May 6, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Amazon.com Services LLC v. NLRB, 24-50761, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Ramirez, J. (Richman, Graves, Ramirez), Richman, J., dissenting; labor law, appellate jurisdiction
    • The Court dismissed Amazon’s appeal of what it argued was a constructive denial of its motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction of the NLRB’s Bargaining Case proceeding, for lack of appellate jurisdiction on the basis that there was no decision by the district court to appeal.
    • The Court found Amazon did not act diligently in seeking expedited relief, failing to repeatedly or clearly request a ruling by the claimed urgent date (September 27, 2024), and never substantiating the urgency throughout earlier filings or during the hearing, despite opportunities and prompting by the judge.
    • The Court rejected Amazon’s claim of urgency, noting there was no indication the NLRB would issue a final order immediately after the September 27 response deadline, and Amazon itself acknowledged that such decisions typically take weeks or months.
    • Because the district court ruled promptly—just one business day after supplemental briefing closed—and Amazon had not shown diligence or urgency, the appellate court concluded there was no constructive denial of injunctive relief and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
    • Judge Richman dissented. She opined that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), appellate courts have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying injunctive relief, including situations where a district court’s inaction effectively denies a motion, provided the delay risks serious, irreparable harm that can only be addressed through immediate appeal.
    • Judge Richman would find that, in the Amazon case, the Fifth Circuit was considering the district court’s delay in ruling on a preliminary injunction motion—amid a looming summary judgment deadline by the NLRB—a constructive denial, given Amazon’s legitimate urgency and risk of mootness, thus satisfying the criteria for appellate jurisdiction.

Unpublished opinions

  • U.S. v. Waller, 24-30358, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Elliott, 24-30542, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • Meade v. ETOH Monitoring LLC, 21-30620, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Richman, J., (Wiener, Richman, Willett), sec. 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of class sec. 1983 claims.
  • Cambre v. Gottardi, 19-30715, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Richman, J., (Higginbotham, Richman, Willett), qualified immunity
    • Reversing denial of qualified immunity to sheriff deputy defendants.
  • Looper v. Bondi, 24-40577, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), recusal, Rule 60
    • Affirming denial of motion to recuse and Rule 60(b) motion.