Joseph v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. et al.

Docket: 2018-CC-02061
Opinion Date: January 29, 2020
Judge: John L. Weimer
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury, Products Liability

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the preclusive effect of a written compromise agreement. The agreement was executed by a tort victim in settlement of an action for damages resulting from occupational exposure to toxic materials. At issue was the effect of the compromise on a subsequent survival action brought by the La. C.C. art. 2315.1 beneficiaries of the tort victim, who contracted mesothelioma and died after entering into the compromise. Finding the intent of the parties to the compromise to be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, and the elements of the res judicata plea satisfied, the Supreme Court concluded the compromise should have been accorded preclusive effect. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court judgment that declined to give res judicata effect to the compromise and sustained the exception of res judicata with respect to the survival action.

Read Opinion

Louisiana v. Alexander

Docket: 2019-KK-00645
Opinion Date: January 29, 2020
Judge: Jefferson D. Hughes, III
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the court of appeal erred in reversing the district court judgment that granted defendant Donovan Alexander's motion to suppress an uncounseled statement. Defendant was charged by bill of information with possession with intent to distribute heroin, and possessing a firearm while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance. He pled not guilty and filed a motion to suppress statement. A DEA Special Agent testified that defendant was read his rights and waived them at the scene of his arrest and also prior to being interviewed at Police Headquarters. Specifically, defendant signed a DEA advice of rights form. While defendant was detained at Police Headquarters, police informed him of the search and recovery from an Orleans Parish residence. Defendant told officers that the drugs and gun were his and that he did not want the woman who lived there to be charged. This was the statement sought to be suppressed. At some point during the search of the residence, attorney Dwayne Burrell arrived on the scene, identifying himself to officers as defendant’s attorney and attempted to stop further search of the home. Burrell was told by officers that drugs had been found and that the defendant was being detained. Burrell told the officers that he wanted to speak with defendant and that defendant was not going to make any statements. The trial court ultimately granted the motion to suppress, reasoning that where there are allegations of police misconduct in connection to statements given by an accused, the State had to specifically rebut these allegations, and the State failed to specifically rebut the serious allegations made by the defense attorney. After reviewing federal and state authorities, the Supreme Court determined that when the police failed to inform defendant his attorney sought to speak with him and failed to allow his attorney access to defendant when the attorney was on the scene of the arrest and asked to see his client, the statement was inadmissible. Accordingly, the court of appeal was reversed and the district court’s judgment reinstated.

Read Opinion

​
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Chambliss

Docket: 19-50741
Opinion Date: January 28, 2020
Judge: Kurt D. Engelhardt
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a part of the First Step Act of 2018. The court held that the district court sufficiently articulated its reasons for denying defendant's request for compassionate release. In this case, the district court acknowledged that defendant's terminal disease constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction and that he does not present a danger upon release. However, the district court noted that compassionate release is discretionary, and applied the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, considering defendant's severe conduct, his serious drug crime, and his criminal history.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Defense Distributed v. United States

Docket: 18-50811
Opinion Date: January 21, 2020
Judge: James C. Ho
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiffs, Second Amendment advocates, filed suit seeking to prevent the State Department from blocking their efforts to publish plans for how to assemble a firearm using a 3D printer. Plaintiffs settled with the State Department and then voluntarily dismissed the suit. Now plaintiffs seek to revive their Texas suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) in response to a nationwide injunction against enforcement of the settlement issued by the Western District of Washington. The Fifth Circuit declined plaintiffs request to revive the lawsuit, holding that Rule 59(e) authorizes motions to alter or amend judgments, not to revive lawsuits. The court explained that the initiation and prosecution of the Washington suit did not render any action by the district court in Texas erroneous, let alone manifestly erroneous.

Read Opinion

Louisiana medical marijuana maker planning major expansions, launch of hemp-derived CBD products


www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/business/article_4a5f143a-33ca-11ea-969b-d39ca4657a42.html

Over $1.6M Awarded to Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority by EPA


kadn.com/over-1-6m-awarded-to-louisiana-coastal-protection-and-restoration-authority-by-epa/

Clark v. Champion National Security, Inc.

Docket: 18-11613
Opinion Date: January 14, 2020
Judge: Don R. Willett
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Champion's motion for summary judgment on workplace-discrimination claims brought by plaintiff, an employee, who alleged that he was fired because of a diabetes-related condition. Champion claimed that plaintiff was sleeping at his desk during work hours, an immediately terminable offense. The court held that the district court did not err in finding no direct evidence of discrimination on the basis of disability. The court also agreed with the district court that the evidence suggested that plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of the job with or without an accommodation. The court also held that plaintiff's disability-based claim failed because any harassment plaintiff alleged was not severe or pervasive and did not create an abusive working environment. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show that the harassment was based on his disability. The court held that the district court did not err in finding no failure to accommodate plaintiff's disability and no failure to engage in an interactive process. Even if plaintiff was a qualified individual, his failure-to-accommodate claim failed because he failed to carry his burden to show that he requested reasonable accommodations. The court further held that plaintiff failed to show a prima facie case of retaliation. Finally, the district court did not err by denying plaintiff's claims for damages.

Read Opinion

United States v. Stockman

Docket: 18-20780
Opinion Date: January 10, 2020
Judge: E. Grady Jolly
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions on twenty-three felony counts related to his role in schemes to defraud philanthropists, using their money to finance his personal life and political career. Defendant served two nonconsecutive terms in the United States House of Representatives. The court held that the district court's jury instructions were not erroneous; it was not plain error for the district court to define 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations in the charge, and defendant was not entitled to an instruction on good faith; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29; the government provided ample evidence that defendant fraudulently devised, and implemented, a scheme to deprive two donors of their money and property, thus allowing the jury to rationally find him guilty of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering; and the Federal Election Campaign Act's contribution limits apply to coordinated spending on political communications, irrespective of whether those communications contain magic words of express advocacy.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Chavez-Mercado v. Barr

Docket: 17-60212
Opinion Date: January 6, 2020
Judge: James L. Dennis
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order dismissing an appeal from the IJ's denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings and order of removal. The Fifth Circuit held that res judicata did not preclude DHS from seeking to remove petitioner on the basis of his burglary conviction, because the convictions for evading arrest with a motor vehicle and burglary of a habitation underlying his removal proceedings were not based on the same nucleus of operative facts. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review in part. The court dismissed the petition for review in part based on lack of jurisdiction, because petitioner argued for the first time on appeal that DHS was precluded from filing a second notice to appear.

Read Opinion

United States v. Foley

Docket: 19-20129
Opinion Date: January 3, 2020
Judge: Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr.
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

A district court errs when it relies on a bare allegation of a new law violation contained in a revocation petition unless the allegation is supported by evidence adduced at the revocation hearing or contains other indicia of reliability, such as the factual underpinnings of the conduct giving rise to the arrest. The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 24 month sentence for violating a condition of his supervised release. The court held that the district court erred because it gave significant weight to the bare allegations contained in the revocation petition regarding defendant's arrest on the assault and possession charges and because this impermissible factor was a dominant factor in its decision. However, the court ultimately affirmed the sentence because the error was not clear under existing law.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Bourgeois v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

Docket: 19-60337
Opinion Date: January 2, 2020
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board's decision affirming the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff did not suffer more severe shoulder and back injuries for the purpose of receiving benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The court held that the ALJ did not err in concluding that defendants' medical expert was more credible than plaintiff's treating physician, thus rebutting the presumption of a causal nexus. The court also held that the Board did not err in refusing to consider plaintiff's new argument, presented for the first time in his motion for reconsideration, that the 2017 shoulder surgery was intended to address an AC joint sprain. Finally, the court held that the ALJ's finding that plaintiff did not suffer from lumbar facet arthrosis was supported by substantial evidence.

Read Opinion