​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Docket: 16-20507
Opinion Date: February 26, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Banking, Contracts

The Williams Parties brought suit against Fannie Mae and Wells Fargo, asserting claims against defendants for breach of contract premised on a violation of the notice terms in a Deed of Trust, violations of the Texas Property Code, and wrongful foreclosure. On appeal, the Williams Parties appealed the dismissal of their breach of contract claims against Fannie Mae and the grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. The court held that the district court did not err in holding that Wells Fargo was not liable for breach of the Deed of Trust where the competent summary judgment evidence reflected that Wells Fargo was never a party to or an assignee of the Deed of Trust. Therefore, Wells Fargo had no liability and summary judgment for Wells Fargo was appropriate. The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a motion for reconsideration and, on the merits, Fannie Mae's agreement in the deed of trust to give notice of foreclosure was independent of the Williams Parties' agreement under the note to pay monthly installments to satisfy the debt. Therefore, the court affirmed as to Wells Fargo, reversed as to the claim that Fannie Mae breached the deed of trust by failing to give notice, and remanded the claim against Fannie Mae for further proceedings.

​n Re: Itron, Inc.

Docket: 17-60733
Opinion Date: February 21, 2018
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics

Itron alleged that misrepresentations by three of SmartSynch's corporate officers (defendants) caused it unknowingly to assume an unwanted $60 million contractual obligation to a third party, Consert. Itron eventually settled Consert's claims and then filed suit against defendants for negligent misrepresentation. The magistrate judge ordered Itron to produce, without qualification, materials that were shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. The Fifth Circuit granted Itron's petition for mandamus and vacated the magistrate judge's order, holding that the mere act of filing the lawsuit effected no waiver of any attorney-client privilege. The court remanded with instructions to reevaluate defendants' motion.

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Carbins, Jr.

Docket: 16-30998
Opinion Date: February 15, 2018
Judge: W. Eugene Davis
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting aggravated theft, which carries a mandatory consecutive two-year prison term. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant because the jury could reasonably infer that when defendant accessed his bank accounts online, the online descriptions of the deposits were the same as reflected on the paper bank statements admitted at trial. Furthermore, the jury could have reasonably inferred that prior to the filing of the April 2013 tax returns, defendant knew or was deliberately ignorant regarding the fact that the bank drops were IRS tax refunds. Therefore, defendant's argument that he did not have the necessary intent under Rosemond v. United States, was thus unavailing.

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Deutsch v. Annis Enterprises, Inc.

Docket: 17-50231
Opinion Date: February 8, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, for want of Article III standing, plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff, a paraplegic, alleged that defendant's parking lot did not have the number of spaces required by the ADA and lacked access ramps. In this case, defendant filed nearly 400 lawsuits in just over 300 days and could not remember a single establishment that he sued and then returned to. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to show any likelihood of future injury necessary to obtain equitable relief; the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a contempt order fining counsel $2,500; and the district court did not wrongfully award attorney's fees where the district court only awarded costs.

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Perez-Melis

Docket: 16-41441
Opinion Date: February 7, 2018
Judge: Edith Brown Clement
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not plainly err when it questioned a witness during defendant's criminal trial. The court noted that, although the jury verdict convicting defendant of only one count of transporting aliens when there was no dispute that six aliens were in defendant's trailer was odd, the unusual circumstances in United States v. Saenz, 134 F.3d 697, 701 (5th Cir. 1998), was not present. In this case, the district court issued curative instructions to the jury, and to the extent the district court erred, if at all, it did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding. The court vacated the final judgment and remanded to the district court to correct a clerical error.

Star Financial Services, Inc. v. Cardtronics USA, Inc.

Docket: 17-30258
Opinion Date: February 2, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Contracts

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Cardtronics in a breach of contract action alleging that Cardtronics failed to correct certain account information, which resulted in approximately $250,000 of misdirected funds. The court held that the district court misread the contract and that Cardtronics was obligated to use correct account information after receiving updated Terminal Set-up Forms to ensure proper set up of Star Financial's ATMs. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to determine in the first instance whether Cardtronics breached its obligation under the contract and the appropriate damages, if any.

Louisiana district attorneys continue to push back on criminal sentencing changes

www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/district_attorneys_sentences.html

​

Simplifying Louisiana's criminal sentences faces uphill battle -- again

www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/01/louisiana_still_doesnt_seem_re.html

Louisiana v. Broussard

Docket: 2016-K-1836
Opinion Date: January 30, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Larry Broussard, Jr. was convicted of aggravated flight from an officer. During voir dire, defense counsel challenged, pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, the state’s use of a backstrike against an African-American female prospective juror from the first panel. Specifically, defense counsel noted that the state had not previously challenged this prospective juror for cause and stated without further elaboration that “it seems like she’s one of two potential black jurors.”

In response to the trial court’s request for a race-neutral reason for the backstrike, the state ultimately gave two: (1) the prospective juror’s occupation as a housekeeper; and (2) she was not intelligent enough to be a juror. After the trial court resoundingly rejected the state’s characterization of the prospective juror’s intelligence, the state then claimed she was inattentive during the questioning of the second panel. In a split-panel decision, the court of appeal reversed, with the majority finding a Batson violation in the state’s exclusion of the backstruck prospective juror, and thereby deeming a second assignment of error moot.

The court of appeal vacated the conviction and sentence and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The state contended the court of appeal erred in failing to recognize that defendant was never required to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in Batson’s first step. The state also contended that, even if a prima facie showing was made, both of its reasons for backstriking the prospective juror were racially neutral, and the trial court never found that they were pretexts for purposeful discrimination. Therefore, the state claims that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Batson challenge.

​The Louisiana Supreme Court disagreed: “While we are mindful that a trial court’s determination as to purposeful discrimination rests largely on credibility evaluations and is therefore entitled to great deference, we note that the trial court rejected the state’s first proffered reason and we cannot presume the trial court accepted the state’s demeanor-based proffered reason. Therefore, we find that the court of appeal correctly applied 'Snyder’ [Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2010)] to vacate the conviction and sentence and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.” The court of appeal’s decision was affirmed.

Read Opinion