ExxonMobil Corp. v. Electrical Reliability Services, Inc. Docket: 15-20751 Opinion Date: August 22, 2017 Judge: James L. Dennis Areas of Law: Contracts, Insurance Law After Exxon settled the underlying personal injury lawsuit, it sought reimbursement from ERS and ORIC, contending that ERS's contractual obligation to insure Exxon as an additional insured and the insurance policy issued by ORIC required ERS and ORIC to pay for the settlement of the suit and the cost of litigation. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment as to ERS's duty to pay the deductible; reversed the portion of the judgment pertaining to the interest award and remanded for calculation of a new interest award; vacated the portion of the judgment that held ORIC jointly and severally liable with ERS for the entire judgment and remanded for modification; reversed the denial of Exxon's attorney's fees for the initial appeal and remanded for determination of amounts; and affirmed the denial of Exxon's previously unrequested attorney's fees.
0 Comments
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Body by Cook, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Docket: 16-31034 Opinion Date: August 24, 2017 Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law Plaintiffs filed suit against national insurance companies, alleging various civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1985, and Title VII, as well as several related state law claims. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' claims notwithstanding the district court's ruling that the complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In this case, a complaint, such as the one at issue, may simultaneously satisfy Rule 8's technical requirements but fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court also held that the district court erred in dismissing Body by Cook's section 1981 contract claim against State Farm, but the district court properly dismissed Robert Cook's section 1981 claim against State Farm and plaintiffs' section 1981 claim against all other defendants. Furthermore, the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' section 1985(3) conspiracy claims; plaintiff failed to allege that defendants retaliated against them; and Cook failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a prospective employment relationship as to this Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing plaintiffs another opportunity to plead their case and dismissing plaintiffs' federal claims with prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Kelly v. Nichamoff Docket: 16-20699 Opinion Date: August 21, 2017 Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson Areas of Law: Legal Ethics Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on his assertion of Texas's attorney immunity. Plaintiff alleged that defendant conspired with two others to defraud her into purchasing a Texas company owned by one of the defendants, Paul Rembach. The district court concluded that Texas's attorney immunity was inapplicable because defendant's representation of Rembach occurred during a business transaction (a stock transfer) and was unrelated to litigation or an otherwise adversarial context. The Fifth Circuit held, however, that defendant took actions that constituted fraud independent of his duties as an attorney and would not qualify as "acts taken and communications made to facilitate the rendition of legal services" to the client. Defendant could not shield his own willful and premeditated fraudulent actions from liability simply on the ground that he was an agent of his client. The court explained that independently fraudulent conduct was foreign to the duties of an attorney and fell outside the scope of client representation. Because defendant failed to establish the scope of his representation of Rembach and that his alleged conduct fell within that scope, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on those alternative grounds. 2 New Driving Laws Among Some 200 New Laws for Louisiana in August www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2017/08/03/460108.htm US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Trammell v. Fruge Docket: 16-50981 Opinion Date: August 17, 2017 Judge: Edward C. Prado Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, alleging that defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights during his arrest. The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff presented sufficient facts to allege a violation of his constitutional right to be free from excessive force against Officers Fruge, Garza, and Nevue; the law at the time of the arrest clearly established that it was objectively unreasonable for several officers to tackle an individual who was not fleeing, not violent, not aggressive, and only resisted by pulling his arm away from an officer's grasp; the failure to intervene claim was waived; and summary judgment was appropriate as to plaintiff's municipal liability claim against Round Rock and plaintiff's failure to train or supervise claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Quintanilla Dockets: 16-50677, 16-50682, 16-50683, 16-50687, 16-50688, 16-50689, 16-50690, 16-50691, 16-50694, 16-50700, 16-50704, 16-50705, 16-50706, 16-50707, 16-50709, 6-50715, 16-50716 Opinion Date: August 16, 2017 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Criminal Law Defendants in these consolidated appeals present essentially the same question of law: whether each defendant was entitled to a two-level reduction under Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which permits such a reduction for sentences based on the drug quantity under USSG 2D1.1, when the original sentence in each case was calculated starting from the higher guideline range for career offenders under USSG 4B1.1. The Fifth Circuit held that the sentences in these appeals were not "based on" section 2D1.1's drug quantity range but rather on section 4B1.1's higher career offender guideline range. Therefore, the district court was without authority as a matter of law to modify the sentences and the court reversed the judgments of the district court. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Montano v. Texas Docket: 16-20083 Opinion Date: August 11, 2017 Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Petitioner challenged the dismissal of his habeas petition based on failure to exhaust available state remedies. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that petitioner satisfied 28 U.S.C. 2241's exhaustion requirement because he asserted his Double Jeopardy claim before every available state judicial forum, short of undergoing a second trial. The court explained that requiring petitioner to endure a second prosecution before being able to assert his claim in federal court placed him in precisely the same impermissible position as the petitioner in Fain v. Duff, 488 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1973): forced to forfeit the protections of his federal right before being permitted to seek its vindication in federal court. Because the district court did not address petitioner's Double Jeopardy claim and because the record was not sufficiently developed to enable the court to do so in the first instance, the court did not address it. Therefore, the court remanded for adjudication of the Double Jeopardy claim. Federal judge strikes Louisiana law requiring foreign-born marriage applicants to present birth certificates www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/08/federal-judge-strikes-louisiana-law-requiring-foreign-born-marriage-applicants-to-present-birth-certificates.php US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Fillingham v. United States Docket: 16-40317 Opinion Date: August 11, 2017 Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's parole revocation claim; affirmed the denial of credit towards his sentence for the time he spent in prison in the United Kingdom; affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and unlawful seizure of his property in his original criminal case and the denial of his motion for compensation; and declined to consider defendant's claim that the district court should have resolved his actions filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as ancillary matters to his section 2241 petition. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Nanda Docket: 16-11135 Opinion Date: August 10, 2017 Judge: Edith Brown Clement Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Atul and Jiten "Jay" Nandas' convictions for various charges stemming from a conspiracy to fraudulently procure H-1B visas. The court held that the district court did not err by admitting into evidence a letter that Jay wrote, because the letter did not directly allude to Atul; even if it was error to admit the letter, such error was harmless; there was no plain error in the wire fraud charges; the district court did not plainly err by not giving the jury a unanimity instruction; even granting arguendo that it was error to admit evidence of additional visa petitions and medical insurance, such error did not affect defendants' substantial rights; there was no error in applying a two point sentencing enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(B) and (C) for committing a substantial portion of the alleged scheme from outside the United States and for committing an offense involving sophisticated means of concealment; any possible error in the loss calculation was harmless; and defendants' claim that the district court did not consider sentencing disparity bordered on the frivolous. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Darden v. City of Fort Worth Docket: 16-11244 Opinion Date: August 9, 2017 Judge: Edward C. Prado Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law After Jermaine Darden suffered a heart attack and died during his arrest, the administrator of Darden's estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the arresting officers and the City. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants. The Fifth Circuit held that Officer Snow was not entitled to qualified immunity where there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Darden was actively resisting arrest and whether the force Officer Snow used was clearly excessive and clearly unreasonable. Therefore, the district court erred in granting his motion for summary judgment. The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that Officer Romero used excessive force, and thus he was not entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, the district court erred in granting his motion for summary judgment. Because plaintiff had adequately alleged facts that made out violations of a clearly established constitutional right, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of the claims against the City and remanded the case for further consideration of municipal liability. Start of August Brings More Than 200 New Laws for Louisiana www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2017-07-31/start-of-august-brings-more-than-200-new-laws-for-louisiana Louisiana Governor Reaches Out to Business for Budget Ideas www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2017-08-07/louisiana-governor-reaches-out-to-business-for-budget-ideas United States v. Wallace Docket: 16-40701 Opinion Date: August 3, 2017 Judge: Edith Brown Clement Areas of Law: Criminal Law Defendant was convicted of crimes related to his involvement in a Texas crime syndicate. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where suppression was not a remedy for a violation of either the federal pen-trap statute or the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In the alternative, even if accessing defendant's cell phone's E911 data did constitute a Fourth Amendment search, DPS's actions were covered by the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed the part of defendant's request for remand for resentencing as moot. |
Louisiana Law BlogLouisiana Law, News, Issues and Comments from Attorneys at the Shoultz Law Firm Archives
October 2024
Categories |