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

Kenny Savoie, a former employee of Pritchard Energy Advisors, LLC (PGA), filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against Thomas Pritchard, his former boss, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Savoie, a Louisiana resident, claimed that Pritchard, a Virginia resident, owed him compensation under a 2017 offer letter for work done on behalf of Empire Petroleum Corporation. Savoie alleged that Pritchard fraudulently informed him that PGA had not received any payments for his projects, thus denying him due compensation.The district court dismissed the case against Pritchard for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Pritchard's contacts with Louisiana were made in his corporate capacity and were protected by the fiduciary shield doctrine. The court found that Savoie failed to establish any exceptions to this doctrine that would allow Pritchard's corporate contacts to be attributed to him personally.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the fiduciary shield doctrine, which prevents the exercise of personal jurisdiction based solely on a defendant's corporate acts, applied in this case. The court noted that Louisiana law recognizes the fiduciary shield doctrine and that Savoie did not establish any exceptions, such as piercing the corporate veil or alleging a tort for which Pritchard could be personally liable. Consequently, the court concluded that Pritchard's corporate contacts could not be used to establish personal jurisdiction over him in Louisiana. View "Savoie v. Pritchard" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Clarence Cocroft and Tru Source Medical Cannabis, L.L.C., challenged Mississippi's restrictions on advertising medical marijuana, arguing that the First Amendment protects their right to advertise because the state permits the underlying commercial transactions. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court applied the Central Hudson test for commercial speech and held that because federal law criminalizes marijuana, including medical marijuana, the advertising of such transactions does not qualify for First Amendment protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that under the Central Hudson test, commercial speech must concern lawful activity to receive First Amendment protection. Since the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits marijuana nationwide, including in Mississippi, the underlying commercial conduct is illegal. Therefore, the state faces no constitutional obstacle to restricting commercial speech related to unlawful transactions. The court concluded that the First Amendment does not protect the advertising of medical marijuana in Mississippi due to its illegal status under federal law. View "Cocroft v. Graham" on Justia Law

Edgar Hermosillo Minor pled guilty to four drug charges in 2022, including importing and possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl with intent to distribute. His presentence report calculated a base offense level of 34, adjusted for his minimal role and acceptance of responsibility, but added five levels due to a career-offender enhancement based on three prior federal marijuana-related convictions from 2000 and 2010. This enhancement placed him in a sentencing range of 262 to 327 months, whereas without it, the range would have been 121 to 151 months. Minor objected to the enhancement, arguing that a 2018 amendment to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) excluded hemp from the definition of marijuana, making his prior convictions no longer qualify as "controlled substance offenses." The district court overruled his objection and applied the enhancement, sentencing him to 180 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas overruled Minor's objection and applied the career-offender enhancement based on the CSA's definition of marijuana at the time of his prior convictions. Despite this, the court imposed a downward variance, sentencing Minor to 180 months, which he timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CSA's definition of "controlled substance" in effect at the time of sentencing for the current offense should be used to determine whether prior convictions qualify for the career-offender enhancement. The court found that the district court erred by applying the enhancement based on the outdated definition of marijuana. The court also concluded that the error was not harmless, as the district court did not explicitly state that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the correct Guidelines range. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing. View "USA v. Minor" on Justia Law

Jon Willis, an employee of Shamrock Management, L.L.C., was injured while working on an offshore oil platform operated by Fieldwood Energy, L.L.C. The injury occurred when a tag line slipped off a grocery box being delivered by a vessel operated by Barry Graham Oil Service, L.L.C. Willis sued Barry Graham for negligence. Barry Graham then sought indemnification, defense, and insurance coverage from Shamrock and its insurer, Aspen, based on a series of contracts linking the parties.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied Barry Graham's motion for summary judgment and granted Shamrock and Aspen's motion, ruling that Barry Graham was not covered under the defense, indemnification, and insurance provisions of the Shamrock-Fieldwood Master Services Contract (MSC). Willis's case was settled, and Barry Graham appealed the district court's decision on its third-party complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that the MSC required Shamrock to defend, indemnify, and insure Barry Graham because Barry Graham was part of a "Third Party Contractor Group" under the MSC. The court also determined that the cross-indemnification provisions in the contracts were satisfied, and that the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (LOAIA) did not void Shamrock's obligations because Fieldwood had paid the insurance premium to cover Shamrock's indemnities, thus meeting the Marcel exception.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Barry Graham Oil v. Shamrock Mgmt" on Justia Law

Parvez Qureshi was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and four counts of distribution of controlled substances. Qureshi, a physician, had partnered with Rubeena Ayesha, an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, to operate a pain management clinic. The clinic saw a high volume of patients, many of whom paid cash for prescriptions of controlled substances like Norco and Oxycodone. The Government alleged that Qureshi pre-signed blank prescriptions, which Ayesha used to prescribe these substances when Qureshi was not present.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially tried Qureshi, resulting in a mistrial. In a subsequent trial, Qureshi was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to sixty months for each count, to run concurrently. Qureshi appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ruan v. United States, which clarified the mens rea requirement for convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 841.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the jury instructions for the substantive counts under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) were erroneous because they did not require the jury to find that Qureshi knew he was acting in an unauthorized manner. This omission was not harmless, as Qureshi's knowledge was a contested issue at trial. However, the court held that the conspiracy instruction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 was not erroneous, as it required the jury to find that Qureshi knew the purpose of the agreement was to distribute controlled substances without authorization.The Fifth Circuit vacated Qureshi's convictions for the four substantive counts and remanded for a new trial on those counts. The court affirmed Qureshi's conspiracy conviction but vacated his sentence on all counts and remanded for resentencing on the conspiracy count. View "USA v. Qureshi" on Justia Law

In 2016, the Mississippi legislature passed S.B. 2162, which abolished the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA) and created the Jackson Metropolitan Area Airport Authority (Authority). The new Authority would be governed by nine commissioners, with only two selected by the Jackson city government. The JMAA commissioners, along with Jackson’s Mayor and City Council, intervened in a suit to enjoin enforcement of the law, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Mississippi Constitution. They claimed S.B. 2162 diluted the voting rights of Jackson citizens and altered the airport’s management for race-based reasons.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi initially upheld the plaintiffs' standing and ordered discovery, which the legislators resisted, citing legislative privilege. On the first appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing, as they failed to demonstrate injury to a legally protected interest. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to address the standing issue, and the district court again ordered discovery. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s privilege ruling but later dismissed the appeal as moot when none of the plaintiff-commissioners held their positions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue. The court held that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were institutional rather than personal, as the injury affected the JMAA as an entity. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not have a protected property interest in their positions or the associated per diem and travel reimbursements. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss. View "Jones v. Reeves" on Justia Law

The case involves a First Amendment challenge to a policy in Caldwell County, Texas, which categorically excludes the press and the public from observing criminal pretrial proceedings known as magistrations. The plaintiffs, two nonprofit news organizations and an advocacy organization, argued that this policy violates their First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings. The district court agreed, finding the policy unconstitutional and granting a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the policy and demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The court issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the County from enforcing its policy of closing magistrations to the press and public, except in extraordinary circumstances and as constitutionally permitted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case on appeal. The County argued that the district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs had standing and in determining that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing that the plaintiffs had standing and that there is a presumptive First Amendment right of access to magistrations. The court applied the "experience and logic" test, finding that both historical practice and the positive role of public access in the functioning of bail hearings supported the plaintiffs' claim. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its determinations and upheld the preliminary injunction. View "Texas Tribune v. Caldwell County" on Justia Law

Centaur, L.L.C. entered into a Master Services Contract (MSC) with United Bulk Terminals Davant, L.L.C. (UBT) in 2015 to build a concrete containment wall at UBT's dock facility. River Ventures, L.L.C. provided vessel transportation for Centaur’s employees working on the project. Centaur employee Devin Barrios was injured while transferring a generator from a River Ventures vessel to a barge leased by Centaur. The district court found River Ventures 100% at fault for the accident and imposed a $3.3 million judgment. River Ventures and its insurer, XL Specialty Insurance Company, satisfied the judgment and subsequently brought breach of contract claims against Centaur under the MSC.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held a bench trial on the breach of contract claims. The court dismissed the claims, finding an ambiguity in the MSC regarding Centaur’s insurance procurement obligations. Specifically, the court found that requiring Centaur to procure a Protection & Indemnity (P&I) policy with crew/employee coverage would result in an absurd consequence due to potential duplicative coverage with the Worker’s Compensation policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court found that the MSC unambiguously required Centaur to procure a P&I policy that included crew/employee coverage. The court disagreed with the district court’s finding of absurdity, noting that mutually repugnant escape clauses in the Worker’s Compensation and P&I policies would result in both policies being liable on a pro rata basis. The appellate court also reversed the district court’s dismissal of the excess/bumbershoot breach of contract claim, as it was contingent on the P&I claim. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Centaur v. River Ventures" on Justia Law

Taiwo Ayorinde sued his former employer, Team Industrial Services Incorporated, alleging various employment discrimination claims. Ayorinde was initially employed by Team from 2016 to 2018 and rehired in 2022. During his second tenure, his supervisor expressed concerns about his work quality and demoted him, resulting in a pay cut. While on bereavement leave, Ayorinde discovered the pay cut, which was later reversed by Team. Ayorinde resigned, citing a hostile work environment and discrimination, and subsequently filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Team on all claims and denied Ayorinde’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court found that Ayorinde failed to establish a prima facie case for his claims, including race discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and hostile work environment. Ayorinde appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Ayorinde did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. Specifically, Ayorinde failed to show that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside his protected group, which is necessary to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. Additionally, the court found no evidence of retaliatory adverse employment action based on protected activity, and Ayorinde did not exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his constructive discharge and hostile work environment claims. The court also noted that Ayorinde abandoned his claims under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by not adequately briefing them on appeal. View "Ayorinde v. Team Industrial" on Justia Law

Devin Chaney pleaded guilty to two counts from an eleven-count indictment: Hobbs Act Robbery and Armed Bank Robbery. As part of his plea agreement, Chaney waived his right to appeal except for a sentence above the statutory maximum or to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Chaney was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 due to prior convictions for controlled substance offenses. He received a sentence of 188 months for each count, to be served concurrently, followed by four years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution. Chaney appealed, arguing that the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana determined that Chaney qualified as a career offender based on his prior convictions. Chaney objected, claiming that one of his prior convictions did not qualify as a predicate offense because Louisiana's definition of marijuana was broader than federal law. The district court overruled his objection and imposed the sentence. Chaney then appealed the sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The government moved to dismiss the appeal, citing the waiver-of-appeal provision in Chaney's plea agreement. The Fifth Circuit conducted a two-step inquiry to determine the validity of the waiver, concluding that Chaney knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that the waiver applied to his claims. The court noted that Chaney's sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, and his waiver was explicit and unambiguous. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal, affirming that Chaney's waiver was enforceable. View "United States v. Chaney" on Justia Law