November 15, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Centaur, L.L.C. v. River Ventures, L.L.C., 23-30892, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Dennis, Higginson), maritime, breach of contract, insurance
    • Reversing post-bench trial dismissal of two maritime breach of contract claims arising from injury of defendant’s employee.
    • Cross-claim plaintiff owner of crew boat had been found liable for damages to an employee of the cross-claim defendant owner of a construction company, who was injured when transferring a generator from the crew boat to a barge leased by the construction company. After satisfying that judgment, the crew boat company then brought suit as a third-party beneficiary against the construction company for breach of a master service agreement between the construction company and the owner of the dock facility where work was being performed.
    • The Court held that the district court erred in finding two insurance-procurement requirements in the MSA to be ambiguous. The Court held that the district court incorrectly found that the P&I clause as clearly stated would be ambiguous by resulting in mutual exclusions with another provision regarding workers’ compensation coverage: “Applying Louisiana law, our court has determined that when faced with two escape clauses threatening coverage, courts must find them ‘mutually repugnant’ and make both policies liable for the claim.”
  • Texas Tribune v. Caldwell County, 24-50135, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Vitter, J. (Wilson, Douglas, Vitter, by designation), First Amendment
    • Affirming preliminary injunction of county’s policy to categorically exclude the press and the public from observing certain criminal pretrial proceedings known as magistrations.
    • The Court first held that the two news outlets and advocacy organization that were plaintiffs had Article III standing to pursue the First Amendment claims to enjoin the prohibition of press and public from magistrations.
    • The Court then held that the plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims. The Court applied the “experience and logic” test to determine that the magistrations are subject to the First Amendment’s protections of access to court proceedings. And while the Court observed that the right is not absolute, it noted that the question of what circumstances may warrant abrogation of the right was not before it.

Unpublished

  • Hunt v. Meridian Security Insurance Co., 24-10110, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), insurance
    • Affirming judgment in favor of insurer based on coverage definition regarding residence at the inception date of the policy.
  • U.S. v. Almanza, 24-10221, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Lutz v. Mario Sinacola & Sons Excavating, Inc., 24-10235, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Duncan), Family and Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s FMLA and ADA claims arising from the elimination of her position during a COVID-19 reduction in force.
  • Calton v. Wolfe, 24-10442, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claim against judge.
  • U.S. v. Coleman, 24-30166, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Haynes, Duncan), criminal, sentence reduction
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.
  • U.S. v. Swift, 24-30332, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Ponce, 24-40187, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.