February 18, 2022, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Newsom v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., 20-10994, c/w 21-10519, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Wilson), ERISA
    • Affirming in part and vacating in part–affirming district court’s judgment that plaintiff is eligible for long-term disability benefits and the alleged date of his disability, but vacating judgment as to entitlement to LTD benefits and remanding to district court with instructions to remand to ERISA plan administrator for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
    • The parties’ dispute centers around the plan administrator’s denial of benefits on the basis that the plaintiff had been working less than full-time prior to the occurrence of his disability, and the plaintiff’s contention that the cut-down in his hours was caused by the disability. The district court determined that the plaintiff was still eligible because the term “regular work week” should mean the scheduled work week and not the “actual hours worked.” The district court also found that the plaintiff’s date of disability was in October 2017, when he became unable to perform the duties of his job on a full-time basis, rather than in January 2018, when he became unable to work at all, and held that the plaintiff was entitled to LTD benefits of $194,290.72.
    • Holding that ambiguous language should be interpreted in favor of the insured, the Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation of “regular work week” to mean “scheduled work week.”
    • Under a clear error standard, the Court also affirmed the district court’s determination of the date of disability.
    • The Court then held that remand to the plan administrator on the merits determination of the plaintiff’s entitlement to LTD benefits was “a separate issue, and one on which Reliance did not develop a record after finding Newsom ineligible for benefits.”
  • In re Royal Street Bistro, L.L.C., 22-30066, on petition for writ of mandamus to E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), mandamus, bankruptcy
    • Denying motion for mandamus to compel bankruptcy court to stay pending appeal of an order authorizing the debtor’s Chapter 11 trustee to sell the debtor’s real property free and clear of all claims. Because the petitioners were tenants of the debtor who were insiders with below-market leases, the Court recognized that their rights were junior to the secured mortgagee of the property under Louisiana law. “The arguments on either side of these issues are textually sophisticated, fact-laden, and deeply rooted in commercial law far beyond the scope of the mandamus petition before us. … [T]he essential state law rights of the tenants in this case are limited by the senior mortgagee’s prior lien on the Bourbon Street Property.”

Unpublished

  • In re: Greenwood, 19-60884, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Elrod, Duncan), Duncan, J., dissenting; habeas corpus
    • Reversing district court’s determination that the petitioner’s habeas petition was a prohibited successive § 2254 petition, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • Judge Duncan dissented.
  • U.S. v. Razo-Elizarraras, 20-40731, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Burns, 20-50681, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal, First Step Act
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction under the First Step Act.
  • Fabrisk v. Garland, 20-61035, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), immigration
    • Denying Cameroonian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the IJ’s credibility finding, finding that he had failed to meet the burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal, and denying application for protection under the CAT.
  • Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. ML Development, L.P., 21-20081, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Engelhardt, Oldham), breach of contract
    • Vacating district court’s judgment that drainage easement had been granted in exchange for discharge of obligations, because there was no pre-existing dispute between the parties to the contract with regard to the tax obligations.
  • U.S. v. Arteaga-Ceneno, 21-40599, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Conde, 21-50608, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Andres-Tomas, 21-50727, c/w 21-50739, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of conviction and sentence for illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Ramirez-Almader, 21-50729, c/w 21-50744, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of conviction and sentence for illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Alvarado-Perez, 21-50745, c/w 21-50746, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of conviction and sentence for illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release.
  • Bonilla-Portillo v. Garland, 21-60098, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA determination that she is ineligible for cancellation of removal.
  • U.S. v. Breland, 21-60374, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of 120-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction.