October 1, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Escobedo v. Ace Gathering, Inc., 23-20494, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (judges voting against rehearing: Richman, Jones, Stewart, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Ho, Engelhardt, Wilson, Douglas, Ramirez; judges voting for rehearing: Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Oldham); Oldham, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc (joined by Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, JJ.); Fair Labor Standards Act, Motor Carrier Act, en banc
    • Denying rehearing en banc of July 31, 2024, panel opinion reversing district court’s denial of summary judgment by defendant under the Motor Carrier Act exception to the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The panel held that, “[b]ecause most of the crude oil being transported is ultimately bound for destinations outside the state,” the intrastate drivers are transporting property in “interstate or foreign commerce.”
    • Judge Oldham, who had concurred in the panel opinion, dissented from the denial of en banc rehearing. “Supreme Court precedent directs us to take a textualist approach to this statutory scheme. See Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro, 584 U.S. 79, 89 (2018) (requiring a ‘fair reading’ of the FLSA’s text). A heap of Fifth Circuit precedent, however, requires us to ignore Encino Motorcars and the statutory text. When we fail to correct obviously wrong circuit precedent, it places undue strain on our rule of orderliness by requiring judges to hold their noses while saluting.”
  • Cure & Associates, P.C. v. LPL Financial LLC, 23-40519, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Jones, Clement, Wilson), arbitration
    • Reversing denial of motion to compel arbitration, vacating denial of motion to stay litigation, and remanding to district court to compel arbitration, holding that non-signatory companies were bound by a FINRA arbitration agreement between the companies’ principal and the defendant, by virtue of equitable estoppel.

Unpublished

  • Dilley v. Domingue, 23-30914, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Ho, Duncan, Oldham), qualified immunity
    • Affirming denial of qualified immunity-based dismissal on plaintiff’s excessive force claims after he was shot in the back by the defendant officer and paralyzed from the waist down.