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

In 2021, Grant and Sarah Palmquist, on behalf of their minor son, sued baby-food manufacturer Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and grocery retailer Whole Foods Market, Inc. in Texas state court. They sought damages for their son Ethan’s physical and mental decline, which they allege began when he was about thirty months old and had been consuming Hain’s Earth’s Best Organic Products, purchased from Whole Foods. The Palmquists attributed Ethan's health issues to heavy metal toxicity caused by the baby food. The case was removed to federal court, where Whole Foods was dismissed as improperly joined and judgment was granted in favor of Hain during trial.The district court dismissed Whole Foods on the grounds of improper joinder and denied the Palmquists’ motion to remand the case to state court. The court also granted Hain’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the Palmquists had presented no evidence of general causation. The Palmquists appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment denying the Palmquists’ motion to remand, vacated the final judgment of the district court, and remanded with instructions for the district court to remand the case to the state court. The court held that the Palmquists were entitled to a remand to state court because the allegations in their state-court complaint stated plausible claims against Whole Foods. The court did not address whether the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Hain. View "Palmquist v. Hain Celestial Group" on Justia Law

Darion Benjamin Woods pleaded guilty to damaging the property of a foreign official in the United States. Woods and his co-defendant broke into the British Consul General’s family home in Houston, Texas, stealing various items and causing over $50,000 in damages. Woods was arrested and charged with one count of damaging property occupied by a foreign official. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The presentence investigation report calculated Woods’s Guidelines imprisonment range at 12 to 18 months. Woods objected to the report, seeking a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.The district court awarded Woods’s requested two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility and calculated the Guidelines range at 8–14 months. However, the court varied upwards and sentenced Woods to 30 months in prison. The court concluded that this sentence was necessary to satisfy the 3553(a) factors and to protect the community given Woods’s prior criminal history. The court also ordered Woods to pay $56,636.15 in restitution and imposed a 3-year term of supervised release. Woods timely appealed, arguing that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable and that the condition in the written judgment that he must “refrain from the excessive use of alcohol” conflicts with the oral pronouncement that “while in the program, he’s not to consume alcohol excessively.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Woods to 30 months in prison, which was above the Guidelines range. The court also found that the written condition of supervised release that Woods must "refrain from the excessive use of alcohol" conflicted with the oral pronouncement that "while in the program, he’s not to consume alcohol excessively." The court modified the sentence to reflect that while Woods is in the drug-treatment program, he’s not to consume alcohol excessively. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Joseph Work, a former employee of Intertek, filed a collective action against the company for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and relief for the collective class. Intertek objected to the judicial forum and requested arbitration. The dispute centered on whether the agreed-upon Arbitration Agreement provided for individual or class arbitration. Work sought class arbitration, while Intertek sought individual arbitration. Intertek filed a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration, arguing that the Arbitration Agreement did not contain an express delegation clause and was silent on class arbitration.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the issue of class arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator. The court held that the Arbitration Agreement incorporated certain JAMS Rules by reference, which delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the question of class arbitrability. The district court granted Work’s motion to dismiss and denied Intertek’s motion to compel individual arbitration.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Intertek argued that consent to class arbitration was absent and that the language in the Arbitration Agreement was not clear. The court rejected both arguments, affirming the district court's decision. The court held that the Arbitration Agreement was not ambiguous and that it clearly incorporated the JAMS Rules by reference. The court concluded that the language in the Arbitration Agreement was "clear and unmistakable" in its incorporation of the JAMS Rules, which provide that the arbitrator decides the question of arbitrability. View "Work v. Intertek" on Justia Law

The case involves four plaintiffs who took docetaxel, a chemotherapy drug, as part of their treatment for early-stage breast cancer and subsequently suffered permanent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (PCIA). The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of the drug, Hospira, Inc., Hospira Worldwide, LLC, and Accord Healthcare, Inc., violated state law by failing to warn them that docetaxel could cause PCIA.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where the defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs' state law failure-to-warn claims were preempted by federal law. The district court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was tasked with determining whether federal law preempts the plaintiffs' state law failure-to-warn claims against the defendant drug manufacturers. The court found that the district court had erred in its interpretation of what constitutes "newly acquired information" under the changes-being-effected (CBE) regulation, which allows manufacturers to file a supplemental application with the FDA and simultaneously implement a labeling change before obtaining FDA approval. The court held that the district court failed to enforce the requirement that newly acquired information must "reveal risks of a different type or greater severity or frequency than previously included in submissions to FDA."The court vacated the district court's judgment on the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims and remanded the case for further consideration of one outstanding issue: whether the Bertrand Abstract, a scientific study, constituted "newly acquired information" that revealed a greater risk of PCIA than previously known. If the Bertrand Abstract does not meet this standard, the court held that the defendants would not be liable to the plaintiffs on their state law failure-to-warn claims. View "Hickey v. Hospira" on Justia Law

The case involves Thryv, Inc., a company that had a dispute with the union representing some of its sales employees. The union complained to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that Thryv engaged in several unfair labor practices. The NLRB agreed with the union and ordered Thryv to take significant steps to remedy the alleged violations. Thryv petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review.Previously, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the NLRB's General Counsel in part and Thryv in part. The ALJ agreed with the General Counsel that Thryv failed to respond to the Union’s information requests, constituting six unfair labor practices. However, the ALJ disagreed with the General Counsel that Thryv’s layoffs violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), finding that Thryv had bargained in good faith.The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Thryv violated the NLRA by failing to comply with the Union’s information requests. However, it disagreed with the ALJ about the layoffs and held them unlawful. The NLRB held that Thryv had an obligation to bargain with respect to the layoffs and that Thryv breached that obligation by presenting the layoffs as a fait accompli and withholding information from the Union that the Union needed to bargain effectively.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted Thryv’s petition and vacated the NLRB’s order in part. The court disagreed with the NLRB's conclusion that Thryv's layoffs violated the NLRA. The court held that Thryv was permitted to implement its last best, final offer (LBFO) upon reaching an impasse with the Union. The court found that Thryv complied with the terms of the LBFO, which included providing the Union with thirty days’ notice before initiating layoffs, providing the Union an opportunity to discuss the layoffs, and offering severance payments to the affected employees. Therefore, the court concluded that Thryv's layoffs were lawful so long as Thryv and the Union remained at overall impasse on the date the layoffs occurred. The court also enforced the NLRB’s order requiring Thryv to cease and desist from failing and refusing to furnish the Union with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees. View "Thryv v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The case involves MCR Oil Tools, L.L.C., who filed a petition for review against the United States Department of Transportation, its Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and William S. Schoonover in his official capacity as Associate Administrator of Hazardous Materials Safety. The petition was filed in response to an order from the Department of Transportation.The case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Prior to this, the case had been reviewed by the Department of Transportation, but the details of the lower court's proceedings and decisions are not provided in the document.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review. The court decided to expedite the matter to the next available randomly designated regular oral argument panel. Additionally, the court ruled that the motions for stay pending review and for administrative stay should be decided by the argument panel. The court carried these motions with the case, consistent with their panel practice. However, the court did not express any opinion on the disposition of these motions. View "MCR Oil Tools v. United States Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Albert McNeal, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm, violating federal law. He had a significant criminal history, including 18 convictions, seven of which were felonies, many involving violence and weapon use. His current conviction stemmed from an alleged aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and murder related to two separate shootings. The district court sentenced him to 60 months of incarceration and a three-year term of supervised release. McNeal challenged this sentence as procedurally erroneous.Prior to sentencing, the Probation Office recommended a four-point enhancement for using a weapon in connection with another felony offense. McNeal objected to this enhancement. The district court, however, decided that the Guidelines, with or without the enhancement, did not accurately reflect McNeal’s criminal history and the nature of his offense. The court concluded a variance was necessary to satisfy the sentencing factors. It declined to rule on the objection to the enhancement as unnecessary and chose a 60-month sentence that fell outside of the Guidelines system.McNeal appealed, arguing that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not rule on his objection to the enhancement. He contended that the court could not have calculated the applicable Guidelines range without ruling on the enhancement, making the court’s variance decision procedurally improper. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed, stating that the district court did calculate the applicable Guideline range and that any error was harmless. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that the district court made clear its decision to vary from the Guidelines. View "USA v. Mcneal" on Justia Law

The case involves Sharnez Hager, a Black woman, who along with her family, was denied immediate seating at a Chili's restaurant in Rosenberg, Texas, operated by Brinker Texas, Inc. The hostess informed them of a 45-minute wait despite an unoccupied large table being available. Later, Hager's white fiancé arrived and was immediately offered the same table. Hager and her family were eventually seated but received no service, leading them to leave the restaurant. Hager filed a lawsuit against Brinker, alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and Title II.The case was initially heard in a federal district court, where it was referred to a magistrate judge. Brinker moved for summary judgment, arguing that the delay in seating Hager's party was due to staff shortage, not racial discrimination. The magistrate judge recommended granting Brinker's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Hager failed to provide substantial evidence that Brinker's explanation was pretextual. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment in favor of Brinker.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Hager had presented genuine disputes of material fact, including evidence of the hostess's apology for "discriminating against" her. The court also found that the magistrate judge erred in applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, a legal principle used to analyze claims of discrimination. The court concluded that the magistrate judge incorrectly classified the evidence, misapplied the burden-shifting framework, and improperly dismissed Hager's Title II claim based on her deposition testimony. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hager v. Brinker Texas" on Justia Law

During the 2008 financial crisis, Highland Capital Management, L.P., an investment manager, faced numerous redemption requests from investors of the Highland Crusader Fund. The Fund was placed in wind-down, and a dispute arose over the distribution of assets. This led to the adoption of a Joint Plan of Distribution and the appointment of a Redeemer Committee to oversee the wind-down. The Committee accused Highland Capital of breaching its fiduciary duty by purchasing redemption claims of former investors. An arbitration panel ruled in favor of the Committee, ordering Highland Capital to pay approximately $3 million and either transfer or cancel the redemption claims.Before the Committee could obtain a judgment for the award, Highland Capital filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. CLO HoldCo, a creditor, filed a claim for approximately $11 million, asserting it had purchased interests in the redemption claims. However, after a settlement agreement between Highland Capital and the Committee led to the cancellation of the redemption claims, CLO HoldCo amended its claim to zero dollars.After the bankruptcy court confirmed Highland Capital's reorganization plan, CLO HoldCo filed a second amended proof of claim, asserting a new theory of recovery. It argued that the cancellation of the redemption claims resulted in a credit for Highland Capital, which it owed to CLO HoldCo. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to ratify the second amended proof of claim, a decision affirmed by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower courts' decisions. It held that post-confirmation amendments require a heightened showing of "compelling circumstances," which CLO HoldCo failed to provide. The court found that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying CLO HoldCo's motion to ratify the second amended proof of claim. View "CLO Holdco v. Kirschner" on Justia Law

Rudy Naranjo, a federal prisoner, was serving concurrent 360-month sentences for multiple drug conspiracy offenses involving crack and powder cocaine, and a consecutive 120-month sentence for using and possessing a semiautomatic weapon in furtherance of the drug crime. He moved under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 seeking a sentence reduction, which the district court denied. Naranjo then filed a second Section 404 motion. The district court dismissed that motion for lack of jurisdiction under Section 404(c) and, alternatively, denied the motion on the merits.Previously, Naranjo had been indicted on four counts of conspiring to and possessing with the intent to distribute crack and powder cocaine, and for knowingly using and possessing a semiautomatic weapon in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He was found guilty on all counts. After a series of post-conviction proceedings and appeals, Naranjo filed several motions challenging his sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, all of which were denied. He then filed his first motion seeking relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act, arguing he was eligible for a sentence reduction. The district court denied this motion, concluding that Naranjo did not qualify for relief under the Fair Sentencing Act.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Naranjo asserted that the district court erred when dismissing his second Section 404 motion for lack of jurisdiction. He also alleged that the district court should have reduced his sentence for his powder cocaine offense and should have analyzed the “full slate” of his arguments. The Court of Appeals held that Section 404(c) is a mandatory claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar as the district court assumed. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Section 404(c)’s limitation on multiple motions must be enforced to bar Naranjo’s second Section 404 motion. View "USA v. Naranjo" on Justia Law