Unpublished decisions
- Carpenter v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 25-10679, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Wilson) (oral argument), insurance
- Affirming summary judgment for plaintiff on coverage dispute.
- At issue on appeal was whether two exclusions in an employment practices liability insurance policy—one for “salaries, wages or bonuses” (except as a component of a back pay award) and another for “employment termination severance payments”—barred coverage of a breach-of-contract claim brought by a former employee who was promised a share of sale proceeds in exchange for staying with the company through its sale. A secondary issue was whether the district court properly calculated damages by including post-judgment interest on the entire underlying award.
- On the back pay exclusion, the court found that dictionaries and Texas legal authorities pointed to two distinct plain meanings of “back pay”—a simple overdue payment versus a specific legal remedy for wrongful termination—creating an ambiguity that, under Texas’s contra proferentem doctrine, must be resolved in favor of the insured. On the severance payment exclusion, the court held that Carpenter’s agreement was contingent on Southwest’s sale, not on his termination, and therefore did not qualify as an “employment termination severance payment” under any traditional understanding of the term. On damages, the court declined Twin City’s invitation to look beyond the plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), holding that post-judgment interest is mandatory and non-discretionary.
- VanderWerff v. NewRez, L.L.C., 26-10062, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Duncan) (no oral argument), civil
- Affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s suit for failure to comply with court CM/ECF-registration order.
- At issue on appeal was whether the district court committed clear error in dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s suit without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for repeated failure to comply with court orders requiring him to register for the court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system. Because VanderWerff failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the standard of review was plain error.
- The court found no clear or obvious error, noting that VanderWerff was given multiple warnings and deadline extensions over more than a year yet never registered. His unsubstantiated claim that a misspelling of his name prevented registration was rejected because he never raised the issue with the district court, and “a court cannot have erred as to matters which were not presented to it.”
- Donaldson v. Hiland Dairy, et al., 26-10352, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jones, Ho, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), employment discrimination
- Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of employment discrimination claim as time-barred.
- At issue on appeal was whether a pro se plaintiff’s Title VII employment discrimination claims for sexual harassment and racial discrimination were properly dismissed as time-barred for failure to timely file a charge with the EEOC, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, or fraudulent concealment to extend the limitations period.
- The court noted that Donaldson did not challenge on appeal the district court’s finding that his EEOC charge was untimely, and his failure to meaningfully brief any tolling theory resulted in abandonment of those claims.
- United States v. Lopez-Secundino, 26-20276, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- United States v. Vallejo-Navarro, 26-40174, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
