August 26-27, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Janvey v. GMAG, L.L.C., 22-10235, c/w Securities and Exchange Commission v. GMAG, L.L.C., 22-10429, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Stewart, Dennis, Southwick), securities fraud
    • Denying second petition for en banc rehearing, no active-duty judge having requested a poll, and re-issuing mandate.
    • The Court held that the district court judge’s finding of unclean hands, such that no setoff was awarded, rather than the unclean-hands issue going to the jury, was not error. The Court held that, under Texas law, “once disputed facts of what a defendant did are resolved [by the factfinder], it is the court that determines if that conduct constitutes unclean hands and how unclean hands should affect the relief in the case.”
  • Yates v. Spring Independent School District, 23-20441, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Higginson, J. (Wiener, Haynes, Higginson), Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, employment discrimination, Americans with Disabilities Act
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of employment discrimination claims under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, along with dismissal of defamation claims.
  • Missouri v. Biden, 23-30445, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Clement, Elrod, Willett), First Amendment
    • On remand from the Supreme Court, which reversed the original panel opinion, vacating the judgment and preliminary injunction of the district court enjoining various federal bodies’ actions in encouraging removal of posts and deplatforming of social media users in efforts to address misinformation on social media; and remanding for further proceedings.
  • Tesla, Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association, 23-30480, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Haynes, Douglas); Haynes, J., concurring without separate opinion in the affirmance of the dismissal of equal protection claim, in judgment only as to the reversal of the dismissal of due process claim and the vacatur and remand of antitrust claim; Douglas, J., dissenting as to reversal of due process and antitrust claims and concurring in judgment only as to affirmance of dismissal of equal protection claim; antitrust, equal protection, due process
    • Reversing dismissal of Tesla’s due process claim, vacating and remanding dismissal of antitrust claim, and affirming dismissal of equal protection claim, arising from Tesla’s challenge to Louisiana law that “generally prohibits automobile manufacturers from selling directly to consumers or performing warranty services for cars that the manufacturers do not own.”
    • The Court held that Tesla did not need to plead actual bias for its due process claim, finding that “it is hard to imagine what a pleading of actual bias at the motion-to-dismiss stage would even mean. What is ‘plausible actual bias’ other than ‘possible bias?'” The Court also held that Tesla’s claim was ripe even though the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission had not levied a sanction against Tesla yet, where the makeup of the Commission (comprised in large part of car dealers whose actions would deprive Tesla, a competitor, from engaging in the market) was unconstitutional: “there is no need to wait for the unconstitutional hearing to occur; notice of intent is sufficient.” The Court concluded, “Those with substantial pecuniary interest in legal proceedings should not adjudicate disputes governing revocation of a competitor’s license to practice in the relevant industry, even if that authority is otherwise lawfully exercised.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    • The Court held that the dismissal of Tesla’s antitrust claim should be vacated “because our due process ruling fundamentally alters the grounds on which Tesla’s alleged antitrust injury was based.”
    • Because Tesla concededly is not a member of a protected class, the Court applied rational basis review to its equal protection claim, and affirmed the dismissal of that claim.
    • Judge Douglas dissented from the reversal of the dismissal of the due process claim (and, necessarily flowing from her analysis, also from the vacatur of the dismissal of the antitrust claim). “Tesla’s complaint that the makeup of the Commission violates due process is meritless. In deciding in Tesla’s favor, the majority opinion misconstrues the fundamentals of due process and contravenes well-settled precedent. The majority’s decision also reflects a sea change for state regulations and how courts interpret them.” As to antitrust, Judge Douglas opined, “Strangely, after concluding that the investigative subpoenas violate due process, the majority opinion raised sua sponte whether that erroneous conclusion ‘fundamentally alters the grounds on which Tesla’s alleged antitrust injury was based.’ Op. at 19. In so doing, the majority opinion conflates two separate doctrines and vacates and remands the district court’s decision on Tesla’s anti-trust claim. But the opinion does not (and cannot) explain how due process laws merge with anti-trust laws.”
  • Hardy v. Scandinavian Airlines System, 23-30632, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Wiener, Douglas), international law, personal tort, personal jurisdiction
    • Reversing district court’s personal-jurisdiction-based dismissal of plaintiff’s claim against foreign airline for injury incurred when deboarding plane in Norway, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • In a matter of first impression, the Court held that the Montreal Convention does not independently create personal jurisdiction over the foreign airline company; but held that SAS’s waiver of service created personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) because the plaintiff need only show sufficient minimum contacts with the United Stated writ large and not with Louisiana specifically.
  • Anderson v. Hutson, 23-30633, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Douglas, J. (Smith, Wiener, Douglas), Smith, J., dissenting; prisoner suit, appellate jurisdiction
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction sheriff’s appeal of denial of motion to terminate consent decree order to proceed with stipulated plan by prior sheriff to construct a mental health annex to the parish prison as part of remedy for plaintiff class’s claims regarding constitutionally inadequate housing.
    • The Court held that the collateral order doctrine did not provide appellate jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1292: “The Sheriff has not shown that the district court refused to modify or dissolve an injunction. Rather, the court’s orders simply implement the consent decree without changing the command of the injunction. Accordingly, the court’s orders were an interpretation of the stipulated relief. To suggest otherwise would open a floodgate of repetitive and untimely appeals.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    • Judge Smith dissented. “The majority wants to build a prison. Though the law and the facts stand in its way, that hardly thwarts its zealous resolve. So it takes a hatchet to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and turns a blind eye to binding circuit precedent.”
  • Terrell v. Allgrunn, 23-30723, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Engelhardt, Ramirez), qualified immunity
    • Reversing district court’s denial of qualified immunity summary judgment to officer defendants on federal constitutional claims arising from arrest of plaintiffs, one of whom was arrested for running “erratically up and down the streets of a residential neighborhood” “[a]fter consuming 10 beers, 4 tramadol pills, 10-15 Tylenols, and half a gram of methamphetamine,” and the other of whom was arrested after going into the middle of the street to film the arrest; rendering summary judgment in favor of defendants on all federal claims except excessive force claim; dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal as to excessive force claim; and vacating denial of dismissal on Louisiana state law claims and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Medina-Cantu, 23-40336, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Ho, Engelhardt), Ho, J., concurring in judgment; criminal, Second Amendment
    • Affirming conviction of defendant for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm or ammunition, holding that a prior decision upholding the constitutionality of the criminal statute was not abrogated by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
    • Judge Ho concurred in the judgment. He would hold that the Second Amendment, regardless of its parameters, does not include illegal aliens within the scope of “the people” whose rights the Amendment protects.

Unpublished

  • Watterson v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 23-40556, c/w Second Amendment Foundation v. BATFE, 23-11157, c/w Mock v. Garland, 23-11199, c/w Britto v. BATFE, 23-11203, c/w Texas Gun Rights, Inc. v. BATFE, 23-11204, c/w Texas v. BATFE, 23-40685, appeals from E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex., S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Ho), mootness, administrative law
    • Dismissing as moot appeal from district court’s preliminary injunction of BATFE rule, in light of district court’s subsequent entry of final judgment and government’s separate appeal from that final judgment.
  • U.S. v. Kissentaner, 23-20348, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Jolly, J. (Jolly, Southwick, Duncan), criminal, sentencing, restitution
    • Affirming conviction and 144-month sentence for aiding and assisting in the preparation and presentation of false tax returns, and modifying restitution award to begin at commencement of supervised release and not immediately.
  • U.S. v. McCreless, 23-20482, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 110-month sentence for aiding and abetting a conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud; and remanding to correct clerical error in judgment regarding restitution amount.
  • MGMTL, L.L.C. v. Strategic Technology Institute, Inc., 23-30298, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Willett, Oldham), breach of contract, trade secrets, copyright
    • Affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating in part judgment on jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on breach of contract, trade secrets misappropriation, and copyright infringement claims.
  • White v. Patriot Erectors, L.L.C., 23-50444, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Ramirez, Ashe, by designation), employment discrimination
    • Affirming district court’s denial of motion for judgment as a matter of law following jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on racial discrimination claims.
  • U.S. v. Ramos, 23-50921, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to transport aliens within the United States, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • Rubio v. Garland, 23-60503, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Ho, Duncan, Oldham), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • Gibson v. Ridgewells Catering, 24-20013, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), employment discrimination
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of employment discrimination claims.
  • U.S. v. Gautreaux, 24-20091, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Dismissing as untimely appeal from denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Arreola-Mejia, 24-40101, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.