April 1-2, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Jackson Municipal Airport Authority v. Harkins, 21-60312, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Elrod, J. (joined by Richman, Jones, Smith, Stewart, Haynes, Higginson, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Douglas, Ramirez, JJ.) (Judges Southwick, Graves, and Wilson recused); Dennis, J., concurring in judgment only (joined by Higginson, Ramirez, JJ.); Ho, J., concurring (joined by Stewart, Elrod, Higginson, Ramirez, JJ.); mootness, appellate jurisdiction, standing
    • In en banc rehearing of May 10, 2023, panel opinion that had affirmed a district court ruling that state legislators must provide a privilege log for documents they contended were subject to the legislative privilege but had reversed the district court’s ruling that the legislative privilege was automatically waived for documents shared with third parties, the en banc Court dismissed the appeal as moot because all of the plaintiffs, who had been commissioners of the airport authority that would be dissolved by the state legislation they were challenging, were no longer commissioners. “This litigation has been ongoing for almost eight years, has come before this court three times, and has now seen four oral arguments. The district court should act forthwith to determine whether, given that all of the commissioners’ claims are moot, it may nonetheless exercise jurisdiction over the case.”
    • Judge Dennis concurred in the judgment dismissing the appeal, but on the basis that the Court lacked appellate jurisdiction, as he had opined in his dissent from the original panel opinion.
    • Judge Ho concurred, agreeing that the appeal was moot, to further respond to the suggestion that the individual commissioners had lacked Article III standing to challenge the state legislation. “It’s no small thing to tell a litigant that the court will not even consider the merits of their claim—that it doesn’t matter if a defendant has broken the law and injured others—because the Constitution forbids us from granting you any relief. Of course, we’re duty bound to do it when the law compels that result. But when it does, it’s incumbent upon us to spell out what principles require dismissal for lack of standing. It should go without saying that every member of our court agrees that we apply the same Article III principles whether you’re black or white, Republican or Democrat, environmentalist or evangelical. It should likewise be beyond dispute that we apply the same standing rules no matter what we think of the merits of the underlying claim. Standing is orthogonal to merits. So we must always be careful not to conflate our views on one with our views on the other.” Because the commissioners would lose their per diem payment for serving on the board, Judge Ho would find that this was a quintessential economic injury conferring standing. He would reject the suggestion that the legislature’s restructuring of an organ of government would be an “institutional” injury rather than an individual one suffered by the people who comprise that body, as an unwarranted extension of Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997).
  • Schnell v. State Farm Lloyds, 22-10662, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Dennis, J. (Dennis, Engelhardt, Oldham), insurance
    • Vacating in part, and affirming in part, summary judgment for insurer on plaintiff’s claim for coverage of replacement of entire tiled roof (and not just damaged tiles) following hailstorm, where plaintiffs claimed that city had required replacement of the entire roof; and remanding for further proceedings.
    • The Court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City’s code-enforcement decision required replacement of the entire roof, and that summary judgment therefore should not have been granted as to the breach of contract claim. The Court also held, therefore, that summary judgment was improper on the Texas statutory prompt payment claim.
    • The Court held, however, that the plaintiffs had waived their appeal arguments as to their claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing through inadequate briefing when they failed to offer any citation to authority or record evidence on that claim.

Unpublished

  • Counsel Holdings, Inc. v. Jowers, 22-50936, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Ho, Engelhardt), trade secrets, breach of contract
    • Affirming judgment that defendant violated employment contract and misappropriated trade secrets.
  • U.S. v. Clark, 23-10664, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing, Armed Career Criminal Act
    • Affirming 180-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, subject to ACCA enhancement based in part on prior burglary conviction.
  • U.S. v. Ford, 23-10949, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Simien, 23-20558, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Birdow v. Kwarteng, 23-40316, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Engelhardt, Douglas), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Leon-Hernandez, 23-50606, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Ho, Ramirez), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to transport aliens and the transportation of aliens, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • U.S. v. Zuniga, 23-50798, c/w 23-50799, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Herta-Pedraza, 23-50819, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Higginson, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Doe v. Marriott International, Inc., 23-60389, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Richman, Graves, Wilson), forum selection clause
    • Affirming dismissal based on forum selection clause and closely related doctrine, which required disputes to be litigated in the Bahamas, in claim arising from incident at a resort in the Bahamas.