June 10, 2021 opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Bulkley & Associates, LLC v. Department of Industrial Relations, 20-40020, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Willett, J. (Dennis, Higginson, Willett), personal jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of company’s lawsuit against California agency, challenging California agency’s authority to enforce California regulations in Texas, on ground of lack of personal jurisdiction over California agency.
    • California’s Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Health and Safety, cited Texas company for three violations of California law related to injury incurred by company’s driver while delivering goods in Salinas, California. After company lost administrative appeals in California, it filed two lawsuits challenging agency’s authority, Bulkley I and this suit, Bulkley II. Bulkley I was commenced by the company in Texas state court, seeking judicial review of the California administrative appeal; was then removed by the California agency to federal court, which dismissed the suit on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, though also noting “serious doubts over whether it ha[d] subject matter jurisdiction.”
    • After Bulkley I, the California agency sent the Texas company a letter seeking the fines imposed on the original violation, referenced as having been “observed during inspection … [at] the place of employment,” and warning of a follow-up inspection at the employee’s “place of employment.” The company filed a second suit in Texas state court seeking injunctive relief against the agency, which was again removed to federal court, where the company argued that the letter created minimum contacts sufficient for personal jurisdiction. The district court disagreed and entered the judgment now on appeal in Bulkley II dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    • Although the Texas company contested subject matter jurisdiction on appeal, the Court held that it could address personal jurisdiction first “when the issues regarding subject-matter jurisdiction are more difficult to resolve than other possible jurisdictional grounds of dismissal.” The Court held it would address personal jurisdiction first because Bulkley challenged subject matter jurisdiction “without analyzing it,” the Bulkley I decision expressed concerns about subject matter jurisdiction without explaining those concerns, and the Court’s precents “squarely address the personal jurisdiction question in this case.”
    • The Court noted that in all three previous decisions it could identify with a Texas business suing other states’ government officials, the fact of sending a cease-and-desist letter to the companies in Texas was insufficient to establish minimum requisite contacts for personal jurisdiction, “even if the letter focuses on the business’s activities inside Texas.” Further, the Court deduced from these precedents that “minimum contacts must be ‘known’ and not ‘hypothetical,'” such that threatened further Texas contacts by the out-of-state agency would not establish personal jurisdiction. The Court also found that the California agency’s letter specifically was limited to conduct uncovered in California and to enforcement of laws that could only be enforced in California.
  • Rivero v. Fidelity Investments, Inc., 20-40371, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Wilson), declaratory judgment, jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action on grounds that the federal-tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”) is a jurisdictional condition, requiring dismissal.
    • Plaintiff brought suit against Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC, seeking declaratory judgment that an IRS transfer certificate is not necessary to transfer ownership of her Fidelity account. The district court dismissed upon holding that the requested relief “would necessarily involve a determination ‘with respect to Federal taxes'” pursuant to the DJA.
    • Although the DJA itself does not independently create federal jurisdiction, the Court held that the “with respect to Federal taxes” exception is a jurisdictional condition that takes away a federal court’s power to provide requested declaratory relief. The Court based this holding on the DJA’s “text and structure.” “[T]he juxtaposition of the DJA’s reference to federal courts’ jurisdiction and the federal-tax exception indicates that the latter deprives a court of jurisdiction that might otherwise exist in cases ‘with respect to Federal taxes.'”
    • The Court then affirmed the district court’s holding that the relief requested in this suit would necessitate the construal of tax code provisions and treasury regulations to make a determination “with respect to Federal taxes.”

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Bustos-Barron, 19-11305, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Lopez-Parker, 20-10490, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Muniz-Morales, 20-40215, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Dean v. Crosscountry Mortgage, Inc., 20-40365, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Duncan, Oldham), foreclosure
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissing homeowner’s suit against mortgage company on claims arising from foreclosure.
  • U.S. v. Rosas-Morales, 20-50161, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Torres-Martinez, 20-50339, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Hicks (by desig.), criminal, appellate jurisdiction, mootness
    • Dismissing appeal as moot, where it challenged the term of supervised release, but the period of supervised release had completed.
  • U.S. v. Berrios-Osorto, 20-50844, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Smith, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 48-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens.
  • Rushing v. Yazoo County, 20-60462, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Owen, Jolly, Dennis), employment, timeliness
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of former assistant public defender’s lawsuit to recover retirement and other employment benefits as time-barred.
  • U.S. v. Jimenez-Lopez, 21-40013, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.