July 6, 2021 opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Goodrich v. U.S., 20-30422, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Stewart, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Wilson), tax, successions
    • Certifying questions of Louisiana successions law to Louisiana Supreme Court in order to resolve issue of plaintiffs’ standing to challenge IRS’s levy on the plaintiffs’ father’s succession account.
    • When plaintiffs’ mother died, she left her interest in community property to her children (the plaintiffs), with a lifetime usufruct to the father, rendering the plaintiffs as naked owners of their mother’s interest in the community property and the father as full owner of his one-half undivided interest in that community property and a usufructuary over the children’s one-half undivided interest in that community property. The part of that property at issue now is stock in Goodrich Petroleum Corporation. When the father died, he owed several hundred thousand dollars to the IRS in back-taxes, and the amount in the successions checking account after liquidation of the stock was more than the amount of the usufruct the full ownership of which would have reverted to the children. The IRS, however, placed a levy on the full amount in the successions account, which was also exceeded by the amount of back-taxes owed. The children challenged the levy under I.R.C. § 7426(a)(1), arguing that the levy was wrongful because the property in the successions account was owned by them, not by their father, as he was only the usufructuary over that amount.
    • To establish a wrongful levy under § 7426(a)(1), the Fifth Circuit has held that, to establish standing, the plaintiff demonstrate “some interest in the property.” Oxford Cap. Corp. v. U.S., 211 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2000). The Court held that this standing requirement is not merely prudential, but is jurisdictional, as § 7426(a)(1) is an exception to the United States’ sovereign immunity. Accordingly, to determine whether the district court even had jurisdiction to enter the summary judgments that are on appeal, the Court must determine if the plaintiffs have a requisite “interest in the property.”
    • The Court held that the “interest in the property” must greater than just the interest of an unsecured creditor, that it must be the interest of “ownership or its near equivalents.”
    • However, the Court held that it was unresolved under Louisiana successions law–and that there was insufficient jurisprudential guidance on which to base an Erie guess–whether the children’s interest as naked owners of money or securities as to which their father held a usufruct was merely the interest of an unsecured creditor or if it rose to the level of “ownership or its near equivalents.”
    • Accordingly, the Court certified two questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court: “1. Does a usufructuary’s testamentary usufruct of consumables render naked owners unsecured creditors of the usufructuary’s succession? 2. If not, what is the naked owner’s relationship to those consumables?”

Unpublished

  • Esparza v. Partington, 19-10890, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Elrod, Haynes), prisoner suit
    • Remanding to district court to determine if untimely notice of appeal could be construed as a motion to reopen under Rule 4(a)(6).
  • U.S. v. Scott, 19-30972, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Higginson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Amos v. Jefferson, 19-40286, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Smith, Graves), prisoner suit, qualified immunity
    • Affirming grant of summary judgment to prison officials on basis of failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity, dismissing prisoner’s excessive force and deliberate indifference claims.
  • U.S. v. Williams, 20-10433, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Higginson, J. (Wiener, Elrod, Higginson), tax
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of government on tax collection suit, holding that defendant acted “willfully” in failing to pay taxes withheld from paychecks of employees of his dentistry practices and could therefore be held personally liable.
  • Pierce v. Collier, 20-20190, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Costa), prisoner suit, mootness
    • Dismissing as moot appeal from prisoner’s suit alleging violation of his rights by denial of a request for transfer to another unit.
  • Simon v. Roche Diagnostics Corp., 20-20661, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Costa), product liability
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiffs’ Texas-law product liability claim against manufacturer of test strips for at-home blood-anticoagulation level testing machine, as untimely.
  • U.S. v. Betts, 20-40331, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Ho, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming denial of motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez-Martinez, 20-40706, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Higginson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Denton v. City of El Paso, 20-50702, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Higginson, J. (Wiener, Elrod, Higginson), First Amendment
    • Vacating district court’s denial of preliminary injunction, and remanding with directions to grant preliminary injunction enjoining city from enforcing its policy of prohibiting proselytizing at the city’s Art and Farmers Market.
  • U.S. v. Montes-Quintana, 20-50986, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Barksdale, Stewart), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 78-month sentence on conviction of one count of importing 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and one count of possessing, with intent to distribute, 100 kilograms or more of marijuana.
  • Cal-Yuja v. Garland, 20-60134, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), immigration
    • Denying Guatemalan citizen’s petition to review BIA order denying his motion to reopen.