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

Paul Batiste, a local jazz musician, brought a copyright infringement action against the world-famous hip-hop duo Macklemore & Ryan Lewis. After the district court found no evidence of copyrighting, it granted summary judgment for defendants and then ordered both Batiste and his attorney to pay defendants' attorneys' fees.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court acted well within its discretion in denying Batiste's motion for leave to supplement his summary-judgment opposition. The court also held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for defendants on the copyright infringement claims where Batiste failed to produce evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that defendants had access to his music or to find striking similarities between his songs and those of defendants. Therefore, he cannot prove factual copying and his copyright claims fail. The court further held that, given the objective unreasonableness of Batiste's claims, his history of litigation misconduct, and his pattern of filing overaggressive copyright actions, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to defendants under the Copyright Act. Finally, the court lacked jurisdiction to review Batiste's challenge to the district court's decision to hold his attorney jointly and severally liable for the fee award as a sanction. View "Batiste v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Officer Currie's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, alleging constitutional violations after Mark Mayfield committed suicide. The Madison Police Department had arrested Mark and two conspirators, and the basis for the arrest warrant was the affidavit of Currie, who stated that Mark had communicated with conspirators and assisted them in their effort to photograph the wife of United States Senator Thad Cochran in an assisted living facility. Currie claims that there was no constitutional violation because the issuance of the arrest warrant broke the causal chain, immunizing her from liability.The court held that there are two ways to overcome the independent-intermediary doctrine: first, in Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 344–45 (1986), the Supreme Court held that an officer can be held liable for a search authorized by a warrant when the affidavit presented to the magistrate was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable; and second, under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and its progeny, officers who deliberately or recklessly provide false, material information for use in an affidavit or who make knowing and intentional omissions that result in a warrant being issued without probable cause may still be held liable.The court held that, under Malley, the information Currie and other investigators provided to the magistrate throughout the course of their investigation clearly was sufficient to establish probable cause to issue a warrant for Mark's arrest. Therefore, the district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs adequately alleged wrongdoing under Malley. The court remanded to the district court for further consideration of Franks. View "Mayfield v. Currie" on Justia Law

Wardrip committed five murders in Texas in 1984-1986.. He surrendered to police and confessed to his last murder. Wardrip was released on parole in 1997. After DNA testing connected Wardrip to unsolved murders, he was arrested and confessed to four other murders. At trial, the state introduced Wardrip’s prison disciplinary record, with only two infractions during his 11 years in prison. Wardrip’s defense counsel called a parole officer and an employer to testify to Wardrip’s good behavior while on parole. Waldrip’s attorney, Curry, later explained that suggesting Wardrip had rehabilitated would have required putting Wardrip on the stand. Curry wanted jurors to focus on the fact that Wardrip was not a disciplinary problem and not a danger to anyone if imprisoned for life. The jury found that Wardrip would be a threat to society and that mitigating circumstances did not warrant life imprisonment. The court sentenced Wardrip to death. Texas courts denied habeas relief.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of federal habeas relief. It was not an “unreasonable determination of the facts” for the state court to find that Curry had conducted a reasonable investigation that made him aware of Wardrip’s good conduct while imprisoned and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding what evidence to present, satisfying Strickland’s standard for effective assistance of counsel. It was also reasonable for the court to conclude that whatever else Curry might have done, the failure to take those steps had not prejudiced Wardrip. View "Wardrip v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit treated appellees' Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel Rehearing and granted it, withdrawing its prior opinion and substituting the following opinion.The Employees appealed the denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law in their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action, and 4JLJ cross-appealed the sanctions and cost awards. The court dismissed the Employees' appeal based on lack of jurisdiction because the Employees did not timely file a notice of appeal. The court also lacked jurisdiction over 4JLJ's cross-appeal of the order imposing monetary sanctions, because 4JLJ's June 24, 2019, appeal was untimely with respect to the pre-judgment imposition of monetary sanctions. However, 4JLJ's June 24 appeal was timely with respect to the June 3 post-judgment order allocating costs. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding cost allocation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) where the district court articulated its reasons in its order and based its decision on facts in the record suggesting that 4JLJ had engaged in evasive discovery practices. Accordingly, the court affirmed the cost allocation. View "Edwards v. 4JLJ, LLC" on Justia Law

Vialva was convicted under federal law of capital murder and sentenced to death. Since his 2000 conviction, Vialva’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal; his 28 U.S.C. 2255 challenge was denied; and his effort to vacate the denial of his section 2255 motion under FRCP 60(b) failed. The Federal Bureau of Prisons scheduled Vialva’s execution for September 24, 2020, and informed Vialva on July 31, 2020. Vialva moved to enjoin his execution.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Vialva is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his primary argument on appeal, that Texas state law should have been followed with respect to the issuance of an execution warrant and the setting of execution dates. Vialva has not shown the remaining factors favor a stay of execution. Vialva has thoroughly litigated his conviction and sentence. He was given official notice well in advance of his execution date. Vialva is not challenging his death sentence, but only the pre-execution procedures for carrying it out. The public’s interest in timely enforcement of the death sentence outweighs Vialva’s request for more time. View "United States v. Vialva" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The search of defendant's vehicle revealed a suitcase that contained nine bundles of cocaine.The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle. In this case, the district court considered the six factor balancing test and the totality of the circumstances, including the lack of coercive police procedures, the extent of defendant's cooperation, and defendant's education and intelligence. The court stated that the district court's analysis of the consent factors was plausible in light of the record as a whole. View "United States v. Soriano" on Justia Law

After plaintiffs contracted with Regions Bank for it to manage, as their agent, their mineral interests in a large tract of land, Regions signed a lease extension with a third party, intending to extend the lease for only a small part of the property. However, the lease was unlimited and applied to the entire tract of land. Region's unintentional mistake cost plaintiffs tens of millions of dollars.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' action for breach of contract against Regions, holding that Louisiana's ten year statute of limitations period for contract claims applies to plaintiffs' suit. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that Regions breached their contracts by acting negligently. The court stated that, under Louisiana law, they had the choice to sue Regions for this alleged breach in tort or in contract. Because plaintiffs chose contract, their claim is subject to the ten year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Franklin v. Regions Bank" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss Sahara's suit for injunctive relief in a Medicare recoupment case, holding that the government provided Sahara adequate process. Applying the Mathews factors, the court held that the sufficiency of the current procedures and the minimal benefit of the live hearing weighs so strongly against Sahara that its due process claim fails. In this case, Sahara received some procedure, chose to forego additional protections, and cannot demonstrate the additional value of the hearing it requests. The court also held that Sahara failed to state a claim for ultra vires actions under 42 U.S.C. 1395ff. View "Sahara Health Care, Inc. v. Azar" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against State Farm after it denied their claim for windstorm damage to their home. The district court granted summary judgment for State Farm on various causes of action. Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was presented to the jury where the jury presented a verdict in plaintiffs' favor. After the district court originally granted plaintiffs relief on their request for attorney's fees and statutory interest, it then ruled that the failure to specifically plead relief under Texas Insurance Code 542.060 (the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act or "TPPCA") barred the requested relief and entered judgment only in the amount of the breach of contract damages found by the jury, together with regular pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the district court erred in holding that Chavez v. State Farm Lloyds, 746 F. App'x 337 (5th Cir. 2018), barred plaintiffs' claims for the 18 percent penalty and attorney's fees under Chapter 542. The court held that subsequent Texas Supreme Court cases make clear that Chavez is no longer good law. Rather, the Texas Supreme Court recently stated that nothing in the TPPCA would excuse an insurer from liability for TPPCA damages if it was liable under the terms of the policy but delayed payment beyond the applicable statutory deadline. View "Agredano v. State Farm Lloyds" on Justia Law

After the Board certified two groups of employees of STP to join a collective bargaining unit represented by the Union, STP refused to recognize and bargain with the Union on the basis that its "unit supervisors" and "maintenance supervisors" are excluded from the bargaining unit pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act.The Fifth Circuit reversed the Board's bargaining order and denied enforcement, holding that the Board's conclusions that the employees are not statutory supervisors are premised on errors of law and lack substantial evidence. In this case, the Board lacked substantial evidence to find that unit supervisors do not "responsibly direct" work and maintenance supervisors do not "assign" work. Therefore, STP's unit supervisors and maintenance supervisors are statutory supervisors under 29 U.S.C. 152(11). View "STP Nuclear Operating Co. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law