September 20, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Megalomedia Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., 23-20570, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Oldham, J. (Ho, Duncan, Oldham), diversity jurisdiction
    • Remanding appeal from summary judgment and from judgment after bench trial, for jurisdictional discovery into the citizenship of LLC members where complaints only alleged where the LLCs were “doing business” and had their “principal place of business.”
  • TIG Insurance Co. v. Woodsboro Farmers Cooperative, 23-40435, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Dennis, Southwick, Ho), insurance
    • Reversing summary judgment in favor of insurer on question of whether there was “property damage” sufficient to trigger duty to defend and indemnify under CGL police, finding fact issues, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • National Infusion Center Association v. Becerra, 24-50180, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Elrod, J. (Elrod, Duncan, Ramirez), Ramirez, J., dissenting in part; Inflation Reduction Act, standing
    • Reversing district court’s dismissal of plaintiff industry group’s suit challenging the constitutionality of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established under the Inflation Reduction Act, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • While the district court had held that 42 U.S.C. § 405 of the Medicare Act required the plaintiff to “channel” its constitutional claims first through the Department of Health and Human Services before bringing claim to courts, the Court held that the plaintiff’s claims did not arise under the Medicare Act but under the Inflation Reduction Act, such that channeling was not required.
    • The Court then held that the plaintiff industry group had standing to bring its due process challenge, though it lacked standing to bring nondelegation and excessive fines claims.
    • Judge Ramirez dissented in part. She would hold that the plaintiff industry association lacks standing to bring its due process challenge, and that the claims must be channeled. She would hold that the plaintiff failed to establish imminent injury in fact; and that “[e]ven if NICA had standing, its claims cannot be disentangled from the Medicare Act. For providers, the IRA has no significance outside of Medicare reimbursements. The Medicare Act therefore provides both the standing and the substantive basis for NICA’s due process claim, and because it arises under the Medicare Act, it must be channeled through HHS.”
  • In re: Abbott, 24-50620, petition for mandamus to the N.D. Tex.
    • Stewart, J. (Stewart, Haynes, Higginson), mandamus, Seventh Amendment
    • Denying Texas’s petition for mandamus in Rio Grande river-barrier case to direct the district court to place the case on the jury docket, holding that “Texas has neither demonstrated that the United States’ [Rivers and Harbors Act] claim is a legal cause of action, nor that it seeks a legal remedy.”

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Harsch, 24-10076, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Perez-Arellano, 24-50105, c/w 24-50106, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Rule, 24-60015, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 96-month sentence on conviction of possession of a stolen firearm.