May 12, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Ruffin v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., 23-30854, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), toxic torts, expert witness
    • Affirming exclusion of plaintiff’s expert testimony in Deepwater Horizon-cleanup-related toxic tort action, and affirming summary judgment for defendant, but clarifying Circuit’s requirements for causation proof in an expert report.
    • Under Daubert and Rule 702, expert testimony is admissible if it is both relevant and reliable, requiring scientifically valid methodology applicable to the case. In toxic tort cases, plaintiffs must prove both general causation (the substance can cause the injury in the general population) and specific causation (it caused the individual’s injury).
    • Courts do not require expert testimony to provide a specific quantitative exposure level to establish general causation. Instead, testimony showing a substance is capable of causing the condition—supported by epidemiological data or real-world exposure scenarios—can be admissible if methodologically sound.
    • Rybicki failed to link the specific chemical Ruffin was allegedly exposed to (PAHs generally) with prostate cancer, focusing instead on benzo(a)pyrene, a PAH not proven to be part of Ruffin’s exposure. As a result, his testimony was excluded, and without admissible general causation evidence, the court upheld summary judgment for BP.
  • Daughtry v. Silver Fern Chemical, Inc., 24-40400, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Higginson, Douglas), discovery, fraud, personal jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of claims against Franco for lack of personal jurisdiction and of claims against Silver Fern for failure to state a claim.
    • The Daughtrys contested the dismissal of their claims against Franco for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that her conduct was sufficiently connected to Texas. Courts assess personal jurisdiction by evaluating whether a defendant has “minimum contacts” with the forum state so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play. Since general jurisdiction was not claimed, the court focused on specific jurisdiction, which requires that a defendant’s suit-related conduct create a substantial link with the state. Drawing on precedent, particularly Calder v. Jones, the court found that Franco’s actions—sending allegedly falsified documents to Texas prosecutors with the intent of triggering a criminal investigation in Texas—established enough of a connection to support jurisdiction. The alleged harm occurred in Texas, making jurisdiction appropriate.
    • Despite finding personal jurisdiction, the court upheld the dismissal of the Daughtrys’ fraud-based claims against Silver Fern. The plaintiffs claimed that Silver Fern and Franco altered emails and submitted them to federal prosecutors, but the court held that the plaintiffs failed to show these misrepresentations were intended to deceive them specifically, a requirement for a valid fraud claim. The altered emails were allegedly meant to influence government prosecutors, not the Daughtrys themselves. Since the Daughtrys learned of the falsehoods only during criminal discovery and did not rely on them, their fraud claim lacked a necessary element—reliance. Furthermore, new arguments raised during oral argument or in reply briefs were disregarded as improperly presented.
    • The Daughtrys also alleged civil conspiracy to commit fraud and a failure-to-warn products liability claim, but both were dismissed. The conspiracy claim failed because it was dependent on the underlying fraud claim, which had already been dismissed. The products liability claim was rejected because the Daughtrys were not harmed by the product (BDO) itself, but by alleged legal consequences arising from its misuse. Additionally, their financial and reputational losses did not meet the “physical harm” requirement for related negligent-undertaking claims. In sum, although Texas courts could hear the case against Franco, the Daughtrys’ legal theories were ultimately unsupported by the facts alleged.
  • Atkins v. Hopkins, 24-60058, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Higginson, Douglas), qualified immunity
    • Reversing denial of qualified immunity.
    • Atkins, Macon’s court clerk since 2003, was placed on leave in 2020 following a state investigation into $3,200 in missing municipal funds and her subsequent indictment for embezzlement. Although reinstated shortly after, her reappointment failed in 2021 after she ran for mayor against an alderman’s preferred candidate.
    • Atkins sued Alderman Hopkins for First Amendment retaliation, claiming he refused to second her reappointment due to her mayoral campaign. The district court denied Hopkins’s qualified immunity (QI) claim, finding a genuine dispute over whether political retaliation motivated his decision.
    • The Court found that prior case law (e.g., Sims, Jett) did not clearly establish that a non-decisionmaker like Hopkins could be liable under the First Amendment for merely refusing to second a motion. Therefore, Hopkins’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity.

Unpublished opinions

  • U.S. v. McDowell, 24-10292, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 15-year sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Fountaine, 24-10632, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Tovar, 24-10664, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Paiva, 24-10684, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 175-month sentence on conviction of assaulting a federal officer using a deadly or dangerous weapon.
  • U.S. v. Verrill, 24-10845, c/w 24-10847, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 37-month sentence for failure to register as a sex offender and consecutive 14-month sentence for revocation of supervised release.
  • Vance v. Mims, 24-11037, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Graves, Engelhardt), bankruptcy
    • Dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal from dismissal of appeal to district court ad untimely of bankruptcy court’s denial of motion to remove the liquidating trustee of the debtor.
  • U.S. v. Fernandez, 24-20511, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Guiden, 24-30675, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 68-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Ornelas-Pio, 24-40654, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Funez-Meza, 24-50566, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Mejia-Estrada, 24-50842, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 30-month sentence for illegal reentry.
  • Pena-Vargas v. Bondi, 24-60438, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), immigration
    • Dismissing in part and denying in part Ecuadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal of an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, and of BIA order denying motion for appointment of counsel.
  • Espinal-Jacinto v. Bondi, 24-60508, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order dismissing an appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.
  • Fuentes v. Arriaga, 24-60535, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), immigration
    • Denying Guatemalan citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.