Wiggins v. Poyner Spruill ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-20619     Document: 00516541690         Page: 1     Date Filed: 11/10/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 21-20619                    FILED
    Summary Calendar           November 10, 2022
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Curtis Wiggins,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Poyner Spruill L.L.P.,
    Defendant—Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:20-cv-4048
    Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Plaintiff Curtis Wiggins appeals the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment in favor of Defendant Poyner Spruill L.L.P. In its 35-word order,
    the district court provided no justification as to why it granted Defendant’s
    motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) requires district courts to
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 21-20619       Document: 00516541690             Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/10/2022
    No. 21-20619
    “state on the record the reasons for granting or denying [a] motion [for
    summary judgment].” Thus, we “require[] that a district court explain its
    reasons for granting a motion for summary judgment in sufficient detail for
    us to determine whether the court correctly applied the appropriate legal
    test.” Wildbur v. ARCO Chem. Co., 
    974 F.2d 631
    , 644 (5th Cir. 1992). This
    is because we have “little opportunity for effective review” when the district
    court opinion leaves some reasoning “vague” or “unsaid.” Myers v. Gulf Oil
    Corp., 
    731 F.2d 281
    , 284 (5th Cir. 1984). “In such cases, we have not
    hesitated to remand [a] case . . . .” 
    Id.
     Consequently, we remand the district
    court order to consider the cross-motions for summary judgment anew.1
    *        *         *
    We VACATE and REMAND for further consideration consistent
    with this opinion.
    1
    Judge Gilmore retired from judicial service after issuing her order granting
    summary judgment. The case has been reassigned to Judge Bennett.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-20619

Filed Date: 11/10/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/11/2022