February 16, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Unpublished decisions

  • Trimble v. U.S., 25-10921, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), Federal Tort Claims Act, service of process
    • Affirming dismissal of FTCA claim for lack of sufficient service of process.
  • U.S. v. Lerma-Robledo, 25-10968, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • Johnson v King County Superior Court, 25-11020, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Haynes, Oldham) (no oral argument), § 1983
    • Dismissing appeal from interlocutory transfer order, for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
  • U.S. v. Martinez-Cruz, 24-20537, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana v. EDU20/20, L.L.C., 24-30640, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Douglas, J. (Dennis, Oldham, Douglas) (oral argument), Oldham, J., concurring; Lanham Act, trademark infringement, trade secrets
    • Affirming in part and reversing in part grant of defendants’ summary judgment motion on Lanham Act claims, vacating in part summary judgment on plaintiffs’ state law claims, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • A+PEL is a nonprofit that provides educator training and has used its name and logo in commerce for decades. A+PEL sued its former Deputy Director (Miranda Britt) and EDU20/20 (a company she co-founded) after discovering that Britt, while still employed at A+PEL, worked for EDU20/20, used A+PEL’s logo in presentations, and directed potential clients to EDU20/20. A+PEL’s operative complaint included claims of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, misappropriation of trade secrets under both federal and Louisiana law, unfair trade practices (LUTPA), civil conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motions and denied A+PEL’s, prompting this appeal.
    • On the Lanham Act trademark claim, the majority applied the familiar “digits of confusion” test to assess likelihood of confusion. Although the district court found insufficient evidence of confusion, Judge Douglas concluded that A+PEL had presented evidence—particularly misdirected inquiries and declarations from school administrators—that raised a genuine dispute about whether Britt’s use of A+PEL’s logo created a likelihood of confusion as to the source or affiliation of services. The majority held that evidence of misdirected inquiries and anecdotal confusion, when viewed in the light most favorable to A+PEL, could preclude summary judgment.
    • Regarding A+PEL’s trade secrets claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Louisiana’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Judge Douglas upheld the district court’s rulings. A+PEL contended that its Mentor Teacher training materials, Client List, and Member Database were protectible trade secrets. The majority explained that the Mentor Teacher training was widely shared with non-confidential participants, negating secrecy. A+PEL also failed to produce evidence that the Client List even existed in the form described, and it did not meaningfully contest defendants’ summary judgment showing that the Member Database contained readily ascertainable information.
    • Finally, on state law claims for LUTPA and breach of fiduciary duty premised on use of A+PEL’s logo and confidential information, Judge Douglas agreed that A+PEL failed to demonstrate record evidence of damages directly caused by those uses—an essential element for recovery. Because the district court had dismissed supplemental state law claims after disposing of all federal claims, the majority vacated that dismissal and remanded for further consideration in light of the reversal on the Lanham Act claim.
    • Judge Oldham concurred, agreeing with the majority that A+PEL has raised a genuine dispute of material fact on its Lanham Act claim—specifically that evidence of actual customer confusion can support a finding of a likelihood of confusion under 15 U.S.C. § 1125. He frames the central issue as whether anecdotal evidence showing that potential clients contacted Britt at A+PEL’s contact information because of her use of A+PEL’s logo and title can suffice to show a triable issue on confusion, and he reasons that it can.
    • On the trade-secrets issue, Judge Oldham parts company slightly with the majority’s analysis. While he agrees that summary judgment was ultimately appropriate on A+PEL’s trade-secrets theories, he reaches that conclusion on different grounds: in his view, A+PEL did present evidence sufficient to establish that its client list and member database qualify as trade secrets, but the record contains no evidence that Britt or the defendants actually misappropriated those trade secrets.
  • Jok v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., 25-50158, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), personal tort
    • Affirming summary judgment for defendant on slip-and-fall claim.
  • U.S. v. Valles, 25-50285, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Oldham, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 30-month sentence on conviction of making a false statement in a passport application and false personation in immigration matters.
  • U.S. v. Dehoyos, 25-50343, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 24-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Hernandez-Ramirez, 25-50739, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien.