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

A group of business associations, including the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB). The plaintiffs challenged a new Final Rule issued by the CFPB regarding credit card late fees and sought a preliminary injunction against the rule. The plaintiffs requested expedited briefing and review due to the imminent effect of the rule and the substantial compliance it required.The district court, instead of ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction, considered whether venue was appropriate in the Northern District of Texas and invited the CFPB to file a motion to transfer the case. The CFPB complied, and the district court granted its motion, transferring the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs then petitioned for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by transferring the case while their appeal was pending and, alternatively, lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the district court acted without jurisdiction. The court explained that once a party properly appeals something a district court has done, in this case, the effective denial of a preliminary injunction, the district court has no jurisdiction to do anything that alters the case’s status. The court clarified that its decision was not about the correctness of the district court’s transfer order but rather about whether the court had jurisdiction to enter it. The court concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction to transfer the case.The court granted the petition for mandamus, vacated the district court’s transfer order, and ordered the district court to reopen the case. The court also instructed the district court to notify the District of Columbia that its transfer was without jurisdiction and should be disregarded. View "In re: Chamber of Commerce" on Justia Law

Courtney D. Clayton was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine. As part of a three-month drug trafficking investigation, officers conducted video surveillance of Clayton's home and placed GPS tracking devices on two vehicles associated with him. Based on the surveillance and information from a reliable confidential informant, officers obtained search warrants for Clayton's home and one of his vehicles. However, before the warrants could be executed, officers observed burglars break into Clayton's home. Believing that evidence of drug trafficking may have been stolen, officers continued their investigation for another two weeks before seeking a new warrant for Clayton's residence. The officers did not renew their search warrant for the vehicle.The district court denied Clayton's motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle and his incriminating statement to law enforcement. Clayton contended that the search warrant of the vehicle had become stale, and that officers did not have probable cause to arrest him. He also argued that the Government failed to show that officers advised him of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona. After the denial of his motion to suppress, Clayton pleaded guilty but preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the search of Clayton's vehicle was proper under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows a warrantless search of a readily mobile vehicle when law enforcement has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The court also found that Clayton failed to properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right to silence, as his indication through body language that he did not wish to speak to officers did not constitute a "simple, unambiguous statement" invoking his right to remain silent. View "United States v. Clayton" on Justia Law

In this case, a government agency had approved a license to construct and operate a massive deepwater oil facility off the coast of Texas. Several environmental organizations alleged that the approval was unreasonable, arguing that the agency failed to adequately support its decision with a thorough environmental impact analysis. The groups claimed this was in violation of the Deepwater Port Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. They contended that the agency's approval was arbitrary or capricious. The environmental organizations asserted that operating the facility would produce emissions equivalent to more than 80 new coal-fired power plants and could increase the likelihood of mass oil spills along miles of the Texas coastline. They also voiced concerns about potential threats to the Gulf's marine environment.After their concerns were initially dismissed by the agency overseeing the project, the environmental organizations appealed the licensing decision. They claimed the agency had not conducted the appropriate level of review in its environmental impact statement and had not followed relevant statutory provisions during the approval process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the agency had adequately considered the environmental consequences of the facility before approving its deepwater port license. The court found that the agency's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and as such, it denied the petition for review brought by the environmental organizations. The court ruled that the agency had taken a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of the project, provided sufficient detail for the public to understand and consider the relevant environmental influences, and evaluated alternatives in a way that permitted a reasoned choice among different courses of action. View "Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water in Brazoria County v. United States Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Susan Miller, who sued Michaels Stores, Inc. for negligence after she slipped and fell in one of their stores in Slidell, Louisiana, during a rainstorm. Miller claimed that she had entered the store via a propped-open exit door, where no warning signs or mats were present, and subsequently slipped on a clear substance. She argued that a store employee had admitted to the presence of a warning sign and mat at the other door, indicating that the store was aware of the wet conditions but had failed to adequately warn customers.Earlier, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana had granted summary judgment in favor of Michaels. The store had argued that Miller lacked evidence proving that they had notice of any hazards where she slipped. The district court ruled that none of the evidence showed that Michaels was aware of a hazard in the area where Miller fell, and hence granted summary judgement for Michaels.Upon review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Miller's evidence was insufficient to show that Michaels had actual or constructive notice of the specific hazard that caused her fall. Furthermore, it ruled that the statements made by the Michaels employee were irrelevant to the issue of notice and were therefore inadmissible. Lastly, the court found no evidence that Michaels had spoiled any evidence, as alleged by Miller. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Michaels Stores. View "Miller v. Michaels Stores" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the Career Colleges and Schools of Texas (CCST) and the United States Department of Education over new regulations that will facilitate certain student loan discharges. The contested rule overturns recent regulations issued by the previous administration and alters thirty years of regulatory practice. The CCST challenged the regulations, arguing that they create uncertainty and potentially significant liability for its members. The district court declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the rule, stating that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm.CCST argued that the new regulations are beyond the Department of Education's statutory authority, violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and infringe on the due process rights of its members. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's findings, concluding that CCST is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge and that its members will face immediate and irreparable harm if the new regulations are allowed to go into effect.The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enjoin and postpone the effective date of the challenged provisions pending final judgment. The court ruled that the Department of Education's new regulations are likely unlawful and that their implementation would cause immediate and irreparable harm to CCST and its members. The court ordered the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction to delay the implementation of the new regulations until the case is finally resolved. View "Career Colleges and Schools of Texas v. United States Department of Education" on Justia Law

A group of individuals, including D&T Partners LLC and ACET Global LLC, alleged that Baymark Partners Management LLC and others attempted to steal the assets and trade secrets of their e-commerce company through shell entities, corrupt lending practices, and a fraudulent bankruptcy. The plaintiffs claimed that Baymark had purchased D&T's assets and then defaulted on its payment obligations. According to the plaintiffs, Baymark replaced the company's management, caused the company to default on its loan payments, and transferred the company's assets to another entity, Windspeed Trading LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that this scheme violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs were unable to plead a pattern of racketeering activity, a necessary element of a RICO claim.The case was then taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court agreed with the district court, holding that while the complaint alleges coordinated theft, it does not constitute a "pattern" of racketeering conduct sufficient to state a RICO claim. This is because the alleged victims were limited in number, and the scope and nature of the scheme was finite and focused on a singular objective. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "D&T Partners v. Baymark Partners" on Justia Law

Highland Capital Management, L.P., a firm co-founded by James Dondero, filed for bankruptcy in 2019 due to litigation claims. As part of a settlement agreement, Dondero relinquished control of Highland to three independent directors, one of whom, James P. Seery, was appointed as Highland’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Restructuring Officer, and Foreign Representative by the bankruptcy court. To protect Seery from vexatious litigation, the bankruptcy court issued an order that no entity could commence or pursue a claim against Seery relating to his role without the bankruptcy court's prior approval. Despite this, two entities founded by Dondero, the Charitable DAF Foundation and its affiliate CLO Holdco, filed a lawsuit against Highland in district court, alleging that Highland, through Seery, had withheld material information and engaged in self-dealing related to a settlement with one of its largest creditors, HarbourVest.The bankruptcy court held the appellants in civil contempt for violating its order and ordered them to pay $239,655 in compensatory damages. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, concluding that the award was compensatory and therefore civil. The appellants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the sanction was punitive and thus exceeded the scope of the bankruptcy court’s civil contempt powers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case. The appellate court found that the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion by imposing a punitive sanction that exceeded its civil contempt powers. The court held that the sanction was not compensatory because it was not based on the damages Highland suffered due to the appellants' decision to file the motion in the wrong court. The court instructed the bankruptcy court to limit any sanction award to the damages Highland suffered because of this error. View "Charitable DAF Fund v. Highland Captl Mgmt" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Sheet Pile, LLC and Plymouth Tube Company. The conflict arose from an exclusivity agreement, in which Plymouth agreed to manufacture certain products only for PilePro, Sheet Pile's predecessor. Approximately a decade later, Sheet Pile accused Plymouth of breaching this agreement by selling those products to other companies, and they sued for fraud and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plymouth.Sheet Pile then appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. For the breach-of-contract claim, the court concluded that the claim was time-barred under Texas law, which has a four-year statute of limitations for such claims. The court also held that the discovery rule, which could have deferred the accrual of the cause of action, did not apply.Regarding the fraud claim, the court concluded that Sheet Pile failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact that Plymouth's representations were false when made. The court noted that there was no evidence that Plymouth sold the exclusive products to third parties in 2014 or 2015, and that Plymouth had expressly warned PilePro that it might begin selling to third parties if PilePro didn't hold up its end of the agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment for Plymouth. View "Sheet Pile v. Plymouth Tube" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, Carl and Mary Ellen Schnell, filed an insurance claim with their home insurer, State Farm Lloyds, after a hailstorm damaged their home's roof. State Farm accepted coverage for some claims but denied others, including the claim that the City of Fort Worth required the Schnells to replace their entire roof, rather than just the damaged tiles. The Schnells sued, and the district court ruled in favor of State Farm. The Schnells appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that there were genuine issues of material fact that prevented the case from being resolved through summary judgment. The court found conflicting evidence regarding whether a building code administrator had flatly denied the Schnells' request for spot repairs or had conditioned his decision on the Schnells confirming that the old and new tiles on their roof did not interlock. The court also found a genuine dispute of fact about whether the Schnells' roof tiles were damaged by a covered risk like wind or hail, which would have triggered their insurance coverage.Thus, the court vacated the district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm on the Schnells' breach of contract and Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act claims. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Schnell v. State Farm Lloyds" on Justia Law

In an effort to curb illegal immigration, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4), which amended various statutes. The new laws prohibited noncitizens from illegally entering or reentering the state and established removal procedures. However, the United States, two non-profit organizations, and the county of El Paso challenged S.B. 4, arguing that it was preempted by federal law. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, and the state of Texas appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Texas’s motion to stay the injunction, arguing that the state had not shown it was likely to succeed on the merits of its preemption claims. The court found that the federal government has broad and exclusive power over immigration, including the entry and removal of noncitizens. The court also noted that the Texas law interfered with the federal government's foreign policy objectives and could lead to unnecessary harassment of noncitizens who federal officials determine should not be removed.Furthermore, the court concluded that S.B. 4 conflicted with federal law because it blocked the federal government's discretion to decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings or civil immigration proceedings once a noncitizen is apprehended, and because it permitted state courts to impose criminal sanctions and order removal of noncitizens without the federal government's input.In light of these findings, the court ruled that the balance of equities weighed against granting a stay. The court emphasized that any time a state is prevented from enforcing statutes enacted by its representatives, it suffers a form of irreparable injury. However, the court also noted that enforcement of S.B. 4 could lead to international friction and potentially take the United States out of compliance with its treaty obligations. Therefore, the court denied Texas's motion for a stay pending appeal. View "United States v. Texas" on Justia Law