April 4, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • The Charitable DAF Fund, L.P. v. Highland Capital Management, L.P., 22-11036, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Oldham, J. (Dennis, Engelhardt, Oldham), Dennis, J., dissenting; bankruptcy
    • Vacating bankruptcy court’s award of $239,655 in compensatory damages on civil contempt award, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • The Court held that the bankruptcy court’s limited contempt power–limited to civil contempt–meant that it may only shift fees that are compensatory for actual expenses incurred and that has a causal link limited to the misconduct at issue. “Absent that because-of link, the sanction is punitive rather than compensatory and hence falls outside the bankruptcy court’s statutorily limited powers. Thus, if a contempt movant ‘would have incurred an expense’ even absent the non-movant’s contumacious conduct, ‘he has suffered no incremental harm . . . and so the court lacks a basis for shifting the expense.'” (Internal citation omitted). The Court then found that the bulk of the fees awarded by the bankruptcy court were not related to the limited scope of what the contemnor had actually done wrong, but were incurred in responding to an extensive discovery order by the bankruptcy court that looked into questions of intent for the contumacious conduct, which would only be relevant to criminal contempt, a power outside the bankruptcy court’s authority.
    • The Court held that a bankruptcy court does not have inherent power to vindicate its own authority, which would be a power related to criminal contempt rather than civil contempt.
    • Judge Dennis dissented. He opined that the majority violated the applicable clear-error standard of review, and that the record did not support a vacatur under the appropriate review standard.
  • D&T Partners, L.L.C. v. Baymark Partners Management, L.L.C., 22-11148, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Douglas, J. (Jones, Haynes, Douglas), trade secrets, RICO
    • Affirming 12(b)(6) dismissal of civil RICO claims based on allegations that defendants conspired to steal the assets and trade secrets of an e-commerce company through shell entities, corrupt lending practices, and a fraudulent bankruptcy. “While the complaint alleges coordinated theft, the alleged victims are limited in number, and the scope and nature of the scheme was finite and focused on a singular objective. Because this does not constitute a ‘pattern’ of racketeering conduct sufficient to state a RICO claim, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.”
  • Miller v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 23-30393, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Graves, J. (Richman, Graves, Wilson), personal tort
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of slip-and-fall claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the store’s constructive notice of the hazardous condition and also failed to show spoliation of evidence that could have created such a genuine issue of material fact.
  • Career Colleges and Schools of Texas v. U.S. Department of Education, 23-50491, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Jones, J. (Jones, Duncan, Wilson), preliminary injunction, administrative law
    • Reversing district court’s denial of preliminary injunction of federal government’s student loan relief, and remanding with instructions to enter an order postponing the effective date of the new rule until after final judgment in the challenge to the rule.
    • The Court held, “Although the district court correctly determined that CCST showed real injuries in fact for purposes of Article III standing, it erred in concluding that CCST failed to show sufficient irreparable harm to justify a preliminary injunction. The record demonstrates that CCST’s members would face irreparable harm stemming from the Rule’s borrower defense and school closure provisions in the absence of preliminary relief delaying the Rule’s effective date.”
    • The Court held that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that: the loan-forgiveness rule would be beyond the scope of the Department’s statutory authority under § 455(h) of the Higher Education Act; and that the rule places the Department in the ultra vires role of adjudicating defenses to repayment of student loans.
  • Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water in Brazoria County v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 23-60027, appeal from Maritime Administration order
    • Douglas, J. (Wiener, Willett, Douglas), administrative law, National Environmental Policy Act, standing
    • Denying environmental groups’ petition for review of an agency order approving the construction and operation of a deepwater oil facility off the Texas coast, holding that “the agency adequately considered the environmental consequences of the facility before approving its deepwater port license.”
    • The Court held that the environmental groups had sufficiently shown that they have standing. “It is true that SPOT’s construction has yet to break ground. And in that sense, it may not appear that Petitioners’ alleged injuries are ‘actual’ or ‘imminent.’ But ‘[t]he Supreme Court has expressly held that a ‘threatened injury’ will satisfy the ‘injury in fact’ requirement for standing.’ This principle is an important one for environmental plaintiffs who, like the ones here, challenge ‘an administrative agency’s failure to satisfy a procedural requirement.'” (Internal citations omitted).
    • As to NEPA compliance, the Court observed, “We apply a highly deferential review standard in these cases because preparing an EIS requires highly technical knowledge. As we lack such expertise, we must ‘defer to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies.'” (Internal citation omitted). Under this standard, the Court held that the agency took the requisite “hard look” in its FEIS process.
    • As to compliance with the Deepwater Ports Act, the Court held that the petitioners lacked statutory standing to challenge the agency’s exceedance of the timeframe for review in the DPA, as they could not trace any injury to that violation. The Court held that, even if petitioners had statutory standing under the DPA to challenge the sufficiency of the agency’s finding as to energy security, their claim that the agency’s review was merely conclusory failed. “Even if these conclusions were brief, they were based on consultations with the agency’s experts and a detailed review of the record. Given that fact, we cannot say that the agency’s determination here was an arbitrary or capricious one.”

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Huerra, 23-11186, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Dennis), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Ackel v. Martynenko, 23-30449, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Wilson), attorneys’ fees
    • Affirming denial of attorneys’ fees in claims brought under the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and Louisiana law.
  • U.S. v. Villezcas, 23-40569, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Nanez-Lopez, 23-50788, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Dennis), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Scott v. Jackson County, 23-60405, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), § 1983, sovereign immunity, judicial immunity
    • Affirming dismissal of § 1983 claims.