February 15, 2022, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Craig v. Martin, 19-10013, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Owen, C.J. (Owen, Barksdale, Duncan), qualified immunity
    • Reversing denial of qualified immunity summary judgment on excessive force claims and rendering judgment in favor of police officer defendant.
    • The Court held that the video evidence showed that it was not objectively unreasonable for the officer to have used the force he used to restrain and effect the arrests of the plaintiffs. “Physical force may be necessary to ensure compliance when a suspect ‘refus[es] to comply with instructions.'”
    • The Court also held that the qualified immunity claim would have foundered on the second step of the analysis, regarding a “clearly established” right. “Here the plaintiffs have failed to provide any controlling precedent showing that Martin’s particular conduct violated a clearly established right. Instead, they have pointed to several cases that discuss the excessive force issue at a ‘high level of generality’—precisely what the Supreme Court has repeatedly advised courts they cannot do in analyzing qualified immunity claims.”
  • Cimarex Energy Co. v. CP Well Testing, L.L.C., 20-50892, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Owen, Jones, Wilson), indemnification
    • Affirming district court’s holding that party to Master Service Agreement did not owe indemnity beyond the minimum insurance required under the MSA, by operation of the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act.
    • Although the defendant had procured more excess coverage than would have been required to satisfy the minimum coverage required by the MSA, under TOAIA, “[g]iven the MSA’s silence on this issue, the operative question is how to determine how much of CP Well’s additional $8 million in excess liability coverage was ‘for the benefit of [Cimarex] as indemnitee.'” The Court approved of the district court’s approach where “[t]he district court consulted CP Well’s excess liability policy language and concluded that none of the additional coverage was procured for Cimarex’s benefit as indemnitee, and therefore that CP Well was not required to pay more than $3 million to Cimarex.”
    • “The parties in this case agreed to indemnify each other, consistent with TOAIA, by setting a “floor” of required insurance coverage each was to obtain. They were free to procure more. CP Well obtained a policy that expressly set the ‘ceiling’ of coverage ‘for the benefit [of Cimarex] as indemnitee’ at the minimum ‘floor’ provided by the parties’ contract. CP Well did not breach its contractual duties to Cimarex in doing so. And the district court did not err in construing either the parties’ agreement, or TOAIA, or the insurance policy to delimit CP Well’s indemnity obligation to Cimarex.”
  • Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 21-30005, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Oldham, J. (Jolly, Elrod, Oldham), attorneys’ fees
    • Reversing district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to surety.
    • In dispute between project owner (Housing Authority of New Orleans), contractor (Parkcrest), and the contractor’s surety (Liberty), the surety filed a complaint-in-intervention in litigation between Parkcrest and HANO rather than following the dispute-resolution procedures spelled out in its contract. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of Parkcrest and Liberty, finding that HANO’s termination of Parkcrest from the project had been a termination for convenience after the project was substantially complete, and then held that HANO was liable for attorneys’ fees. After the Court affirmed that judgment, the district court on remand made an award of attorneys’ fees.
    • Applying Louisiana law, the Court held first that Liberty was not excused from engaging in the contractual contract-dispute requirements by HANO’s initial breach. The Court held that the language in the dispute-resolution provision was clear that “it’s meant to be binding even after a breach.” The Court then found as a factual matter that Liberty breached the dispute-resolution provision.
    • Because Liberty’s claim against HANO, therefore, was not a “properly presented” one under the contractual provision providing for fees, the Court held that Liberty was not entitled to an award of fees.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Banks, 19-50071, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Lindsey, 20-10072, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), habeas corpus
    • Affirming dismissal of successive § 2255 petition.
  • Martins-Gadiole v. Garland, 20-60737, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Costa, Engelhardt), immigration
    • Dismissing in part and denying in part Brazilian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming, without opinion, the denial of his motion to reopen and rescind his in-absentia removal order.
  • Aldana-Ramirez v. Garland, 20-60871, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), immigration
    • Dismissing in part and denying in part Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal from the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • U.S. v. Lujano-Jaimes, 21-10024, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, First Step Act
    • Vacating district court’s denial of motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act, and remanding for consideration in light of United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021).
  • U.S. v. Bickens, 21-10392, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Polak v. Sterilite Corp., 21-10549, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Costa), Americans with Disabilities Act
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of former employee’s ADA claims arising from failed drug test.
  • U.S. v. Taylor, 21-10557, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 96-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm as a felon.
  • U.S. v. Barrieta-Barrera, 21-10878, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming constitutionality of conviction and imprisonment term upon revocation of supervised release.
  • Matthews v. Ma’at, 21-50047, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of § 2241 petition.
  • U.S. v. Acuna-Trujillo, 21-50667, c/w 21-50780, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of sentence for illegal reentry and for revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Aguilera, 21-50767, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal, sentencing, Armed Career Criminal Act
    • Affirming 180-month sentence on conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, on application of ACCA to prior conviction of burglary.