November 10, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Storey Mountain, L.L.C. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 24-20535, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Oldham, J. (Wiener, Engelhardt, Oldham) (oral argument withdrawn), diversity jurisdiction
    • Remanding appeal from judgment in favor of defendant in trust dispute, for jurisdictional discovery.
    • “Once again, a party invoking this court’s diversity jurisdiction has failed to establish the citizenship of a limited liability company. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, we remand this case for jurisdictional discovery.”
  • A.P. v. Pearland Independent School District, 25-40010, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Graves, Rodriguez, by designation) (oral argument), Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act
    • Affirming judgment in favor of school district on parents’ IDEA claim on behalf of their child.
    • A.P., a student in Pearland Independent School District, repeatedly missed class, failed to attend tutorials, and took advanced courses despite the District’s advice against doing so. Her academic performance declined sharply, but her parents refused to allow testing for learning disabilities. Teachers consistently observed that A.P. was capable when she attended class and attributed her struggles to poor attendance rather than a disability. The District offered interventions, including its ACE program, but her parents declined. Ultimately, they withdrew A.P. to homeschool her. When her parents later alleged she had dyslexia and sought relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the District offered to evaluate her, but they refused testing. Instead, they obtained an independent evaluation that the District found insufficient because it lacked classroom data and ignored A.P.’s attendance issues.
    • Both the Special Education Hearing Officer and the district court ruled for the District, finding that Pearland ISD fulfilled its “child find” obligation under IDEA, and that A.P.’s learning problems stemmed from absenteeism rather than a qualifying disability. On appeal, A.P.’s parents argued that the District should have acted sooner—based on her absences, poor grades, and a teacher’s report—but the court rejected those arguments. It held that absenteeism, without accompanying behavioral, medical, or psychological concerns, does not trigger the child find duty. Similarly, poor grades alone or a teacher’s concern about attendance did not put the District on notice of a likely disability. The court emphasized that schools need not evaluate every student with subpar grades, especially when the likely cause is nonattendance.
    • The court further agreed that A.P. did not qualify for special education services because there was no evidence she had a disability that required specialized instruction. It noted that Dr. Roman’s private evaluation failed to follow IDEA’s requirements, lacked classroom observation, and ignored her extensive absences. Teachers, who observed her firsthand, credibly testified that her difficulties were due to missing instruction, not a learning disorder. Because the District acted appropriately once notified of possible dyslexia, offered testing that the parents refused, and provided multiple supports, the court found no IDEA violation and affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Unpublished decisions

  • Perez-Merino v. City of Dallas, 25-10375, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), § 1983
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Mitts, 25-10376, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Whitman, 25-20035, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Ellis v. Pinckley, 25-30065, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Clement, Richman, Willett) (no oral argument), § 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of § 1983 claims arising from repossession of truck.
  • U.S. v. Hughes, 25-50071, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Woods, 25-50277, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Yu v. Bondi, 25-60162, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Chinese citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • U.S. v. Bonner, 25-60388, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Smith, Stewart) (no oral argument), criminal, sentence reduction
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.