“Equitable mootness” is a prudential doctrine that balances a litigant’s interest in appellate review against the need for finality of a bankruptcy plan.  It has three elements: (i) whether a stay has been obtained, (ii) whether the plan has been ‘substantially consummated,’ and (iii) whether the relief requested would affect either the rights of parties not before the court or the success of the plan.”  Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Moeller, Nos. 12-50718, 50805 (July 24, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit declined to apply the doctrine in this case, finding that Chase had at best shown only “speculative” harm to other parties.  Dicta in the opinion expresses skepticism that the doctrine can apply to an adversary proceeding.

A heavy, awkwardly-shaped boiler fell while being loaded onto a ship and sustained significant damage.  The issue in Pt. Jawamanis Rafinasi v. Coastal Cargo Co. was whether a limitation of liability in the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act, inapplicable by its terms to this accident on shore, was nevertheless incorporated in the parties’ contract.  No. 12-30668 (July 24, 2013, unpublished).   The Court found that the limitation applied because it was included in the shipper’s bill of lading, even though the purchaser of the boiler lacked actual knowledge of the bill’s terms.  “Case law in the Fifth Circuit demonstrates that an unissued bill of lading nevertheless binds the parties.”  (citing, inter alia, Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. American Mills Co., 24 F.2d 704, 705 (5th Cir. 1928)).

A preliminary injunction forbade the Department of Health and Human Services from “acting in accordance with the Notice of Termination . . . relative to [a nursing facility’s] Medicare and Medicaid Provider Agreement”.  After the injunction expired, HHS proceeded with termination.  Oaks of Mid City Resident Council v. Sebelius, No. 12-30860 (July 17, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit reversed a contempt finding against HHS, agreeing with the government’s position that the injunction was designed to pause the termination process but not forbid a later termination unrelated to the specified Notice.  The Court’s approach echoes that of another recent case vacating a contempt order against the federal government, Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar, No. 11-30936 (Nov. 27, 2012, revised April 9, 2013).

A technical opinion about calculation of a Clean Water Act penalty for a wastewater spill offers two points of broader interest.  United States v. Citgo Petroleum, No. 11-31117 (July 17, 2013).  First (in the context of a remand for other reasons), as to whether the defendant’s acts amounted to gross negligence rather than simple negligence, the Fifth Circuit emphasized the importance of the defendant’s long delay in taking remedial action.  “In our view, though, almost winning a highly risky gamble with the environment does not much affect the egregiousness of having been gambling in the first place.”  Second, in reviewing a challenge to the amount of wastewater at issue under the “clear error” standard, the Court reminded: “The government’s argument on this issue is essentially that the court credited the wrong expert.  ‘Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.'”

In United States v. Transocean Deepwater Drilling, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the standards for a stay pending appeal.  No.13-20243 (July 23, 2013, unpublished).  The case involved an administrative subpoena related to the Macondo accident.  The Court first analyzed the interplay between the typical four-factor test (likely success on the merits, irreparable injury, injury to the nonmovant, and the public interest) and a variant from Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981), which required “a substantial case on the merits when a serious legal issue is involved,” noting that the Ruiz analysis applies only if the other three factors are “heavily tilted in the movant’s favor.”  Here, the Court found a failure to satisfy both tests: (1) it assumed that the movant had a “substantial case,” in large part because the district court expressly said so in denying it relief; but (2) found no irreparable injury from providing the requested documents; and (3) found a public interest in proceeding with their production, as there had already been a lengthy delay.

In Escamilla v. M2 Technology, the individual owner of a business sued to enforce the “M2” trademark owned by his business.  No. 12-41183 (July 16, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim for failure to join a necessary party, as the individual did not join his company as a party plaintiff, thus exposing the defendant to potential repetitive future litigation.  (This decision appears to have been rooted in avoiding the cost of having counsel appear for the company.)  The Court rejected the individual’s argument that a future suit would be barred by claim preclusion, noting the clear separation in Delaware corporate law between a business entity and its shareholders.

An insurance company complained that its counsel allowed entry of a consent judgment in a Louisiana case that wrongly imposed $400,000 in liability on it that another insurer should have covered. The company, based in South Carolina, sued for legal malpractice in Texas, the location of the third-party administrator who had overseen the counsel. Companion Property & Casualty v. Palermo, No. 12-11255 (July 17, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit found that the firm’s relationship with the TPA was not enough to establish general jurisdiction, and also found no basis for personal jurisdiction in Texas over the Louisiana-based firm.  The counsel was in Louisiana, the alleged malpractice occurred in Louisiana, and the insured was in South Carolina: “Although [the firm’s] contacts with [the TPA] are factually related – and perhaps integral – to the substance of [Plaintiff’s] claim, the alleged malpractice does not arise from a breach of some duty owed to [the TPA].”

The plaintiff in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC was terminated after making an internal report of a potential securities law violation.  No. 12-20522 (July 17, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Rule 12 dismissal of his whistleblower claim based on Dodd-Frank: “Based on our examination of the plain language and structure of the whistleblower-protection provision, we conclude that the whistleblower protection provision unambiguously requires individuals to provide information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the SEC to qualify for protection . . . . (emphasis in original)”  The Court acknowledged a more expansive SEC regulation on the point, but found it was not entitled to Chevron deference given the clarity of the statute.

Deep Marine Technology provided construction support vessels to BHP, an offshore drilling company.  A BHP contractor sued for injuries arising from an “offshore personnel basket transfer” between a Deep Marine vessel and a BHP platform.  There was no dispute that the parties’ Master Services Agreement required BHP to defend and indemnify Deep Marine from this claim.  The issue in Duval v. Northern Assurance Co. was whether BHP had to defend and indemnify Deep Marine’s insurers, who were joined to the litigation under Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute.  No. 12-31102 (July 5, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit noted that indemnity provisions are strictly construed and that: “The parties could have included the Contractor’s insurers within the definition of ‘Contractor Group,’ as parties in other cases have done . . . . ” (citation omitted).  Based on that conclusion, the Court rejected several theories about how the insurers could benefit from the indemnity provision, and affirmed summary judgment against them.

The plaintiff in Butler v. Taser International sought to amend a negligence suit to add a new fraud claim, after the deadline for motions to amend pleadings.  No. 12-11026 (July 10, 2013, unpublished).  In affirming the denial of leave to amend, the Fifth Circuit noted: “In his first amended complaint, Officer Butler pled a litany of facts that could have supported claims for fraudulent inducement and failure to warn. He alleged that TI had made false representations, and that TI’s warnings regarding the dangers of a Taser shock were inadequate.”  In other words, a point that weighs against a finding of prejudice — that the matters raised by the new pleading were already in issue — also weighed against a finding of good cause and justified denial of leave, especially after the deadline.

The issue in FDIC v. SLE, Inc. was whether a party could assert rights under a prior judgment in favor of the FDIC, where evidence established that it was the FDIC’s successor-in-interest and assignee, but the party did not substitute in as plaintiff in the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25.  No. 12-30539 (July 2, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b)(4) relief, noting that the plain language of Rule 25(c) and (a)(3) is permissive, not mandatory, and distinguishing two cases on the issue.

The borrower in Martin-Janson v. JP Morgan Chase alleged waiver and promissory estoppel claims arising from a foreclosure — claims which the Fifth Circuit has not encouraged in 2013 opinions.  Here, however, after reviewing the plaintiff’s five allegations about the specific statements made, the Court reasoned: “Based on the foregoing factual allegations, Martin-Janson asserts that she seeks discovery to reveal either the draft loan modification agreement that JPMorgan allegedly prepared, or the terms of her promised modification based on the lender’s standard formulae. In these ways, Martin-Janson argues, she would be able to prove that JPMorgan ‘promise[d] to sign a written agreement which itself complies with the statute of frauds,’  Viewing Martin-Janson’s factual allegations, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to her, we conclude that she has pled a plausible promissory estoppel claim that potentially avoids JPMorgan’s statute of frauds defense.”  (citations omitted).  Accordingly, the Court reversed a Rule 12 dismisal of the promissory estoppel claim, while affirming as to waiver. No. 12-50380 (July 15, 2013, unpublished). 

The Fifth Circuit released a revised opinion on July 12, 2013 in Boudreaux v. Transocean Deepwater, No. 12-30041.  The holding is the same as its original opinion from March 2013, finding that a Jones Act employer who establishes a defense to ongoing “maintenance and cure” liability because of a seaman’s dishonesty does not have a restitution claim for benefits already paid.  In the new opinion, the dissenting judge now separately concurs, while the majority revises its historic analysis somewhat and notes the effect of the parties’ “bracketed settlement” on the way the issue was presented to the Court.

The contract between Anadarko (oil producer) and Williams Alaska (refinery operator) had monthly invoicing, which they customarily “trued up” the following month to reflect the findings of an independent third party about the quality of oil transported.  After their contract terminated, FERC discovered an error in how the quality of oil was determined. The issue in Anadarko Petroleum v. Williams Alaska Petroleum was whether the compensation for that error — an almost $9 million credit to Williams Alaska by the third party — was in turn owing to Anadarko.  No. 12-20716 (July 10, 2013).  In addition to other holdings unique to the parties’ contract, the Fifth Circuit reminded that under the Texas UCC: “Although the terms of a written agreement may not be contradicted by contemporaneous or antecedent evidence, terms may be explained by course of dealing or course of performance.”  Here, the parties “consistently made [true-up] adjustments,” supporting a reading that favored Anadarko, and the Court reversed and rendered judgment for Anadarko for the $9 million credit amount.

2013 has seen a steady stream of unpublished opinions favoring mortgage servicers, followed by a published opinion affirming a MERS assignment, and now a second published opinion rejecting arguments about the alleged “robosigning” of assignment documents.  In Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank, a suit arising out of foreclosure on a Texas home equity loan, the Fifth Circuit held: (1) borrowers could challenge the validity of assignments to the servicer, since they were not asserting affirmative rights under those instruments; (2) alleged technical defects in the signature on the relevant assignment created rights only for the servicer and lender, not the borrower; (3) the assignment did not have to be recorded, mooting challenges to defects in the acknowledgement; and (4) a violation of the relevant PSA related to the transfer of the note did not create rights for the borrower.  The opinion concluded with two important caveats: it was not deciding whether the Texas Supreme Court would adopt the “note-follows-the-mortgage” concept, and it reminded: “We do not condone ‘robo-signing’ more broadly and remind that bank employees or contractors who commit forgery or prepare false affidavits subject themselves and their supervisors to civil and criminal liability.”  735 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2013).

Among several other holdings in Clayton v. ConocoPhillips Co., the Fifth Circuit agreed that state law claims about benefits due under a severance plan were preempted by ERISA, when “an ongoing administrative program” is necessary because of discretion in the plan about eligibility, and when the plan is not fairly characterized as “a one-time, lump-sum payment triggered by a single event.” No. 12-20102 (July 3, 2013).

“The court subordinated the equities of a particular situation to the overmastering need for certainty in the transactions of commercial life.”  Benjamin Cardozo, The Growth of the Law 111 (1924).  In Medco Energi US, LLC v. Sea Robin Pipeline Co., the plaintiff — a natural gas producer — argued that the defendant pipeline company had misrepresented how long it would take to make repairs after Hurricane Ike.  No. 12-30791 (July 2, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit found this claim preempted by federal law under the “filed rate” doctrine, under which a rate filed with FERC is conclusive “[e]ven if a rate is misrepresented to a customer and the customer relies on that rate . . . .”  (citing AT&T v. Central Office Telephone, 524 U.S. 214 (1988).  Otherwise, “[b]ecause [plaintiff] only paid for interruptible service subject to these provisions, allowing recovery for damages incurred when it could not use [defendant’s] pipeline would conflict with the interruptible rate and the provisions of the [filed] tariff.”

In Nevada Partners Fund LLC v. United States, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of several IRS rulings about investment arrangements.  No. 10-60559 (June 24, 2013).  The thorough opinion details a “straddle trade” investment, which in theory can generate profit, but here “as designed and carried out, [the trades] simply could not produce a profit; they were calculated and managed to produce offsetting gains and losses.”  Various penalties based on the partnerships’ negligence and lack of care were also affirmed.

Bain Cotton Co. v. Chesnutt Cotton Co. involved a challenge to an arbitration award based on the arbitrators’ denial of discovery.  No. 12-1138 (June 24, 2013, unpublished).  In affirming the district court’s rejection of the challenge, the Fifth Circuit stated: “This appeal presents a quintessential example of a principal distinction between arbitration and litigation, especially in the scope of review. Had this discovery dispute arisen in and been ruled on by the district court, it is not unlikely that the denial of Bain’s pleas would have led to reversal; however, under the ‘strong federal policy favoring arbitration, judicial review of an arbitration award is extremely narrow.’”

The Fifth Circuit took the atypical step of writing a short opinion about why it granted a petition for review of a remand order under CAFA in Opelousas General Trust Authority v. Multiplan, Inc., No. 13-90027 (June 28, 2013).  CAFA jurisdiction has a “local controversy” exception, an element of which is that the putative class seeks “significant relief” from an in-state defendant.  In that context, the Court said: “We have yet to fully explore the meaning of ‘significant relief” in this context. Defendants argue that we should grant them leave to appeal so that we may determine ‘whether a defendant which is not a going concern and which will not satisfy any judgment against it can be a defendant from whom “significant relief is sought” . . . .’ We GRANT their petition so that we may consider the question.”

In Cutler v. Stephen F. Austin State University, the defendant sought interlocutory review of an order requiring it to appear for a deposition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).  No. 12-41393.  The Fifth Circuit found the appeal moot because the depositions had already taken place.  The defendant argued that the appeal was not moot because the depositions may be used at an upcoming trial.  The Court responded: “This court does not have jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions regarding decisions of the district court that have not been made at a trial that has not been held.”

James v. State Farm involved the appeal of summary judgment for the insurer in a bad faith case brought under Mississippi law, in which State Farm “tendered the policy limit on its uninsured motor vehicle coverage to [Appellant] nearly thirty months after [she] was injured in a car accident.”  No. 11-60458 (June 21, 2013).  The majority opinion reversed in part, working through the delay and finding that State Farm lacked a justification for delay during certain portions of the thirty-month period.  The dissent took a different approach, stating: “The district court’s more holistic approach of evaluating whether State Farm’s actions throughout the course of its investigation rose to the level of an independent tort is more in line with precedent.”

In Temple v. McCall, the Fifth Circuit confronted a series of property conveyances with ambiguous language about whether mineral rights were included.  No. 12-30661 (June 20, 2013).  The Court affirmed, approving the weight given by the district court to expert testimony about “customary interpretation” of similar deed language in Louisiana.  The Court discussed the proper weight that Erie gives to an intermediate state appellate opinion, but ultimately found the relevant Louisiana case distinguishable on its facts.  (The proper role of extrinsic evidence in contract cases is a recurring issue in the Court’s diversity cases, although the express finding of ambiguity in this dispute simplifed the analysis on that point.)