US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Petroleum Solutions, Inc.

Docket: 17-20652
Opinion Date: February 26, 2019
Judge: Catharina Haynes
Areas of Law: Contracts, Insurance Law

Mid-Continent filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it did not owe coverage for a judgment assessed against its insured, PSI. The district court ruled that the Cooperation Clause in the policy applied to PSI's third-party claim in the underlying lawsuit and that only parts of the judgment were covered. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and held that, regardless of whether the Cooperation Clause applied to affirmative claims, the Cooperation-Clause jury instruction was not an abuse of discretion. The court reversed the district court's conclusion that the Professional Liability Endorsement did not cover the entire judgment and held that it did.

Read Opinion

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

Docket: 17-10863
Opinion Date: February 21, 2019
Judge: Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Health Law, White Collar Crime

Mathew worked at Parkland Health and Hospital System as a registration specialist and also owned Dallas Home Health Care (DHH). Mathew stole confidential patient information from Parkland and gave it to DHH employees to call the individuals and solicit them as patients. Based on information from a former DHH employee, authorities obtained a search warrant for DHH’s office and determined DHH to be in the possession of approximately 1,300 Parkland patients’ identifying information, including their health insurance claim numbers (HICNs). Mathew pleaded guilty to “knowingly possess[ing] with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more authentication features, to wit, [HICNs], and the authentication features were or appeared to have been issued by or under the authority of the United States,” 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(3), (b)(2)(B), (c)(1). The Fifth Circuit vacated his sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment plus $277,957.89 in restitution. The restitution order under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A, was unlawful because it included amounts for Medicare payments that preceded the temporal scope of the offense of conviction. Mathew’s statements at rearraignment cannot serve as the justification for broadening restitution to include conduct not contained in the indictment or factual resume. The court rejected other challenges to the restitution award.

Read Opinion

Supreme Court Rules Eighth Amendment's Protection Against Excessive Fines Applies to the States

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TIMBS v. INDIANA 

Held: The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Pp. 2–9. (a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires.
Pp. 2–3. (b) The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day. Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming.
​Pp. 3–7. (c) Indiana argues that the Clause does not apply to its use of civil in rem forfeitures, but this Court held in Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, that such forfeitures fall within the Clause’s protection when they are at least partially punitive. Indiana cannot prevail unless the Court overrules Austin or holds that, in light of Austin, the Excessive Fines Clause is not incorporated because its application to civil in rem forfeitures is neither fundamental nor deeply rooted. 

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Express Oil Change, L.L.C. v. Mississippi Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers & Surveyors

Docket: 18-60144
Opinion Date: February 19, 2019
Judge: Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law: Communications Law, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Trademark

In regulating the practice of engineering, Mississippi restricts the use of the term “engineer.” Express operates automotive service centers in Mississippi and other states under the Tire Engineers mark. The Mississippi Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers & Surveyors informed Express that the name Tire Engineers violated Miss. Code 73-13-39 and requested that it change its company advertisement name. Express sought a declaratory judgment, citing Express’s “rights of commercial free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment”; and “rights under preemptive federal trademark law” under 15 U.S.C. 1051–1127. The district court granted the Board summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit reversed. The Board’s decision violates the First Amendment’s commercial speech protections. Because its essential character is not deceptive, Tire Engineers is not inherently misleading. The name, trademarked since 1948, apparently refers to the work of mechanics using their skills “not usu[ally] considered to fall within the scope of engineering” to solve “technical problems” related to selecting, rotating, balancing, and aligning tires. Nor is the name actually misleading. Because the name is potentially misleading, the Board’s asserted interests are substantial but the record does not support the need for a total ban on the name. Other states with similar statutes have not challenged the use of the trademark and the Board did not address why less-restrictive means, such as a disclaimer, would not accomplish its goal.

Read Opinion

Weathers v. Davis

Docket: 15-70030
Opinion Date: February 15, 2019
Judge: Edith H. Jones
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

This case was remanded from the Supreme Court of the United States for reconsideration in light of its decision in Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017). In Moore, the Supreme Court held that the Briseno factors may not be used to restrict qualification of an individual as intellectually disabled. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in this case because applying Moore retroactively contradicted the Court's decision in Shoop v. Hill, ___ S. Ct. ___ (Jan. 7, 2019).

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Johnson v. Halstead

Docket: 17-10223
Opinion Date: February 14, 2019
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. The court substituted this opinion in place of its prior opinion. The court affirmed the district court's judgment as to plaintiff's hostile work environment claim and held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged sustained harassment that undermined his ability to work. In this case, he was repeatedly subjected to behavior that was hostile, intimidating, and bullying, and it was done publicly over a period of more than three years. Furthermore, defendant was deliberately indifferent to this racially hostile work environment. The court also affirmed as to the 42 U.S.C. 1981 claim and held that defendant retaliated after plaintiff complained about discrimination by transferring him to the night shift in a different division. Therefore, plaintiff's allegations supporting unlawful retaliation establish a violation of his constitutional rights, one that a reasonable official would know was unlawful. However, the court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim where it was not clearly established that an internal complaint of discrimination made only to supervisors, primarily to vindicate one's own rights, qualified as speech made as a "citizen" rather than as an "employee."

Read Opinion

Cardoso de Flores v. Whitaker

Docket: 17-60744
Opinion Date: February 11, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was removable because she was convicted of a drug offense. Petitioner argued that she was not removable because she was convicted for possessing a small amount of marijuana for personal use. The court held that the BIA's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)'s personal-use exception was reasonable. Applying the BIA's circumstances-specific approach, the court held that petitioner's conviction did not fall within the personal-use exception. In this case, substantial evidence supported the BIA's findings that petitioner possessed 54.6 pounds of marijuana—substantially more than the personal-use exception’s 30-gram threshold.

Read Opinion

Louisiana online map: don't eat fish caught here; don't swim there
The map shows 58 sites where contaminated fish have been caught or the bottom's too polluted for safe swimming.


www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-online-map-dont-eat-fish-caught-here-dont-swim-there/26286165

United States v. Richmond

Docket: 17-40299
Opinion Date: February 8, 2019
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in meth, she moved to suppress evidence, arguing that an officer's tap of her tire was a search not supported by probable cause. The district court denied the motion. The Fifth Circuit held that the brief physical examination of the tire was subject to the Fourth Amendment under the recently revived trespass test for deciding what is a search. However, the officer had probable cause to tap the tire. In this case, the tires were wobbly, the truck was veering outside of its lane, and the stripped bolts gave a reasonable officer probable cause to believe that the tire posed a safety risk. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, LLC

Docket: 17-60072
Opinion Date: February 6, 2019
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew the prior opinion and substituted the following opinion. In this case, a nurse alleged that an assisted living center allowed a hostile work environment to continue by not preventing a resident's repetitive harassment. Plaintiff filed suit under Title VII after she was terminated in part for refusing to care for an aggressive patient in a nursing home. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the harassment claim and held that the evidence of persistent and often physical harassment by the aggressive patient was enough to allow a jury to decide whether a reasonable caregiver on the receiving end of the harassment would have viewed it as sufficiently severe or pervasive even considering the medical condition of the harasser. In this case, an objectively reasonable caregiver would not expect a patient to grope her daily, injure her so badly she could not work for three months, and have her complaints met with laughter and dismissal by the administration. The court allowed the district court to consider plaintiff's retaliation claim via direct evidence for the first instance on remand.

Read Opinion

Parker v. Davis

Docket: 15-20451
Opinion Date: February 5, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas relief as successive. The court found that petitioner's previous habeas petition challenged a judgment distinct from the one he challenged in the present habeas petition. In this case, petitioner's 2013 petition challenged only his 20 year sentence and his current petition challenging his seven year sentences concerned a new judgment.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
St. Bernard Parish v. Lafarge North America, Inc.

Docket: 18-30029
Opinion Date: February 1, 2019
Judge: Don R. Willett
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics

In 2005, during Hurricane Katrina, a barge moored by Lafarge hurtled through a floodwall and unleashed catastrophic flooding in the Lower 9th Ward. Richard T. Seymour represented New Orleans residents, but withdrew from the Barge Litigation in 2011. After the Barge Litigation settled several years later, he moved to intervene in order to pursue his fees and expenses. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision as to intervention of right and dismissed Seymour's appeal for lack of jurisdiction as to permissive intervention. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Seymour's motion to intervene came too late. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention because it was also untimely.

Read Opinion

Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions
Griggs v. Bounce N' Around Inflatables, LLC

Docket: 2018-C-0726
Opinion Date: January 30, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

Bounce N’ Around Inflatables (“BNA”) is a party rental business that rents a variety of inflatables for social events. BNA hired Austin Griggs (“Austin”) as a helper to assist in the delivering and cleaning of the inflatables. Austin, then age fifteen, was standing on an inflatable as it was lifted to the rack by a forklift. Austin fell to the ground from the forklift, and was further injured when the inflatable fell and hit him on the back. Following the injury, BNA’s workers’ compensation insurer paid Austin workers’ compensation and medical benefits. Austin eventually returned to work at BNA, with his mother’s permission. The underlying litigation arose when Austin’s mother, individually and on behalf of Austin, filed suit against BNA, its owner and insurer, seeking to recover tort damages arising out of the injury. At the conclusion of trial, the district court awarded plaintiffs $125,000 in general damages and $24,517 in special damages, plus legal interest and costs. The district court found defendants illegally employed Austin because they failed to obtain an employment certificate, and that he was engaged in an illegal task (working with power-driven machinery) at the time of the accident. In finding the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers’ compensation law did not apply, the district court relied on Ewert v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co., 548 So.2d 358 (1989), and Patterson v. Martin Forest Products, Inc., 787 So.2d 311, for the proposition that workers’ compensation exclusivity provisions did not control over child labor laws, and a minor’s illegal employment did not amount to an election of remedies under the workers’ compensation law. Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part, dismissing plaintiffs’ tort claims with prejudice. The court of appeal found Austin’s claims were subject to the exclusive remedy provision contained in the workers’ compensation law. In reaching this conclusion, the court of appeal explicitly declined to follow the holdings of Ewert and Patterson, instead relying on Noble v. Blume Tree Services, Inc., 650 So.2d 252, which held that an illegally-hired minor was subject to the exclusivity provisions. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this split in the circuits, and held that a minor who is illegally hired and engaged in a prohibited task at the time of his injury is subject to the exclusive remedy of the workers’ compensation law.

Read Opinion