court considered the digits of confusion and concluded that three digits supported the injunction and one weighed "marginally in favor of granting the injunction . . . ." But the district court correctly concluded that the other four factors did not support the injunction. The district court also notably concluded correctly that the two digits that have special importance, namely the sixth—which "may alone be sufficient to justify an inference that there is a likelihood of confusion,"—and the seventh—which constitutes the "best evidence of a likelihood of confusion,"—did not support the injunction. View "Future Proof Brands, LLC v. Molson Coors Beverage Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging Texas's physical-examination requirement for vets, which prohibits vets from offering individualized advice to pet owners unless the vet previously examined the animal. The district court rejected plaintiff's arguments and granted defendants' motion to dismiss.After oral argument, another panel of the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in Vizaline, L.L.C. v. Tracy, 949 F.3d 927 (5th Cir. 2020), holding that general licensing regulations are not automatically immune from First Amendment scrutiny. Bound by Vizaline, the court concluded that plaintiff's First Amendment claims may be entitled to greater judicial scrutiny than Hines I allowed. The court explained that the relevant question is whether the state's licensing requirements regulate only speech, restrict speech only incidentally to their regulation of non-expressive professional conduct, or regulate only non-expressive conduct. As the Vizaline court did, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to make the initial evaluation of whether conduct or speech is being regulated. In regard to plaintiff's equal protection claim, the court agreed with the State that it is rational to distinguish between humans and animals based on the species' differing capabilities. The court explained that the law's differentiating telemedicine rules between medical doctors and veterinarians is a logical distinction. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Hines v. Quillivan" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's consecutive 24-month sentences for violating the terms of his supervised release. Defendant argued that the district court clearly gave significant weight to an improper factor—the need to promote respect for the law—because the district court "cited only this one reason when explaining its decision to impose two consecutive sentences" fifteen months above the high end of the guideline range.The court concluded that the district court's reliance on defendant's absconding in pronouncing sentence was not itself plain error. The court explained that the district court's passing reference to defendant's lack of respect for the law does not make it plain that the district court impermissibly used defendant's history of absconding. Furthermore, the court concluded that the district court's failure to consider defendant's first alleged self-surrender does not warrant reversal. Nor does the upward variance from the guidelines call into doubt the reasonableness of the sentence. View "United States v. Cano" on Justia Law

After a jury found that defendants were liable for violations of overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), defendants alleged various errors by the district court. The Fifth Circuit held that defendants' alleged errors were either unpreserved in the district court or inadequately briefed and thus forfeited on appeal. The court paused to address one argument regarding plaintiff's claim that defendants are not an "enterprise engaged in commerce" subject to the overtime requirements of the FLSA.The court held, as a matter of first impression, that 29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(A) is not jurisdictional and therefore subject to forfeiture. In holding so, the court followed the Supreme Court's decision in Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), which held that a similar requirement under Title VII is not jurisdictional—as well as the First Circuit's decisions in Chao v. Hotel Oasis, Inc., 493 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2007), and Martinez v. Petrenko, 792 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2015), which reached the same conclusion as to the enterprise element of the FLSA. In this case, defendants forfeited any objection to FLSA enterprise coverage on appeal when they stipulated to it before the district court. View "Biziko v. Van Horne" on Justia Law