May 22, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • John Bludworth Shipyard, L.L.C. v. Bechtolt, 24-20399, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), maritime law
    • Vacating and remanding for further proceedings the district court’s summary judgment on the question of the existence of a valid maritime lien on barges that shipyard and performed substantial changes to; and dismissing appeal in part.
    • The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in vacating the arrest of the CIT-103 barge based on a too-narrow view of the vessel’s function. The court clarified that under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act, a maritime lien may be established when necessaries—such as repairs or modifications—are provided to a vessel, even if those services change the vessel’s function. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s decision in The Jack-O-Lantern II and related precedent, the panel emphasized that a vessel’s “particular function” must consider any new use resulting from alterations. Thus, services converting a vessel from one use to another may qualify as “necessaries” if they are essential to the vessel’s new role, and a vessel’s function is not frozen in time.
    • The panel rejected the district court’s reliance on Martin Energy Services and Central Boat Rentals, which involved attempts to assert liens against vessels not directly benefitting from the provided services. Unlike those cases, the CIT-103 had undergone work specifically enabling it to perform a new support role in a dredging operation. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that the “necessaries” analysis must focus on what is reasonably needed for a vessel’s current or new function, not merely its past use. Because the lower court failed to account for the CIT-103’s new purpose after modification, the Fifth Circuit found its ruling to be based on an erroneous view of the law and remanded for further fact-finding on whether JBS’s services were indeed necessaries under the revised function.
    • Additionally, the Fifth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of JBS’s summary judgment motion because the issues were not inextricably linked to the arrest ruling. It also found JBS’s appeal of the denial of its motion for interlocutory sale untimely, as it was filed well past the deadline. However, the court noted that JBS may refile its motion for interlocutory sale on remand, and both the denial and any subsequent orders would be reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Goode, 24-10506, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Franco, 24-10932, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Berry, 24-40614, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Smith, Higginson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 120-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl.
  • League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott, 24-50128, c/w 24-50449, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Haynes, Engelhardt), election law, legislative privilege
    • Dismissing appeal of orders denying plaintiff motions to compel discovery that had been withheld based on legislative privilege, holding that the orders were not immediately appealable.
  • Schultz v. HomeBridge Financial Services, Inc., 24-50193, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Jones, Stewart), Fair Credit Reporting Act
    • Affirming dismissal of claims for willful violation of the FCRA as untimely, but reversing dismissal of negligence claims under the FCRA and remanding for further proceedings.