US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Uptown Grill, LLC v. Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc.

Docket: 18-30515
Opinion Date: March 29, 2019
Judge: Edith Brown Clement
Areas of Law: Business Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark

This case involved ten years of litigation regarding an attempt to simultaneously sell a restaurant and license associated intellectual property. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the Bill of Sale assigned all Camellia Grill Trademark rights to Hicham Khodr; affirmed the district court's ruling that the Bill of Sale assigned the trade dress associated with the Carrollton restaurant; affirmed the district court's finding that infringement damages were unwarranted; reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the trade-dress breach of contract claim and remanded for proceedings to determine if Khodr breached the License Agreement by using the alleged trade dress at the Chartres restaurant; and affirmed the district court's compensable damages ruling.

Read Opinion

Execution of Texas death row inmate halted over Buddhist spiritual adviser


www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/execution-texas-death-row-inmate-halted-over-buddhist-spiritual-adviser-n988741

Murphy v. Collier

Docket: 19-70007
Opinion Date: March 28, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Plaintiff, a death row inmate, petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit his execution until the state allowed his preferred spiritual advisor -- a Buddhist priest -- to be physically present in the execution chamber at the time of execution. After the petition was denied, plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint and a motion for stay of execution with the federal district court. The district court denied the motion for stay of execution as untimely and plaintiff appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court rightfully recognized that the proper time for raising such claims has long since passed. In this case, plaintiff's execution date was set on November 29, 2018; by his counsel's admission, he waited until February 28 to first request that the state allow his preferred spiritual advisor to not just meet with him prior to entering the chamber and watch from the viewing room, but actually enter the execution chamber with him; then he waited until March 20 -- eight days before the scheduled execution -- to raise his First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claims; and these claims were not brought before the federal courts until March 26. The court also took note, as did the district court, of the multiple warnings plaintiff's counsel has received in the past for filing last-minute motions.

Read Opinion

Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions
Louisiana v. Hoang

Docket: 2017-K-0100
Opinion Date: March 26, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Khoi Hoang was indicted with conspiracy to commit second degree murder, solicitation to commit second degree murder, second degree murder, and obstruction of justice. Lien Nguyen was abducted from his home during the night on April 23, 2013. His hands were bound behind and his back, he was shot twice, and he was left to die in an area off Old Gentilly Highway. He was still alive when he was found by James Mushatt, who called 911. Mushatt reported seeing a Nissan Titan truck speeding away and said the victim told him that his wife was responsible for the crime. The victim died at the scene shortly after. The jury found defendant guilty as charged of obstruction but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility as a third-felony habitual offender. The court of appeal reversed because it found the evidence insufficient to support the conviction. After a review of the record, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded, from all of the evidence presented, a jury could reasonably infer (without speculating) that defendant removed the truck’s license plate or directed someone else to do so because the truck was going to be used in a murder or had just been used in a murder. Thus, the majority of the appellate court erred in finding that “circumstantial evidence connecting Defendant to the removal of the license plate was nonexistent.” To accept defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, that the license plate went coincidentally missing at some point after the murder, would indeed be to accept an “extraordinary coincidence” when viewed in the context of the entirety of the State’s case, as noted by the lower court's dissent. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal’s decision and reinstated defendant’s conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Thomas v. Bryant

Docket: 19-60133
Opinion Date: March 25, 2019
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law

After the district court found that the boundaries for Mississippi State Senate District 22 dilute African-American voting strength and prevented those citizens from having the equal opportunity "to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice" that the Voting Rights Act guarantees, the district court switched 28 precincts between District 22 and a bordering district to remedy the violation. The Governor and Secretary of State sought a stay of the district court's final judgment. The Fourth Circuit granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for a stay. The court held that the rule of construction, the text of the three-judge statute, its lineage, and the caselaw applying it all favor the district court's view that three judges are not required for a claim raising only statutory challenges to state legislative redistricting. The court also held that defendants have not shown a high likelihood of overturning the finding of vote dilution because their legal argument was at odds with "unimpeachable authority" from this court and their factual challenges must overcome deferential standards of review. The court rejected defendants' laches claim. However, the court held that the legislature should have the initial opportunity to draw new lines for District 22 that comply with the Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, the court issued an order granting a temporary stay to allow the legislature to remedy the Section 2 violation. Finally, the court held that defendants have not demonstrated a high likelihood of showing that the district court's narrow redraw was an abuse of discretion, and there was no risk of voter confusion and no outcry from state officials that implementing the district court’s remedy substantially disturbed its election process.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Alliance for Good Government v. Coalition for Better Government

Docket: 18-30759
Opinion Date: March 21, 2019
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Legal Ethics, Trademark

In this trademark infringement action, the district court granted Alliance for Good Government summary judgment on its trademark infringement claim against Coalition for Better Government, enjoined Coalition from the use of both its logo and its trade name, and then awarded Alliance attorney's fees incurred in bringing the lawsuit. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Alliance was entitled to fees. The court remanded for the district court to reassess the amount of fees, because the court has since modified the district court's injunction to permit Coalition to use its trade name.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Encompass Off Solutions, Inc. v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co.

Docket: 17-10736
Opinion Date: March 19, 2019
Judge: Willett
Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts, ERISA

Encompass filed suit against Blue Cross for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with business relations. After Blue Cross largely prevailed at trial, the district court granted a new trial because of error in the jury charge. At the second trial, Encompass prevailed on all claims. The Fifth Circuit held that charging the jury with an incorrect standard of liability supported granting a new trial, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Encompass a new trial on the breach of contract claims. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a new trial on the tort claims considering the interdependence of the tort and contract issues. Finally, the court held that the application of contra non valentem was not wrong as a matter of law, and Blue Cross abused its discretion by arbitrarily denying Encompass's claims for covered services under ERISA.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
In re: U.S. Bureau of Prisons

Docket: 18-50512
Opinion Date: March 14, 2019
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's contempt finding and injunction related to the BOP's calculation of sentencing credits for federal prisoners. The court held that the district court made no explicit factual findings to support its decision to hold the BOP in contempt, nor did it identify which specific court orders the BOP violated. The district court abused its discretion, and the court could not identify any evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the BOP violated a definite and specific court order. Even if there was no error in holding the BOP in content, the court held that the sanction the district court imposed was contrary to law. The court held that, given the district court’s lack of authority over credit awards, it was improper to order the BOP to deny custody credits required by statute. Furthermore, the district court’s error was compounded by its threat to hold BOP officials in individual contempt for fulfilling their statutory duties.

Read Opinion

Jorge-Chavelas v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.

Docket: 18-30388
Opinion Date: March 8, 2019
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The insurer of a Louisiana sugarcane farm raised several arguments that the farm was entitled to statutory immunity under Louisiana workers' compensation law from an action brought by two injured cane planters. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding that plaintiffs were neither employees of the farm nor its independent contractors. Rather, plaintiffs were employees of the farm's independent contractor. Therefore, the farm was not entitled to statutory immunity from suit.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Jatera Corp. v. US Bank National Assoc.

Docket: 18-10248
Opinion Date: March 7, 2019
Judge: Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale
Areas of Law: Banking, Real Estate & Property Law

Jatera filed suit against the Bank and SPS in state court, seeking a judgment declaring the lien on the property at issue void because defendants failed to initiate foreclosure proceedings within the four-year statute of limitations. After removal to federal district court, the district court held that the homeowner lacked standing as a plaintiff because she no longer retained an interest in the property. The district court also concluded that detrimental reliance runs to the benefit of the party asserting it, and Jatera had failed to show it detrimentally relied on the acceleration notice. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jatera's motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' summary judgment motion. The court held that detrimental reliance was not an exception to the lender's right to unilaterally withdraw an acceleration notice under Texas law. Therefore, in this case, the court need not determine whether there was such reliance, including whether Jatera was assigned the homeowner's detrimental-reliance claim, or whether the homeowner suffered such reliance.

Read Opinion

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

Docket: 17-60397
Opinion Date: March 4, 2019
Judge: Willett
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences for their participation in a scheme to pose as singles looking for romantic relationships online, only to swindle their victims into sending money to Nigeria and South Africa. Defendants would steal personal information and then impersonate the victims, getting cash advances and transferring funds out of the victims' accounts. Then defendants cultivated online relationships, convincing their "paramours" to launder their money. The court held that shackling defendants at trial was not an abuse of discretion; the emails and copy of Defendant Mewase's passport was admissible; and the district court properly remove and replaced Juror 20 where the district court identified legally relevant reasons for removal, such as sleeping through witness testimony, misrepresenting this fact to the district court, not understanding the jury instructions, and not deliberating. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by applying the leadership enhancement to Defendant Ayelotan and Raheem's sentences; Ayelotan and Raheem's within-Guidelines sentences did not violate the Eighth Amendment; the district court did not clearly err in determining the intended loss calculation was over $25 million; and the sentences were substantively reasonable.

Read Opinion

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

Docket: 17-20526
Opinion Date: March 1, 2019
Judge: James C. Ho
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant's prior conviction for aggravated assault constituted a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 16, and thus an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F). The Fifth Circuit held that United States v. Reyes-Contreras, 910 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc), did not make previously innocent activities criminal. In Reyes-Contreras, the court held that United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157, 162–68 (2014), was not limited to cases of domestic violence, and that for purposes of identifying a conviction as a crime of violence, there was no valid distinction between direct and indirect force. Therefore, this holding foreclosed defendant's use of the distinction between direct and indirect force -- a distinction he hoped would help him establish that aggravated assault under Texas law was not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16.

Read Opinion

United States v. Araiza-Jacobo

Docket: 17-40958
Opinion Date: February 28, 2019
Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of attempting to cross the United States border carrying two bags of hard candies impregnated with over 5.1 kilograms of methamphetamine. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred by instructing the jury that it could find defendant had culpable knowledge if he had been "deliberately ignorant" of the disguised drugs. The court stressed that a deliberate ignorance instruction should rarely be given. In this case, the instruction was not supported by evidence showing defendant engaged in purposeful contrivance to avoid learning of the illegal conduct. However, the court held that the error was harmless because substantial evidence supported the conclusion that defendant actually knew he was carrying illicit candy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction.

Read Opinion