The case involved Mayra Mendez's claims against her employer Vista Hills and related defendants for negligence arising from an on-the-job injury, along with ERISA claims, after she had signed an Occupational Injury Benefit Plan containing an arbitration provision. Defendants moved to compel arbitration of the negligence claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and to stay the ERISA claims, while Mendez opposed on grounds that the agreement was illusory, that defendants had waived arbitration by litigating, and sought sanctions. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and denied sanctions, finding a valid arbitration agreement under Texas contract law that was not rendered illusory by amendment rights applying only to the benefit plan itself, that the claims fell within its scope, and that removal to federal court did not constitute waiver since the motion was filed promptly. The decision applied the FAA's policy favoring arbitration and required staying the proceedings pending arbitration.
In Williams v. United States, the petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his federal convictions and sentences for conspiracy to attempt to possess with intent to distribute fifty kilograms or more of marijuana (count one) and attempt to possess with intent to distribute the same (count two). The court granted the motion in part, vacating the conviction and sentence on count one and the sentence on count two, while denying a certificate of appealability. The core reasoning was that count one charged a non-cognizable offense under Fifth Circuit precedent in United States v. Meacham, which held that conspiracy to attempt a substantive drug crime is not a valid charge under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, leading to re-sentencing only on the valid attempt count.
This case involved defendants Luther Jones and Gilbert Sanchez, who were indicted on five counts including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, and bribery, based on allegations that they schemed to rig a county digitization contract in exchange for benefits like a trip. The defendants moved to dismiss all counts, primarily arguing that the charges were barred by the five-year statute of limitations and that the indictment failed to sufficiently allege the offenses. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that some conspiracy counts were time-barred because the underlying acts occurred more than five years before the indictment while determining that other counts, including the bribery charges, were timely filed and adequately stated under the relevant statutes and precedents on continuing offenses and indictment sufficiency.
The case was a class action lawsuit brought by Nemesio Castro against debt collectors Collecto, Inc. and U.S. Asset Management, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Texas Finance Code for sending collection letters on cellular telephone debts that had become delinquent more than two years earlier. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The core reasoning was that, following FCC detariffing of commercial mobile radio services, the two-year limitations period in section 415 of the Federal Communications Act did not apply to the debts at issue; instead, Texas's four-year statute of limitations governed because cellular carriers set rates by contract rather than filed tariffs, rendering the collection efforts timely.
In Ruben A. v. El Paso Independent School District, the parent of a student with disabilities filed an administrative due process complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act after the school district failed to timely evaluate the child and provide a free appropriate public education. The administrative hearing officer ruled in the parent's favor, denying the district's motion to dismiss and granting relief. The parent then sought attorney's fees in federal court as the prevailing party. The district court overruled the school district's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation as modified, granted the motion for attorney's fees, and denied the motion to strike, holding that the parent qualified for fees under the IDEA as the prevailing party in the administrative proceedings.
In United States v. Ketner, a criminal prosecution involving a public corruption investigation, non-party Carl Starr filed a pro se motion seeking to intervene for the purpose of unsealing plea agreements and other documents, opening closed hearings to the public, and obtaining access to search warrant affidavits. The district court interpreted the filing as an objection to prior sealing and closure orders rather than a formal intervention motion, which is not a recognized procedural vehicle in criminal cases, and noted that third parties generally lack standing in such proceedings. The court denied Starr's request for an oral hearing, granted his motion to supplement the record with additional case citations, and denied the motion to intervene except as outlined in Part VI of the opinion. Core reasoning included the absence of a historical or constitutional right of public access to certain materials like search warrant affidavits, the need to protect ongoing investigations, and the requirement that any closure be justified by compelling interests with specific findings.
