March 3, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc., 25-20059, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Graves, J. (Clement, Graves, Ho) (oral argument), breach of contract, choice of law, indemnification, attorneys’ fees
    • Affirming in part and vacating in part summary judgment for plaintiff on claim for indemnification for lawsuits arising from alleged fraudulent over-billing, and affirming in part and vacating in part award of attorneys’ fees, and remanding.
    • The Fifth Circuit largely affirmed the district court’s ruling that Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc. (AESI) must defend and indemnify Anadarko Petroleum Corporation under their 2008 Master Services Contract (MSC) in litigation arising from a fraudulent overbilling scheme involving AESI’s former president and subcontractors. The court first held that the MSC’s Texas choice-of-law clause governs the dispute. Applying Texas conflict-of-laws principles, the court concluded that Texas had at least as significant a relationship to the dispute as Louisiana: the contract was executed in Texas, one party is based there, and key meetings related to the project occurred in Texas and Wyoming. The court also rejected AESI’s argument that Louisiana’s Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (LOIA) invalidated the indemnity clause, explaining that LOIA applies only to agreements requiring indemnity for death or bodily injury, which were not alleged here. The panel further rejected AESI’s arguments that the indemnity provision violated public policy, that Anadarko was judicially estopped from invoking the contract provisions after litigating in Louisiana state court, and that Anadarko failed to satisfy the MSC’s notice provision. Because the claims in the underlying Louisiana suit stemmed from AESI’s admitted fraudulent overbilling and thus arose “in connection with” AESI’s violation of applicable laws, the indemnity and defense obligations applied.
    • The court, however, narrowed the scope of the district court’s judgment and modified the attorneys’-fees award. The panel held that the district court’s declaratory judgment was too broad insofar as it could require AESI to indemnify Anadarko for punitive or exemplary damages, which the MSC expressly excludes; that portion of the judgment was vacated and remanded so the declaration could be revised accordingly. The Fifth Circuit also ruled that the district court improperly awarded Anadarko attorneys’ fees incurred defending the underlying Louisiana lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, because under Texas law those fees constitute actual damages for breach of the duty to defend and must be proved as damages rather than awarded through a post-judgment fee motion. Accordingly, the award for the underlying litigation was vacated and remanded. The court did, however, affirm the award of attorneys’ fees for the present federal declaratory-judgment action, concluding that Texas law permits fee recovery for a successful breach-of-contract claim and that AESI failed to preserve or substantiate its challenges to the evidentiary basis for those fees.
  • U.S. v. Delgado, 24-50784, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Elrod, Smith, Wilson) (oral argument), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
    • Affirming conviction of two counts of depriving an individual of rights under color of law and one count of destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in a federal investigation.
    • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions of Miguel Delgado, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer. After a three-day bench trial in the Western District of Texas, the district court found that Delgado used excessive force during two separate encounters with travelers at a border crossing—first with Tomas Espinosa in 2019 and later with Ricardo Estrada in 2020. Witness testimony, expert analysis, and video evidence indicated that Delgado escalated both encounters despite minimal or no resistance from the individuals. The court concluded that Delgado’s actions—such as redirecting Espinosa into a door and forcefully restraining Estrada by twisting his arm and pressing his face into chairs—caused injuries and constituted objectively unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
    • On appeal, Delgado challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, but the Fifth Circuit emphasized that such review is “highly deferential” to the factfinder and that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the government. Applying that standard, the panel held that a rational factfinder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Delgado willfully used excessive force while acting under color of law and that he later falsified an incident report to conceal his conduct. Testimony that Delgado violated his use-of-force training, behaved aggressively, and made false statements about the Estrada incident supported findings of willfulness and intent to obstruct a potential investigation.

Unpublished decisions

  • Strong v. Matthews, 25-40182, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s sec. 1983 claims.