November 15, 2021, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • BVS Construction, Inc. v. Prosperity Bank, 21-50274, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Clement, J. (Clement, Southwick, Willett), bankruptcy, res judicata
    • Affirming district court’s and bankruptcy court’s overruling of debtor’s claim objection to secured creditor’s proof of claim, on basis that “res judicata, judicial estoppel, and judicial admission barred [debtor’s] claim objection on the ground that it was ultimately based on the alleged impropriety of [creditor’s] claim against [debtor] from its prior bankruptcy in 2015.”
    • The owner of the debtor, on his behalf and on behalf of the debtor in a 2015 joint bankruptcy, signed a joint plan of reorganization that set out a payment and amortization schedule for secured debt owed to the creditor, to which no objections were filed. The debtor made the required payments until January 2019, when it filed for a new bankruptcy; the creditor filed a claim in the new bankruptcy, alleging the claim amount accounted for all payments received on the secured debt from the first bankruptcy. The debtor filed a claim objection, objecting that the claim amount in the second bankruptcy was based on an incorrect amount in the first bankruptcy.
    • The Court first rejected the debtor’s argument that the bankruptcy court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the creditor’s claim in the second bankruptcy. The Court held that the creditor’s claim was properly held by the bankruptcy court to state a claim in the second bankruptcy, “an action that without question falls within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction under § 157(b)(1) and (2)(B).”
    • The Court also held that the judgment confirming the plan in the 2015 bankruptcy had res judicata effect precluding the debtor’s claim objection in the second bankruptcy to the extent that the debtor was based on an argument that the amount of the claim in the first bankruptcy was wrong.
    • The Court also held that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in determining that the amount of the creditor’s claim in the second bankruptcy was not calculated erroneously, that the creditor correctly accounted for all of the debtor’s payments toward the secured claim under the first bankruptcy’s plan.

Unpublished

  • Welsh v. McLane, 20-10412, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of deliberate indifference claims.
  • U.S. v. Cruz, 20-10546, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Chehab, 20-10855, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Lewis, 20-11053, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Nichols v. U.S. Bank, National Association, 20-60185, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Willett), arbitration
    • Dismissing as frivolous plaintiffs’ appeal from dismissal of motion for confirmation of an arbitration award.
  • U.S. v. Jean-Louis, 21-10261, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • SureShot Golf Ventures, Inc. v. Topgolf International, Inc., 21-20132, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Haynes), antitrust
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s antitrust claims against defendant arising from defendant’s acquisition of Protracer, “a developer of innovative golf ball tracking technology.”
  • U.S. v. Roman-Soto, 21-50501, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of 30-month sentence on conviction for illegal reentry.
  • Smith v. State of Mississippi, 21-60628, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), habeas corpus, timeliness
    • Remanding to district court to determine when habeas petitioner delivered his notice of appeal to prison officials, in order to determine if notice of appeal was timely filed.