June 24, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Garcia v. Fuentes Restaurant Management Services Inc., 24-10699, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Douglas, J. (Richman, Willett, Douglas), arbitration, Fair Labor Standards Act
    • Affirming district court’s denial of motion compel arbitration on finding that defendant to plaintiff’s FLSA minimum-wage claim had waived its right to arbitrate.
    • Dayana Garcia, a former server at Gloria’s restaurant chain, filed a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit alleging failure to pay minimum wage. The defendants initially responded by actively engaging in litigation—filing an answer without referencing arbitration, participating in discovery, and jointly stating with Garcia that they were not pursuing arbitration. Despite this, five months into the case and after unsuccessful mediation, the defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a previously unmentioned arbitration agreement and acknowledgment form Garcia had signed. The district court denied the motion, concluding the defendants waived their arbitration rights by substantially participating in the litigation.
    • On appeal, the Fifth Circuit evaluated the case in light of Morgan v. Sundance, which removed the requirement to show prejudice in waiver analysis under the Federal Arbitration Act. Under the new framework, the key inquiry is whether a party “knowingly relinquished” its right to arbitrate by acting inconsistently with that right. The court found that the defendants’ conduct—litigating for months, declaring no intent to arbitrate, participating in discovery and mediation, and failing to assert arbitration in their answer—demonstrated such a waiver. Although some actions, like mediation or early discovery, might not individually amount to waiver, the cumulative effect of the defendants’ actions was dispositive.
    • The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that they were unaware of the arbitration agreement. Unlike in Williams v. Cigna, where the employer could not have known about the arbitration requirement, the arbitration documents in Garcia’s case were in the defendants’ own files. Their failure to discover them was a result of their own oversight. Thus, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration, holding that the Restaurant Defendants had waived the right through their intentional and inconsistent conduct.
  • Spikes v. Wheat, 22-30327, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Richman, Ho), prisoner suit, qualified immunity
    • Reversing denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds of inmate’s Eighth Amendment claim arising from misdiagnosis of fractured hip.
    • Inmate Larce Spikes suffered a right hip injury at Rayburn Correctional Center and received a series of medical evaluations and treatments from prison medical staff, including Dr. Casey McVea and nurses Paula Stringer, Robin Bowman, and Lesley Wheat. Initially treated for a muscle strain, Spikes’s condition was eventually diagnosed as a fractured hip, nearly six weeks after the injury. Despite repeated emergency visits and worsening symptoms, the treatment remained largely the same until an X-ray finally revealed the fracture. Spikes alleged that the delay in diagnosis and treatment violated his Eighth Amendment rights and brought § 1983 claims against the involved medical staff. The district court allowed the claims to proceed, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that qualified immunity shielded the defendants.
    • The Fifth Circuit analyzed each defendant’s conduct individually and found that none of them met the stringent standard for deliberate indifference. Nurse Stringer’s assessments and treatments were determined to be misdiagnoses rather than deliberate inaction, and any discrepancies in her notes were not shown to have caused harm. Nurse Bowman continued treatment consistent with Stringer’s and did not ignore worsening symptoms or fail to provide basic care. Nurse Wheat similarly followed protocol, provided additional aids like crutches, and her decision to report Spikes for malingering did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. In each case, the court emphasized that medical mistakes or even negligence do not equate to deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment.
    • As for Dr. McVea, the court concluded that while he may have failed to suspect a fracture despite Spikes’s persistent symptoms, he continued to provide treatment based on his belief that the injury was a strain. His decisions—adjusting medication, issuing medical accommodations, and eventually ordering diagnostic testing—demonstrated an ongoing effort to treat the injury rather than a wanton disregard for Spikes’s condition. The Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that mistaken or inadequate medical judgments, without more, do not satisfy the legal threshold for deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and summary judgment for all defendants.
  • U.S. v. Reyes, 24-40369, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, King, Graves), criminal, Second Amendment, Commerce Clause
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
    • Luis Reyes pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. His conviction stemmed from an incident where police found him asleep in a parked truck with altered license plates in an area known for gang activity. Upon searching the vehicle, officers found a loaded pistol near where Reyes had been sitting. He was arrested and ultimately pleaded guilty, entering a conditional plea to preserve certain appellate rights. Reyes later challenged the statute’s constitutionality, arguing that § 922(g)(1) was invalid both on its face and as applied to him, especially in light of recent Supreme Court rulings in Bruen and Rahimi.
    • On appeal, Reyes raised multiple constitutional claims. He argued that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment because the law restricts firearm possession based solely on past felonies, without a sufficient historical basis. However, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that existing precedent upholds the statute’s constitutionality, and it is bound by that precedent absent intervention by the Supreme Court or en banc review. Reyes also claimed the statute exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, but the court found this argument foreclosed by prior decisions, which allow § 922(g) to be applied so long as the firearm has traveled in interstate commerce.
    • Finally, Reyes advanced an as-applied Second Amendment challenge, asserting that his personal criminal history did not warrant disarmament under the historical tradition recognized by Bruen and Rahimi. The court rejected this argument, citing Reyes’s extensive and violent felony record, which included drug offenses, firearm violations, and evading arrest. The Fifth Circuit found that this history places him squarely within the category of individuals historically disarmed for public safety reasons. Concluding that the statute was constitutional both facially and as applied, and that no plain error occurred at the district court, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Reyes’s conviction and 41-month sentence.
  • Texas Corn Producers v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 24-60209, petition for review of EPA order
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Graves, Duncan), administrative law, Administrative Procedure Act
    • Granting petition to review EPA order that adjusted an efficiency factor in the formula for setting the CAFE standard for vehicle fleet fuel efficiency, and vacating the EPA rule “to the extent that it (1) sets an Ra factor of 0.81 and (2) implements that factor by shifting the test fuel from E0 to E10 for fuel economy compliance.”
    • Petitioners representing the gasoline supply chain challenged the EPA’s rule that set the “Ra factor” for calculating fuel economy at 0.81, arguing it was arbitrarily low. They claimed this factor artificially increased fuel economy standards, which in turn led manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient cars, reducing demand for gasoline and harming their economic interests. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the petitioners, concluding that the EPA’s rule was unreasonable, inadequately explained, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to respond to significant and detailed public comments about flaws in its methodology.
    • The court held that the petitioners had associational standing, as their members—gasoline producers and sellers—faced predictable and concrete economic harm from reduced fuel demand caused by the new Ra value. The court dismissed the EPA’s arguments that potential alternative reactions from automakers rendered the injury speculative, stating that increased fuel efficiency was a foreseeable outcome of higher CAFE standards, which were the very goal of the regulation. It also cited commonsense economics and simulations presented by the petitioners that showed real-world reductions in gasoline demand under the challenged rule.
    • On the merits, the court found EPA’s justifications lacking. The agency had tested only eleven vehicles, which commenters argued was too small a sample to account for variation across the fleet. Moreover, the court found that the EPA ignored critiques about outdated vehicle technology in its tests, selectively included or excluded vehicle data without rational explanation, and disregarded manufacturer data that it had previously solicited. These were not minor oversights but failures to respond to critiques that could have materially changed the outcome—violating the APA’s requirement for reasoned decision-making.
    • As a remedy, the court vacated the Ra Rule. It rejected EPA’s argument that the agency might justify the rule on remand or that vacatur would be too disruptive. The court emphasized that the deficiencies were serious and substantive, and the EPA had offered no credible plan to fix them. The agency’s own decision to revisit the Ra factor shortly after finalizing it was seen as a tacit admission of error. Thus, under longstanding APA precedent, the court set aside the unlawful rule.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Robinson, 24-10912, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Meraz-Ramirez, 24-10913, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Smith, Higginson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 30-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Willis v. Aron, 24-40585, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Smith, Graves), civil
    • Affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s investor liability claims.
  • U.S. v. Seibert, 24-50803, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Martinez-Fajardo, 24-50969, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Dennis, Southwick), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.