November 7-8, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Kim v. American Honda Motor Co., 22-40790, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Smith, Elrod), product liability, expert witness, jury instructions
    • Affirming judgment and damages award against Honda in strict liability and negligence defective design and product liability claims arising from side-impact car accident, rejecting arguments that district court erred in denying motion to exclude liability experts, denying motion for new trial and JMOL, and failing to include jury instruction on presumption of nonliability.
    • The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not excluding the plaintiffs’ liability experts. The Court held that the district court had properly analyzed the relevance, reliability, and potential helpfulness of the experts’ reports; and that Honda’ complaint that the expert had failed to engage in a formal risk-utility analysis went to the substantive law and not to the elements of FRE 702.
    • The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s denial of Honda’s JMOL and new trial motions. The Court rejected Honda’s argument about the plaintiff’s burden to engage in a formal risk-utility analysis under Texas law: “Texas law requires plaintiffs demonstrate that the safety benefits from [the] proposed design are foreseeably greater than the resulting costs, including any diminished usefulness or diminished safety. But this Court has held that [t]he burden is minimal: plaintiffs need only offer some evidence that their alternative design . . . would not have introduced other dangers of equal or greater magnitude.” (Internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted).
    • The Court held that the district court did not err in failing to apply a presumption of nonliability instruction because there was not applicable federal standard regarding the risk from a far-side impact during a near-side collision. “The district court was correct to treat the instruction’s applicability as a question of law, to define the product risk in a case-specific way, and to rule the presumption inapplicable because no federal standard governed the appropriately-defined product risk at issue.”

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Strother, 21-40592, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Douglas), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of filing false retaliatory liens against a federal judge, mail fraud, and related counts.
  • U.S. v. Vasquez, 22-10766, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Douglas), criminal, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions
    • Affirming convictions of bribery and honest-services mail fraud.
  • U.S. v. EtchisonBrown, 22-10892, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 85-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Herrera, 22-50119, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Alas-Ayala, 22-51060, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Engelhardt, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 151-month sentence on conviction of importing marijuana and aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
  • Valladares-Ardon v. Garland, 22-60366, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), immigration
    • Dismissing Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order denying her motion reconsider.
  • U.S. v. Kelley, 23-10093, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 180-month sentence on conviction of possession of 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it.
  • Seybold v. Charter Communications, Inc., 23-10104, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Engelhardt, Wilson), whistleblower, employment, breach of contract
    • Affirming dismissal of former employee’s Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claim and breach of contract claim arising from termination.
  • U.S. v. Arrellano, 23-10106, c/w 23-10107, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Suazo-Euceda, 23-20002, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Ho), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming as modified the terms of supervised release imposed as part of sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • English v. Cage, 23-20047, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Douglas), bankruptcy
    • Affirming dismissal of pro se creditor’s appeal from bankruptcy court’s order as untimely.
  • U.S. v. Perez, 23-20067, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, supervised release
    • Vacating sentence in part and remanding to conform written judgment of terms of supervised release with oral pronouncement.
  • Parks v. AIG, 23-40044, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Higginson, Ho), whistleblower, employment
    • Dismissing appeal of district court’s denial of motion to reconsider transfer of venue of whistleblower and harassment case and denial of motion to reconsider denial of TRO.
  • Finchum v. Nacogdoches County, 23-40078, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Douglas), governmental immunity, prisoner suit
    • Reversing district court’s denial of motion to dismiss on governmental immunity grounds, holding that the Texas Wiretap Act does not waive governmental immunity, and dismissing with prejudice.
  • U.S. v. Ferreyro, 23-50221, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • County of Yazoo v. Prewitt, 23-60073, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Higginson), removal jurisdiction
    • Affirming remand of speeding ticket adjudication back to state court, rejecting defendant’s arguments that the County of Yazoo did not have appropriate jurisdiction over him due to constitutional defects in the Mississippi Constitution of 1890.
  • Matute-Munguia v. Garland, 23-60254, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Ho), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.