David Briones

The case involved a former Time Warner employee who sued in Texas state court alleging age discrimination and retaliation for seeking worker’s compensation benefits, both under the Texas Labor Code. The defendant removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiff moved to remand on the ground that worker’s compensation retaliation claims are non-removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). The court granted the motion to remand the entire case, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits removal only of a civil action as a whole and that severance of claims is unavailable when the basis for removal is diversity rather than a federal question.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose from the 2010 shooting death of 15-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernández Güereca by a U.S. Border Patrol agent across the U.S.-Mexico border near El Paso, Texas, while the boy was on the Mexican side. Plaintiffs sued the United States and federal agencies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for wrongful death, negligence, and excessive force; under the Constitution for alleged Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations; and under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for violations of the law of nations. The court granted the government's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Claims One through Nine and Eleven for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It held that the FTCA's foreign country exception applied because the injury occurred in Mexico, that the ATS does not waive sovereign immunity, and that the constitutional claims against the United States were likewise barred.

civil rightsfederal powertorts & liability

The case Villela v. Hinojosa involved Petitioner Socorro Villela challenging her expedited removals from the United States under immigration law, claiming she is a U.S. citizen by birth in Texas despite previous admissions of Mexican citizenship. She sought a writ of habeas corpus to review the determination of her alienage and the lawfulness of her removals pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1252(e)(2). The court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner was not in custody at the time of filing, as her removal orders had been executed, which is a prerequisite for habeas relief. Additionally, the Real ID Act of 2005 limits judicial review of removal orders to petitions in the courts of appeals, further barring district court jurisdiction in this matter.

immigrationprocedure

This case involves a petition by an NLRB regional director for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against El Paso Disposal, L.P., a garbage collection company. The petition alleged that the employer committed unfair labor practices during first-contract bargaining with the certified union, including bad-faith bargaining over dues check-off, unilateral changes to sick-leave and other policies without notice or bargaining, and direct dealings with employees, which caused or prolonged a strike. The court denied the employer's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted the injunction, ordering interim bargaining, rescission of unilateral changes, and reinstatement of striking employees. The core reasoning was that the petitioner had shown reasonable cause to believe violations occurred and that the strike was an unfair-labor-practice strike, and that interim relief was just and proper to preserve the Board's remedial authority and prevent irreparable erosion of employee support for the union.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case concerns the sale of real property in Texas between a Michigan plaintiff and Texas defendants, which the defendants removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. After the defendants added Texas-based third-party defendants, those third parties moved to remand the case to state court, citing the forum defendant rule in § 1441(b) and arguing they had the right to seek remand under §§ 1441 and 1448. The court denied the motion, holding that any defect under the forum defendant rule was a waivable procedural issue not raised by the plaintiff within the 30-day limit of § 1447(c), and that third-party defendants have no statutory right to move for remand.

procedure

The case involved multiple defendants charged with RICO violations and RICO conspiracy arising from their alleged roles in the Barrio Azteca prison gang's extortion of drug traffickers in El Paso, Texas, to fund imprisoned members; a jury convicted them after a trial featuring testimony from gang members and other witnesses. The defendants moved for a new trial, arguing that the government failed to disclose in discovery certain information in the presentence report about murders ordered by other gang leaders, which they claimed would have affected witness credibility and their own relative culpability, and that the jury's transportation to the courthouse was prejudicial. The court denied the motions, finding that the relevant details had been provided in FBI 302 reports disclosed during trial, that the witnesses in question were already extensively cross-examined on related matters, and that no Brady violation or other basis for a new trial had been shown.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Nautilus Insurance Company's request for a declaratory judgment regarding its obligations under a general liability policy issued to Nicky & Claire’s Day Care, Inc., following a 2005 vehicle collision that injured a child passenger and a bystander. The court granted Nautilus's motion for summary judgment, determining that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify the daycare or its owner. The decision rests on the policy's auto exclusion clause, which unambiguously bars coverage for bodily injuries arising from the ownership or use of an insured's automobile, and Texas precedents upholding such exclusions in general liability policies rather than auto-specific ones.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Juan Carlos Vargas, who faced charges arising from a 1997 shooting incident on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico in which one person was killed and shots were fired at others in two vehicles. Vargas was first tried on a murder indictment and convicted only of the lesser included offense of manslaughter; a second indictment then charged him with attempted capital murder based on the same facts and intent to kill multiple victims. The district court granted Vargas's federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, holding that the collateral estoppel component of the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause barred the attempted capital murder prosecution because the first jury's acquittal on the murder charge had necessarily decided the issue of intent against the State.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Steven Santana Smith, who was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failing to register as a sex offender after his 2007 military convictions for carnal knowledge and sodomy of a child; he had acknowledged registration obligations upon release but neither registered in Texas nor elsewhere and was found residing in Colorado. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, raising multiple constitutional challenges to SORNA including violations of the Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause, Ex Post Facto Clause, non-delegation doctrine, and Tenth Amendment, as well as claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and insufficient pleading. The court denied the motion, holding that SORNA applied to the defendant’s federal convictions, that he lacked standing for many facial challenges, and that the statute did not violate the asserted constitutional provisions or procedural requirements as applied to his case.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involves a claim for Title II and Title XVI disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, filed in 2003 with alleged onset in 2002, which was denied by an ALJ after multiple hearings and remands by the Appeals Council. The plaintiff sought judicial review, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly consider a treating physician's opinion and erred in relying on vocational expert testimony based on hypotheticals that omitted the plaintiff's postural and nonexertional limitations when determining ability to perform other work. The magistrate judge recommended remand, and the district court adopted that recommendation over the Commissioner's objection, ordering further administrative proceedings because the faulty hypotheticals prevented a proper step-five analysis under the sequential evaluation process.

labor & employment

This case involves a store manager who took FMLA leave for obstructive sleep apnea and was terminated shortly after returning, alleging that his employer interfered with his FMLA rights by failing to restore him to his position and retaliating against him. The plaintiff had received positive performance reviews prior to his leave, during which the store was designated as broken, and he was fired after meeting with his district manager upon his return. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending there was no genuine dispute that the termination was for legitimate performance reasons. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had produced evidence suggesting the stated reason was pretextual and that the defendant had not addressed the claim that the plaintiff's prescriptive FMLA rights were violated.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a trademark dispute where Spira Footwear, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe on Basic Sports Apparel, Inc.'s (BSA) federally registered trademark "SPIRAL" for apparel including shoes, along with a related state anti-dilution claim. BSA had obtained the registration in 1999 after applying in 1997 and later filed declarations affirming use on the listed goods, while Spira began marketing under "SPIRA" in 2003. The court denied Spira's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether BSA knowingly made false or material misrepresentations about using the mark on shoes and whether BSA had actually manufactured and sold shoes (as opposed to slippers) under the mark.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order dismissing a Chapter 7 petition filed by debtor Lynn Meade. The U.S. Trustee moved to dismiss after determining that Meade had improperly claimed a $471 vehicle ownership/lease expense deduction on the means test despite owning her car outright with no loan or lease payments, which created a presumption of abuse under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2). The district court affirmed the dismissal after de novo review, concluding that the statute allows only "applicable" expenses under IRS National and Local Standards, which require an actual ownership payment to claim the ownership cost portion of the transportation deduction. The court rejected Meade's arguments based on statutory text, precedent, and policy, finding that IRS guidelines limit the deduction to debtors with car payments.

procedure

The case involves the United States suing Ford Motor Company to collect a civil penalty for Ford's failure to produce records related to imported automotive products from Mexico under NAFTA preferential treatment claims. Ford moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the records sought were not 'entry records' that it was required to maintain. The court denied the motion, reasoning that Ford, as the preparer of the NAFTA Certificates of Origin acting as agent for the exporter, was obligated under regulations to maintain and produce the supporting records upon Customs' demand.

business & regulatorytaxesfederal power

The case was an employment dispute in which plaintiff Edgar Hernandez sued UPS Supply Chain Solutions under promissory estoppel after accepting a written job offer, quitting his prior job in Chicago, relocating his family to El Paso, and working a few days before being told the offer would not be honored. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his claim for out-of-pocket moving expenses and denied the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff had established the elements of promissory estoppel under Texas law, including a clear promise of at-will employment, reasonable foreseeability of reliance, and actual detrimental reliance through relocation costs, while the defendant failed to negate those elements with competent evidence.

labor & employment

The case involved defendants Santiago Alvarez and Osvaldo Mitat, who were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating Luis Posada Carriles's entry into the United States and related false statements. After the court compelled their testimony with immunity, the defendants refused to testify citing Fifth Amendment protections and fear of foreign prosecution, leading to civil contempt findings and subsequent one-count indictments for criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictments on grounds including due process violations for lack of a show-cause hearing, a fear-of-foreign-prosecution defense, creation of a perjury trap, and prosecutorial misconduct. The court denied the motions, holding that criminal contempt is punitive and complete upon disobedience of a lawful order, distinct from civil contempt which allows purging, and rejecting the other asserted defenses and claims as unsupported by law or the facts of the legitimate grand jury investigation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a Mexican corporation, Bull D, seeking to quash an IRS summons issued to a U.S. bank for records related to accounts connected to a tax investigation requested by Mexican authorities under tax treaties. The court treated the government's motion as one for summary judgment and granted it, ordering enforcement of the summons. The core reasoning was that the government met its prima facie burden showing good faith in issuing the summons, while the plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding alleged procedural violations, lack of relevance, or bad faith.

taxesprocedurefederal power

This case involved a migrant worker, Jesus Chavez, who sued his employer Riceland Foods under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) after being recruited to perform general labor at a rice drying and storage facility in Arkansas. The central dispute was whether Riceland qualified as an agricultural employer subject to the AWPA and whether Chavez's duties constituted agricultural employment. The court granted Chavez's motion for summary judgment and denied Riceland's, holding that the AWPA applied. The court reasoned that Chavez's tasks, including handling, cleaning, and processing unprocessed rice prior to storage, fell within the statutory definition of agricultural employment, and that Riceland, as a cooperative association involved in these activities, was covered by the law.

labor & employment

This case is an immigration habeas corpus proceeding in which a lawful permanent resident, convicted in 1992 of controlled substance offenses, challenged a 2004 removal order based on his status as an aggravated felon and sought withholding of removal and other relief under the Convention Against Torture and related statutes. After the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the removal order, the REAL ID Act of 2005 eliminated district-court habeas jurisdiction over removal orders and channeled review exclusively to the courts of appeals via petitions filed within 30 days. The petitioner filed an untimely petition for review in the Fifth Circuit, which was dismissed, and then a habeas petition in district court; the district court initially denied a motion to dismiss but later reconsidered. The court granted the government's motion to reconsider and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the REAL ID Act applied, the Fifth Circuit had already rejected the petitioner's arguments, and the petitioner had failed to file any timely petition in any forum.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Charles Enyinnaya F. Okeezie, a lawful permanent resident convicted of controlled substances offenses, challenging his removal order after the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied his applications for relief including withholding under the Convention Against Torture. The respondent moved to dismiss arguing that the REAL ID Act eliminated district court habeas jurisdiction over removal orders and limited review to the courts of appeals, rendering the petition untimely. The court denied the motion and retained jurisdiction, reasoning that the Act's enactment occurred after the removal order became final and after the 30-day deadline for a petition for review in the Fifth Circuit had passed, making compliance impossible, and that Congress did not intend to leave the petitioner without any judicial forum to raise his legal claims as required by the Constitution.

immigrationcriminal lawfederal powerprocedure