Latest 4 Cases: Tercero v. Texas Southmost College District (Civil Procedure), Grace Ranch, LLC v. BP America Production, Co. (Civil Procedure), ...

It Is Possible and Necessary to Nullify Trump’s Corrupt Pardons (Including Secret Ones)

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan argues that it is not only constitutional but necessary to review and nullify corrupt presidential pardons, including many of those granted by former President Trump. Professor Buchanan debunks the misconception that the presidential pardon power is “unlimited” as journalists have assumed, based on the language and context of the Pardon Clause and that of a seminal Supreme Court case interpreting it.

Read More

Tercero v. Texas Southmost College District

Docket: 19-40740

Opinion Date: February 24, 2021

Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Labor & Employment Law

After plaintiff prevailed on her procedural due process and breach of contract claims against TSC, the trial court vacated the jury's verdict on the breach of contract claims and reduced the damages award on her procedural due process claim to $1. The Fifth Circuit held that TSC is entitled to neither sovereign immunity under the United States Constitution nor governmental immunity under state law. In this case, the Texas Legislature abrogated TSC's governmental immunity such that plaintiff could bring state law breach of contract claims against TSC. Therefore, the argument that the Texas Legislature attempted to limit federal jurisdiction over these claims is unavailing. The court also held that it was not required to address TSC's alternative arguments and declined to do so. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's breach of contract claims, reinstated the jury's verdict on those claims, and remanded for the district court to consider TSC's alternative arguments regarding whether sufficient evidence supports plaintiff's breach of contract claims. The court affirmed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on the due process violation damages and reduction of the jury's award of $12,500,000 to the nominal amount of $1. The court reversed the district court's vacatur of the portion of the attorneys' fees award based on the breach of contract claims and remanded for the district court to address TSC's alternative arguments regarding those claims and to determine whether plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees and in what amount.

Grace Ranch, LLC v. BP America Production, Co.

Docket: 20-30224

Opinion Date: February 24, 2021

Judge: Gregg Costa

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

A Louisiana law, La. Stat. Ann. 30:16, allows citizen suits to enforce state conservation laws, but any injunction the citizen might obtain must be entered in favor of the Commissioner of Louisiana's Office of Conservation. Plaintiff filed suit contending that this potential state involvement at the end of the litigation precludes diversity jurisdiction in federal court because there is no such jurisdiction when a State is a party. The district court disagreed, held that it had subject matter jurisdiction, and remanded to state court anyway based on Burford abstention. The Fifth Circuit denied the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; reversed the remand order; and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Grace Ranch's suit. The court explained that, despite Grace Ranch's listing of Louisiana in the style of the case, the State is not a proper party because it has not authorized landowners to sue in its name. Furthermore, Grace Ranch's real-party-in-interest argument for state involvement fares no better because Louisiana has only a general interest in the outcome of this suit. The court also concluded that it has appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's abstention-based remand order. Making explicit what was previously implicit in its caselaw, the court reasoned that a discretionary remand such as one on abstention grounds does not involve a removal "defect" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Finally, the court weighed the factors for Burford abstention and concluded that abstention is not warranted.

Weber v. BNSF Railway Co.

Docket: 20-10295

Opinion Date: February 24, 2021

Judge: Don R. Willett

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

After BNSF terminated plaintiff based on violation of company attendance guidelines, plaintiff filed suit alleging that BNSF failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability. Plaintiff, who is an epileptic, worked as a train dispatcher for BNSF. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for BNSF, holding plaintiff failed to show that he was a "qualified individual" for either of his failure-to-accommodate claims. In this case, plaintiff failed to show that he could perform the essential functions of his job in spite of his disability or that a reasonable accommodation of his disability would have enabled him to perform the essential functions of the job.

United States v. Nora

Docket: 18-31078

Opinion Date: February 24, 2021

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed defendant's convictions for conspiracy to commit health care fraud (Count 1); conspiracy to pay or receive illegal health care kickbacks (Count 2); and aiding and abetting health care fraud (Count 27). Defendant was tried and convicted alongside five codefendants for his involvement in a large home health care fraud and kickback scheme in connection with his employment at Abide Home Health Care Services. The court concluded that, even under the court's extremely deferential review of jury verdicts, there was insufficient evidence put forth at trial for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with the knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. Therefore, the Government failed to prove that defendant acted "willfully" with respect to each count. In this case, there was insufficient evidence proving that defendant knew that Abide was defrauding Medicare, through "ghosting," its use of house doctors, or otherwise (Count 1); that defendant knew that Abide's referral payments constituted illegal kickbacks (Count 2); or that defendant had involvement with EvLa's treatment at Abide (let alone that he knew she was not actually homebound) (Count 27). The court vacated defendant's sentence.