Designated for publication
- Cohen v. Gilmore, 19-20152, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- Graves, J. (Graves, Costa, Engelhardt), fraudulent transfer
- Affirming in part and vacating in part rulings of the state trial court entered prior to bankruptcy removal, and remanding to the federal district court for further proceedings.
- Plaintiff brought claim for fraudulent transfer in a real estate transaction in Texas state court under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”). While in state court, the state court entered evidentiary rulings excluding key evidence proffered by plaintiff, then entered summary judgment in favor of defendants. The case was then removed to federal court under bankruptcy jurisdiction. While the federal district court did not adopt the state court’s rulings as its own, instead merely entering a final judgment, the Court held that the federal court accepted the removed case as its own, effectively adopting the state court’s rulings as its own, so that the federal appeals court could review the state court’s rulings.
- The Court noted that the state trial court, in granting defendants’ evidentiary objections, failed to provide any reasons. The Court then held that there was nothing in the record to support defendants’ burden to prove the inadmissibility of the evidence, and that the state court’s evidentiary rulings should therefore be vacated.
- With this evidence no longer excluded, the Court held that, under TUFTA, “[Plaintiff] has shown there is a question of material fact with regard to both versions of the TUFTA test, i.e., he has made credible allegations that [defendants] brought about the transfer of the Alabama property from A&D to TAFI with either the actual intent to defraud him or without paying a reasonably appropriate value for A&D’s lone asset.” The Court found that there were genuine factual disputes regarding the lengths the defendants went to to conceal the involvement of one of them in the transaction, regarding the “reasonably equivalent value” of the property, and regarding whether the purchaser took the property in good faith despite knowing of red flags as to the fraudulent nature of the transaction. The Court also held that plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim should not have been dismissed because it could be founded on the intentional torts of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The Court then held that the state court’s expungement of the lis pendens on the property could not be vacated because, in the years between the entry of the state court judgment and the removal and entry of final judgment by the federal district court, the property had been sold to a third party, a sale that could not be unwound, mooting the lis pendens.
- Thurman v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc., 19-60596, appeal from S.D. Miss.
- Ho, J. (Clement, Ho, Duncan), § 1983
- Affirming district court’s dismissal of § 1983 claim by plaintiff suing medical transportation company for failing to provide non-emergency medical transportation.
- The defendant provides non-emergency medical transportation services to Medicaid recipients. When plaintiff failed to provide full trip information to defendant, defendant refused to pick him up.
- The Court turned to the viability of the § 1983 claim, and the issue “whether the Medicaid transportation regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 431.53, creates an individual federal right that can be enforced through a § 1983 action,” a res nova question in the Fifth Circuit. Looking to two Supreme Court decisions, the Court held, “It follows from Sandoval and Gonzaga that agency regulations cannot independently confer federal rights enforceable under § 1983 for one simple reason: Those cases make clear that it is Congress, and not an agency of the Executive Branch, that creates federal rights.” The Court observed that this placed the Circuit in line with the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits.
- The Court then held that the statutory provisions at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8), (19), and (70) failed to even come close to “establishing the ‘unambiguously conferred right’ necessary ‘to support a cause of action brought under § 1983.'” (Quoting Gonzaga).
Unpublished
- U.S. v. Dalka, 19-11152, appeal rom N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Haynes, Willett, Ho), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
- Affirming conviction on conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine.
- U.S. v. Martin, 19-41056, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Elrod, Duncan, Wilson), habeas corpus, jurisdiction
- Dismissing appeal of interlocutory ruling regarding modification of protective order, for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- U.S. v. Adams, 20-10597, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Wiener, Southwick, Duncan), criminal, sentencing, Armed Career Criminal Act
- Granting summary affirmance of district court’s sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, with prior Texas state convictions for burglary of a habitation serving as the precursor crimes.
- Mares v. Lucio, 20-40149, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Barksdale, Southwick Graves), § 1983
- Affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for failure to prevent unlawful detention.
- U.S. v. Martinez-Castillo, 20-50220, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Dennis), criminal, sentencing
- Granting motion for summary affirmance of sentence on guilty plea for illegal reentry.
- White v. Cyr, 20-50348, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Oldham), bankruptcy, breach of contract
- Affirming dismissal of creditor’s suit to have debt based on alleged breach of contract and fraud declared non-dischargeable.
- U.S. v. Minjarez-Molina, 20-50612, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Wiener, Southwick, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
- Granting summary affirmance of sentence after guilty plea for illegal reentry and for revocation of supervised release from prior conviction.
- Diaz v. Barr, 20-60435, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (King, Smith, Wilson), immigration
- Denying petition for review of Final Administrative Removal Order.
Take the Fifth 