January 30, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Jalbert, 23-30040, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Douglas, J. (King, Willett, Douglas), bankruptcy
    • Affirming bankruptcy court judgment dismissing affirmative defense based on pre-bankruptcy indemnity agreement, which had been asserted by defendant to bankruptcy liquidation trustee’s suit arising from misstatements made by defendant charged with helping raise funds for construction of debtor’s facility, on basis that the affirmative defense was barred by debtor’s Chapter 11 confirmation plan.
    • Where Raymond James did not make a claim in the bankruptcy, but admittedly monitored the bankruptcy proceedings, the Court held that the provision of the confirmation plan enjoining “all persons who have held … a debt, Claim or Interest … from … asserting any setoff, right of subrogation, surcharge, or recoupment of any kind against any obligation due the Debtors” applied with equal force to Raymond James as it did to claimants in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Court held, “It is true that the debtor has a general obligation to list its creditors when first filing a bankruptcy petition; the debtor’s failure to do so typically means the unlisted creditor’s claims are exempt from discharge. There is, however, a catch: If an interested party has notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy, that party must come forward and protect their enhanced rights or else lose their rights through the sweeping discharge of Chapter 11. In this context, the notice requirement is satisfied when the creditor has actual knowledge of the case in time to permit [it] to take steps to protect [its] rights.” (Internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). The Court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief to amend the confirmation order, based on Raymond James’s actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings.
    • The Court also held that, “[e]ven if Raymond James could show that the terms of the confirmation plan were invalid, the trust is not the appropriate party against whom to raise its setoff defenses. As explained, the claims [the trustee] lodged against Raymond James were not residual causes of action transferred from [the debtor’s] estate; [the trustee’s] right to assert these claims arose solely from the third-party assignments post-confirmation.”

Unpublished

  • Wong v. Garland, 22-60642, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Clement, Engelhardt, Oldham), immigration
    • Granting Chinese citizen’s petition for review of BIA denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the convention against torture, vacating BIA’s order and remanding with instructions.
  • U.S. v. Mallory, 23-10380, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Morris, 23-10558, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Watson v. FedEx Express, 23-10806, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Ho, Wilson), employment discrimination
    • Affirming dismissal of employment discrimination and retaliation claims.
  • Diggles v. Surratt, 23-20564, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Engelhardt, Ramirez), § 1983
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Cuellar, 23-40417, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Gilani v. Wynn Las Vegas, L.L.C., 23-40477, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Ho, Ramirez), bankruptcy
    • Affirming bankruptcy court’s order denying debtor’s motion to enforce permanent injunction.
  • U.S. v. Corona, 23-50269, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 300-month sentence on conviction of possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Nunley, 23-50459, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Higginson, Ho), criminal, compassionate release
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of motion for sentence reduction.
  • U.S. v. Marroquin-Bravo, 23-50680, c/w 23-50683, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Ho, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.