November 3, 2021, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish Government, 20-30644, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Higginson, J. (King, Higginson, Wilson), environmental law, res judicata
    • Affirming dismissal of state-law claims arising from sewage and stormwater drainage across plaintiffs’ properties on res judicata grounds, and affirming dismissal of Clean Water Act claims for failure to state a claim.
    • The Court held that the district court properly considered res judicata at the 12(b)(6) stage because “the res judicata defense is abundantly clear on the face of the pleadings, which incorporate and repeatedly refer to the state court litigation.”
    • The Court then held that a trial court judgment on the same state-law claims in state court had preclusive effect, even though an appeal was pending (here, the appeal of the state court judgment was affirmed by the Louisiana First Circuit after the federal suit was filed, and a writ application to the Louisiana Supreme Court remains pending).
    • As to the Clean Water Act claims, the Court held that the plaintiffs forfeited the appeal as to whether they had stated a claim under the CWA, as they had failed to brief that issue, focusing instead only on whether they had provided adequate pre-suit notice and again on claim-preclusion issues, as well as on allegations in a third amended complaint that they had moved for leave to file with their Rule 59(e) motion from the dismissal order (and which the district court had denied). “In short, plaintiffs do not point to specific allegations in any of their initial, first amended, or proposed second amended complaints that prove they have sufficiently alleged a CWA claim. By pointing exclusively to the allegations in their proposed third amended complaint, plaintiffs essentially concede that their prior allegations were indeed deficient. … Thus, plaintiffs have forfeited any argument that the district court erred in dismissing the CWA allegations in the original, first, and second amended complaints.”
    • The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) motion, on the basis that they had “multiple opportunities to re-plead and cure the deficiencies in their complaints prior to the court’s dismissal order,” and that plaintiffs had failed to explain why any of the facts in the third amended complaint were unavailable prior to the district court’s dismissal order.
  • Nelson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 20-61068, appeal from U.S. Tax Ct.
    • King, J. (King, Smith, Haynes), tax
    • Affirming Tax Court’s denial of taxpayers’ petition for a redetermination of a deficiency of gift tax.
    • Taxpayers had created a layered set of trusts for estate-planning purposes; as part of the transactions involved, Mrs. Nelson transferred limited partnership interests to one of the trusts in two transactions, one a gift transaction and one a sale transaction, with the two transfer documents referring to both a dollar amount and the percentage of limited partnership interests represented by that dollar amount based on their accountant’s valuation of the partnership interests. When the IRS audited the tax years at issue, it revalued the partnership interests, which led to a higher tax liability. The Court summarized the issue before it: “We are asked to determine whether the two transfer documents transferred specific percentages of limited partner interests or the amount of interests that equal fixed dollar amounts. The latter theory would allow the percentage of interests transferred to be reallocated should the valuation change, as was the case here. The former would render the percentage of interests transferred fixed even in the face of a changed valuation.”
    • Looking to the language of the transfer documents, the Court held, “The Nelsons defined their transfer differently; they qualified it as the fair market value that was determined by the appraiser. Once the appraiser had determined the fair market value of a 1% limited partner interest in Longspar, and the stated dollar values were converted to percentages based on that appraisal, those percentages were locked, and remained so even after the valuation changed.”

Unpublished

  • Diaz v. Garland, 19-60074, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Elrod, Haynes), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision to deny Diaz’s deferral of removal under the CAT.
  • U.S. v. Garcia-Lopez, 21-10173, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Jaime-Guzman, 21-10432, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of 36-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Long v. Faenas Transport, L.L.C., 21-40268, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Southwick, Willett), personal tort
    • Affirming verdict in favor of plaintiff, and amount of award, in claim arising from destruction of warehouse in fire caused by employee of defendant.
  • U.S. v. Schad, 21-40393, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal, compassionate release
    • Vacating denial of motion for compassionate release, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Lopez-Sanchez, 21-60082, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Clement, Southwick, Willett), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 180-month sentence for assaulting, resisting, or impeding an officer of the United States while engaged in or on account of his official duties.