Lilia Solis-de Patino, a Mexican citizen, filed an emergency habeas petition in district court to block her removal and challenge the government's plan to reinstate a 2000 expedited removal order, claiming her initial detention was unlawful, the reinstatement process violated due process, and the original order was invalid for lacking a supervisor's signature. The government moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the REAL ID Act divests district courts of habeas jurisdiction over challenges to removal orders, channeling such review exclusively to the courts of appeals, and that the limited exceptions for expedited removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) did not apply; some claims were also moot after her release from custody, and transfer was unavailable due to the petition's untimeliness.
The case involved parents of infants whose blood samples were collected under Texas's mandatory newborn screening program for genetic disorders; the plaintiffs alleged that the Texas Department of Health Services retained and potentially used or distributed the samples for research without parental consent or disclosure, raising constitutional and statutory claims. After the Beleno litigation prompted legislative amendments in 2009 allowing parents to opt out of retention and request destruction of samples, and following settlement and destruction of the relevant specimens, the defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion in part under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that the named plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show concrete injury from any distribution and that their claims were moot due to the samples having been destroyed, with class claims also dismissed as a result. The 12(b)(6) motion was dismissed as moot, leading to dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
This case concerns a Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee's appeal from the confirmation of debtors' repayment plan, which proposed retaining a $600,000 home with monthly mortgage payments over four times the IRS standard for the area while paying only a 1% dividend to unsecured creditors, including a large IRS claim for unpaid taxes. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's confirmation order. The court applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) and found the plan was not proposed in good faith, noting the absence of any justification for the high housing costs relative to the minimal payments to creditors and the debtors' prior tax noncompliance.
Plaintiffs Ted and Jerelene Lee sued the City of San Antonio, councilmember Diane Cibrian, neighbors, and neighborhood associations after the City denied their application to rezone five lots from R-20 to R-6. The complaint alleged that political influence, campaign contributions, and coordinated opposition by defendants violated the plaintiffs' substantive due process rights by arbitrarily blocking the rezoning. The court dismissed all federal claims, finding that zoning decisions are legislative acts reviewed under a rational-basis standard, that the complaint did not plausibly allege an arbitrary or irrational denial, that certain defendants enjoyed legislative immunity, and that related state-law and conspiracy claims also failed. All pending motions were resolved and the case was closed.
The case concerned Penn-America Insurance Company's suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a commercial property and liability policy issued to Marcos Zertuche had been cancelled effective October 20, 2008, for nonpayment of premiums, relieving it of any duty to cover losses from a January 2009 fire at the insured apartment building; Zertuche responded with counterclaims against Penn-America and third-party claims against agents Stoltz & Company and Texas All Risk General Agency alleging breach of contract, negligence, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising from communications about cancellation and possible reinstatement. The court granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment motions filed by Penn-America, Stoltz, and TAR. The rulings turned on the validity of the cancellation notice, whether a reinstatement offer was accepted or any misrepresentations occurred, the presence of an insurable interest, and whether the evidence showed actionable conduct or causation by the agents.
The case concerns a mobility-impaired plaintiff who uses a wheelchair and sued Macy’s West Stores under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging architectural barriers at a store in San Antonio and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel compliance. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), contending the plaintiff lacked standing because she had not shown a realistic likelihood of returning and that the complaint contained insufficient factual detail. The court denied the motion, ruling that the plaintiff established standing through allegations of past visits, plans to return as both a customer and ADA tester, and ongoing injury from unremoved barriers, while distinguishing precedents that required a higher showing of future harm. The court further found the amended complaint adequate to survive dismissal despite its generalized descriptions of violations in areas such as parking, entrances, counters, and restrooms.
