Butts v. Aultman

Docket: 19-60063

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the county, the school board, and state officials, alleging claims arising out of the Mississippi legislature's July 2016 decision to administratively consolidate two school districts and restructure the school board responsible for governing the newly-formed district. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, and grant of defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the appointive structure of the interim board was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose; plaintiffs' claim that the structure of the permanent board violates the Equal Protection clause was not supported by law and plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute's selective grant of the franchise; and defendants' decision to fire Montgomery County School District employees and retain employees of the former Winona Municipal Separate School District must be upheld where Winona was a higher performing school district than Montgomery, and the Superintendent may have felt that the most seamless and efficient way to implement the consolidation would be to absorb the Montgomery district into the better-performing Winona district. Finally, because plaintiffs' equal protection claims failed on the merits, they have not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success and were not entitled to preliminary relief.

Edminster, Hinshaw, Russ & Assoc. v. Downe Township

Docket: 19-20176

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Costa

Areas of Law: Contracts

After EHRA filed suit against the township for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in the Southern District of Texas, the district court granted summary judgment in EHRA's favor on the issue of contract liability. The district court then awarded EHRA damages and attorney's fees. Both parties appealed. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the township never entered into a contract with EHRA and thus its citizens could not be held liable for nearly $400,000 on a breach-of-contract theory. In this case, the township was not bound by the Texas choice-of-law provision in a document it never approved. However, the court held that the township may, however, be liable for any benefits it received from EHRA. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to decide in the first instance whether EHRA's unjust enrichment claim was viable.

Vetcher v. Barr

Docket: 18-60449

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Carl E. Stewart

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal under Section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act. The court held that, although petitioner's state law conviction is not a facial categorical match to the federal schedule of controlled substances, there is no realistic probability that Texas courts will apply its statute to conduct that falls outside of the scope of the federal analog; petitioner is ineligible for withholding of removal because his state law conviction is a "particularly serious crime" within the meaning of the statute; and petitioner's due process rights were not violated where, as a pro se litigant, petitioner successfully secured an initial stay of removal from this court and none of the perceived hindrances he pointed out stopped him from being able to research the law, draft, mail and file his pleadings, and appeal his claims for the better part of four years without the assistance of legal counsel.

North Cypress Medical Center Operating Co. v. Cigna Healthcare

Docket: 18-20576

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Edith H. Jones

Areas of Law: ERISA, Insurance Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse judgment against plaintiffs on Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims assigned by Cigna-insured patients. The court held that the law of the case did not require the district court on remand to determine the legal correctness of Cigna's policy interpretation, and under Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Humble Surgical Hospital, L.L.C., 878 F.3d 478, 485 (5th Cir. 2017), a court need not reach legal correctness if the insurer's determination was not an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, Humble moots consideration of the conflicts and inferences of bad faith that plaintiffs assert against Cigna. In this case, the district court correctly applied this court's previous decision in the instant controversy as well as Humble, and thus plaintiffs' exhaustion argument was moot. Plaintiffs' procedural challenge to Cigna's review failed for lack of substantiating evidence, which left the damages issue moot. Finally, plaintiffs failed to establish any right to attorney's fees.