October 17-20, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • X Corp. v. Media Matters for America, 24-10900, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Graves, Engelhardt), discovery, First Amendment
    • Granting stay pending appeal of district court’s order compelling production of documents responsive to discovery requests for the defendant’s list of donors and financial supporters, in claims by social media company that defendants “knowingly and maliciously” manipulated images to “portray X Corp. as a social media platform dominated by neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism” and “alienate[d] major advertisers, publishers, and users from X.”
    • The Court held that it had appellate jurisdiction over the appeal from the discovery order under the collateral order doctrine.
    • The Court noted the strength of the First Amendment implications of the discovery requests, but also noted the district court’s finding that the defendant had not even attempted to comply with a prior court order to search for and identify potentially privileged documents and log them. Rather than reach the question of whether this failure to comply with the district court order effected a waiver of the First Amendment privilege, the Court held that the defendant was likely to succeed on the merits that the challenged discovery requests were not proportional to the needs of the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. “We doubt that X Corp. needs the identity of Media Matters’s every donor, big or small, to advance its theories. Nor does it need the full residential addresses for any of those stated purposes. Conversely, Media Matters and its donors would bear a heavy burden if Media Matters had to release this information. It could enable others to harass or intimidate Media Matters or its donors. Indeed, X Corp.’s owner, Elon Musk, has said that X Corp. would ‘pursue not just [Media Matters] but anyone funding that organization. I want to be clear about that anyone funding that organization, will be, we will pursue them.'”
  • Ultra Deep Picasso Pte. Ltd. v. Dynamic Industries Saudi Arabia Ltd., 23-20357, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Jones, Clement, Wilson), maritime law
    • Affirming district court’s vacatur of a maritime attachment order, holding “that for a valid Rule B attachment, the property must be found within the district” and not just in the possession of a garnishee over which the district has jurisdiction, and that “a bank account is located where its funds can be withdrawn.”
  • Crosswell v. Rodriguez, 23-20535, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Higginson, J. (Smith, Clement, Higginson), fraud, RICO
    • Affirming dismissal of RICO claims for failure to state a cognizable enterprise, and of fraud claims for failure to meet the heightened pleading standards for fraud under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9.
  • U.S. v. Henry, 23-30589, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Higginson, J. (King, Stewart, Higginson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm; but vacating sentence where sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm “in connection with” possession of stolen property was invoked merely on evidence of possession of both items at the same time; and remanding for resentencing.
  • First United Pentecostal Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Co., 23-30779, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Willett, J. (Dennis, Willett, Duncan), insurance
    • Affirming district court’s denial of the defendant insurer’s motion to exclude the insured church’s expert witness and denial of the insurer’s motions for directed verdict and judgment as a matter of law; reversing district court’s imposition of statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs for statutory bad faith; and remanding for further proceedings.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Russ, 24-10034, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Beckstrand v. Beckstrand, 24-10199, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • Van Horne v. Haag, 24-10492, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Ho, Wilson, Ramirez), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Mian, 23-11085, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming life sentences on conviction of sex trafficking involving minors.
  • U.S. v. Chavez, 23-11173, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 192-month sentence on conviction of transportation of an illegal alien resulting in death.
  • 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.
  • Whalen v. Monsanto Co., 24-30105, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Willett, Douglas, Morales, by designation), product liability
    • Affirming evidentiary rulings in favor of chemical manufacturer and summary judgment dismissal of product liability, negligence, redhibition, and survival claims arising from skin cancer death of opthalmologist who provided services to employes at manufacturing plant (who also was an “avid gardener” who was a consumer user of the herbicide Roundup that was manufactured at the plant).
  • Turner v. Social Security Administration, 24-40054, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), social security
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s suit against the SSA for excess garnishment in response to a court order to enforce child support payments.
  • U.S. v. Etheridge, 24-40072, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Diaz-Alacantara, 23-40574, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Zacharie, 23-50353, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Chardhury v. Garland, 24-60162, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Davis, Smith, Higginson), immigration
    • Denying Bangladeshi citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • Avila-Ortiz v. Garland, 24-60175, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Stewart, Ramirez), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.