Anderwald v. Gonzales Cty Shrf's

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 14, 2001
• Docket: 01-50187
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________

No. 01-50187 Civil Docket #SA-00-CV-509

_______________________

VINCE ANDERWALD, doing business as Rockin A Wrecker Svc.; PHYLLIS ANDERWALD, doing business as Rockin A Wrecker Svc.; CARLOS CHAVARRIA, doing business as Chavarria Towing & Repair,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

GONZALES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ET AL.;

Defendants,

GONZALES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; GLEN A. SACHTLEBEN, Sheriff, Gonzales County,

Defendants-Appellants. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (SA-00-CV-509) _________________________________________________________________ November 9, 2001

Before JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges and FELDMAN, District Judge:*

PER CURIAM:**

* District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisisna, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. The court has carefully considered this appeal in light

of the briefs, oral arguments and pertinent portions of the record.

Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or law in the

district court’s order denying immunity. The statutes cited by

Gonzales County are equivalent to the “naked grants of authority”

and “enabling statutes by which myriad instruments of local

government across the country gain basic corporate powers”, that

were at issue in Surgical Care Center of Hammond, L.C. v. Hospital

Service District No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish, 171 F.3d 231, 236 (5th

Cir. 1999) (en banc). As such, we find the analysis of Surgical

Care binding and are unable to conclude that the county is shielded

from antitrust immunity by virtue of its statutory authority to

contract with wrecker services.

The appeal is DISMISSED, and the case is REMANDED for

further proceedings.