July 30-31, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Von Derhaar v. Watson, 22-30710, c/w Von Derhaar v. Ferguson, 22-30718, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Higginson, J. (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), qualified immunity, municipal liability, Fourth Amendment, § 1983
    • Dismissing appeal in part for want of appellate jurisdiction over appeals of denial of summary judgment on punitive damages claim, the summary judgment to police officer on Fourth Amendment search claim, and the summary judgment to the City and the police superintendent on a municipal liability claim; affirming denial of summary judgment to crime lab supervisor on qualified immunity for search and seizure claims; and reversing denial of qualified immunity summary judgment to two other officers on seizure claims.
  • Balboa Capital Corp. v. Okoji Home Visits MHT, L.L.C., 23-10333, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Richman, Graves, Wilson), fraud
    • Affirming summary judgment on behalf of defendant physicians in consolidated collections actions by plaintiff physician financing company, in matter arising from Ponzi scheme in which both the physicians and the financing company had been a victim.
  • Escobedo v. Ace Gathering, Inc., 23-20494, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Willett, J. (Higginson, Willett, Oldham), Oldham, J., concurring in judgment; Fair Labor Standards Act, Motor Carrier Act
    • In FLSA unpaid overtime wage claims by tanker-truck drivers who transport crude oil solely within State of Texas, reversing district court’s denial of summary judgment by defendant under the Motor Carrier Act exception, holding that, “[b]ecause most of the crude oil being transported is ultimately bound for destinations outside the state,” the drivers are transporting property in “interstate or foreign commerce.”
    • Judge Oldham concurred in the judgment, to separately “emphasize the confusion surrounding this area of the law.”
  • U.S. v. Abbott, 23-50632, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Willett, J. (joined by Jones, Smith, Elrod, Haynes, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, JJ.); Oldham, J., concurring; Richman, C.J., concurring in judgment; Ho, J., dissenting in part; Higginson, J., dissenting (joined by King, Stewart, Southwick, Graves, Douglas, Ramirez, JJ.); Douglas, J., dissenting (joined by King, Stewart, Southwick, Graves, Higginson, Ramirez); Rivers and Harbors Act
    • Reversing district court’s grant of preliminary injunction requiring Texas to move a barrier from the middle of a stretch of the Rio Grande River where it was deployed to prevent immigration river crossings, holding that, on the record before the Court, the United States would not likely prevail on trial in showing that the stretch of the Rio Grande is “navigable” for purposes of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
    • Judge Oldham concurred in full with the majority judgment, to specifically address Judge Ho’s partial dissent that the Court should have reached Texas’s argument that Article I, § 10, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution authorized Texas to deploy the barrier to protect against an “invasion.”
    • Chief Judge Richman concurred in judgment as to the record on the preliminary injunction, but would not foreclose that the U.S. could establish navigability at trial “through evidence of bank-to-bank ferry traffic.”
    • Judge Ho dissented in part, as he would have reached the constitutional issue of a state’s power to protect against invasion, and held that it served as a political question that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction.
    • Judge Higginson joined with Judge Douglas’s dissent, but issued his own dissent, as well, “to underscore the legal error the majority commits in announcing its new requirement for river navigability. In so doing, the majority disregards the Supreme Court’s broad understanding of commerce—and the role that ferries have historically played in it—by reading into caselaw a directionality requirement for navigability that not only does not exist, but also lacks a theoretical foothold. The result is a new legal test that is ahistorical, unworkable, and contrary to the federal obligation to guarantee that the waters of the United States remain obstruction-free.”
    • Judge Douglas authored the primary dissent, reviewing the record evidence under the clear error standard to disagree with the majority’s navigability holding.
  • MCR Oil Tools, L.L.C. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 24-60230, petition for review of DOT action
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Engelhardt, Ramirez), administrative law
    • Granting petition for review, and vacating action by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration “that determined that MCR lacked the requisite approval to transport, and therefore sell, a product accounting for most of its revenue. That determination is arbitrary and capricious thrice over. For starters, it misinterprets the law. Additionally, its reasoning lacks adequate substantiation. Finally, the agency reached a conclusion that was directly contradicted by the evidence.”

Unpublished

  • SWT Global Supply, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 21-60762, c/w Cloud House, L.L.C. v. Food & Drug Administration, 21-60777, c/w Paradigm Distribution v. Food & Drug Administration, 21-60778, c/w Vaporized, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 21-60779, c/w SV Packaging, L.L.C. v. Food & Drug Administration, 21-60801, on petitions for review of FDA actions
    • per curiam (Wiener, Elrod, Wilson), administrative law
    • Granting petitions to review marketing denial orders issued for e-cigarette products, and remanding for review in light of en banc decision in Wages & White Lion Invs., L.L.C. v. FDA, 90 F.4th 357 (5th Cir. 2024) (en banc), cert. granted, 2024 WL 3259693 (7/2/2024).
  • Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, L.L.P. v. Norman, 23-20065, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Haynes, Graves), trademark infringement, unfair trade practices
    • Affirming plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in trademark infringement matter.
  • U.S. v. Salahuddin, 23-20461, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction appeal from denial of motion for appointment of counsel.
  • Phan v. Hanen, 23-20598, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Willett, Oldham), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from prisoner’s suit.
  • ASHH, Inc. v. URZ Trendz, L.L.C., 23-20614, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Wilson, Ramirez), attorneys’ fees
    • Affirming district court’s denial of motion for attorneys’ fees after plaintiff in trademark infringement case voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice prior to trial, but remanding for recalculation of costs.
  • Team Contractors, L.L.C. v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C., 23-30277, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Douglas), Douglas, J., dissenting; attorneys’ fees
    • Finding that neither party substantially prevailed, reversing district court’s award of attorneys’ fees under the fee provision of the contract that was at issue.
    • Judge Douglas dissented. “The majority concludes no party substantially prevailed despite a jury finding that Waypoint had not breached the contract. That finding glosses over the applicable law for awarding attorneys’ fees and costs, which the magistrate and district court astutely applied in this case. Further absent from the decision are the longstanding rules of contract interpretation.”
  • Baton Rouge Ventures, L.L.C. v. Cedar Grove Capital, L.L.C., 23-30741, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Elrod, Wilson), breach of contract, diversity jurisdiction
    • Holding appeal in abeyance, and remanding to district court for further findings and consideration of LLC members’ citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
  • U.S. v. Nelson, 23-30875, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Haynes), criminal
    • Affirming revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. De Los Santos-Pascal, 23-40566, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute heroin while intending, knowing, and having reason to believe it would be unlawfully imported into the United States.
  • U.S. v. Perez, 23-50789, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 168-month sentence on conviction of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and 400 grams or more of fentanyl.
  • U.S. v. Lee, 23-50896, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Nunez-Lopez, 23-50935, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Caal v. Garland, 23-60531, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Dennis, Elrod, Ramirez), immigration
    • Denying Guatemalan citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • U.S. v. Duran, 24-10075, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Thomas, 24-10145, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Hernandez-Hernandez, 24-10196, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • Harrison v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24-20025, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), jurisdiction, tax
    • Affirming district court’s dismissal of action to quash third-party IRS summonses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  • Rodgers v. Edwards, 24-30049, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of Louisiana state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Jones, 24-30094, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming consecutive 10- and 60-month sentences on convictions of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.
  • U.S. v. Sanusi, 24-40060, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Granger v. Lumpkin, 24-70001, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Engelhardt, Oldham), habeas corpus
    • Denying certificate of appealability from district court’s denial of habeas petition on ineffectiveness of assistance of counsel.