The plaintiff in McKay v. Novartis, Inc. challenged the dismissal on preemption grounds, by an MDL court in Tennessee, of products liability claims about drugs made by Novartis. No. 13-50404 (May 27, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit rejected an argument about inadequate time to get certain medical records, noting that the plaintiffs “sought formal discovery of evidence that was available to them through informal means” (citing other cases from the Court on that general topic), and also observing that two years passed from the filing of suit until Novartis sought summary judgment.  The Court also affirmed the MDL court’s grant of summary judgment on Texas state law grounds about a breach of warranty claim, finding inadequate notice; as an Erie matter: “the majority of Texas intermediate courts have held that a buyer must notify both the intermediate seller and the manufacturer.”

Burnett Ranches, Inc. operates the sprawling Four Sixes and Dixon Creek ranches in the Texas Panhandle; its history runs to Captain Samuel “Burk” Burnett’s land dealings in the 19th Century with Comanche chief Quanah Parker.  The IRS contended that its current owner (Captain Burnett’s great-granddaughter) was subject to accrual rather than cash accounting pursuant to a law against “farm syndicate” tax shelters.  Burnett Ranches v. United States, No. 13-10403 (May 22, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the ranch as to an exception to that law for active farm operators: “To accept the government’s overly expansive reading of § 464 by crediting its overly narrow reading of the Active Participation Exception would be to sanction ‘administrative legislation’ by an Article II executive agency.  This we decline to do, agreeing instead with the district court that the government’s efforts fail, grounded as they are in nothing more than the fact that legal title to Ms. Marion’s interest in Burnett Ranches stands in the name of her S corp.” Of general interest, the Court concluded that “interest” has a broad, nontechnical meaning so long as it does not have a “narrowing modifier.”

A barge accident caused a large oil spill in the Mississippi River.  In the first lawsuit about the incident, the district court placed liability solely on the tugboat operator, noting the (valid and enforceable) charter agreement between it and the barge owner.  In a later case, the barge owner contended that the agreements were void ab initio because the tugboat operator entered without intent to perform.  Gabarick v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., No. 13-30739 (May 21, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit agreed that the new position was barred by judicial estoppel. Key to its analysis was that while the barge owner’s positions were in the alternative in the first action, which would not create estoppel: “Once a court has accepted and relied upon one of a party’s several alternative positions, any argument inconsistent with that position may be subject to judicial estoppel in subsequent proceedings.”  The Court also concluded that the district court’s decision to stay the second case so the first could proceed did not compel an argument choice in that case that would make the application of judicial estoppel inequitable.

The Twombly line of cases emphasizes the importance of detail in pleading.  In the insurance context, however, too much detail can defeat coverage.  In State Farm v. Moseley, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment for an automobile insurer as to the duty to indemnify, concluding that a “volunteer driver” for a healthcare provider fell within the policy’s “for a charge” exclusion.  The driver received compensation that, while focused on reimbursement for expenses, could yield profit depending on the route taken and the number of passengers.  As to the duty to defend, however, the Court reversed, finding that the following pleading did not unambiguously trigger the exclusion, as it did not allege that “(1) [Plaintiff] gave [Defendant] any payment for transporting her; (2) [Defendant] was operating a taxi service; or (3) the specific amount of compensation [Defendant] received for transporting [Plaintiff]”:

“11.  Upon information and belief, Defendant Elizabeth W. Mosley, owned, operated, and controlled, or in the alternative, was doing business as Mosley’s Transportation. Upon information and belief, the Defendant, Elizabeth W. [Mosley], owned, operated, and controlled, or in the alter- native, was doing business as LogistiCare of MS. Further, upon infor- mation and belief, the Defendant, Elizabeth W. Mosley . . . is in the business of transporting patients to and from their medical treatment facilities.

12. The Defendant, LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, in the regular course of business, operates and maintains a non-emergency medical transportation services business . . . .

13. That on or about March 19, 2010, the Deceased, Pearlie Graham, was being transported by the Defendant, Elizabeth W. Mosley, and riding as a guest passenger in a vehicle being driven and operated by the Defendant, Elizabeth W. Mosley, Individually and d/b/a Mosley’s Transportation and/or d/b/a LogistiCare of MS, or in the alternative, [] was acting in furtherance of and within the course and scope of her employment with Defendant, LogistiCare Solutions, LLC . . . . “

Celebrate Memorial Day this year with a refreshing Ramos Gin Fizz, one of the classic and unique New Orleans cocktails.

“Picking up where we left off in Germano v. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd., 742 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2014),” the Fifth Circuit affirmed personal jurisdiction in three other suits involving default judgments arising from the “Chinese Drywall” MDL litigation.  In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., No. 12-31213 (May 20, 2014).  Again, the Court found jurisdiction for the same basic reasons related to the “stream of commerce.” Applying Florida and also Louisiana law, this opinion also features a detailed discussion of when an agency relationship can give rise to jurisdiction, applying the recent Supreme Court case of Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014).

The Fifth Circuit has now resolved the challenges to BP’s Deepwater Horizon settlement, as follows:

1.  In October 2013, in three separate opinions, First Panel remanded for more fact findings as to accounting issues about the settlement.

2.  In January 2014, in a 2-1 decision, Second Panel affirmed the settlement over challenges based on Rule 23 and related standing issues.

3.  In March 2014, satisfied with the results of the remand, First Panel affirmed the mechanics of the settlement in a 2-1 decision.

4.  On May 19, 2014:

A.    First Panel denies panel rehearing, concluding in a 2-1 opinion: “In settling this lawsuit, the parties agreed on a substitute for direct proof of causation by a preponderance of the evidence.  By settling this lawsuit and agreeing to the evidentiary framework for submitting claims, the claimants did not abandon their allegations of Article III causation.”

B.  Second Panel also denies panel rehearing, also in a 2-1 opinion, noting its “complete agreement” with the denial of panel rehearing by First Panel.

C.  The full court denied en banc rehearing as to First Panel and also as to Second Panel, both over dissents that stressed Article III issues.

That’s all folks!

Eckhardt v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals reviewed tort claims under Texas law against generic drug manufacturers.  No. 13-40151 (May 15, 2014).   The Fifth Circuit found that labeling claims were preempted under PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011), and products liability claims were preempted under Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S.Ct. 2466 (2013).  Misrepresentation claims against brand-name drug manufacturers were rejected under state law for lack of a duty from them to generic-drug users. Law360 provides some further discussion.

The full Senate confirmed Judge Gregg Costa’s appointment to the Fifth Circuit yesterday. While great news for the Court and bar, it bears mention that the seat was open for 837 days, and two vacancies still remain on the Fifth Circuit.  Just as it is difficult to balance the sound of an orchestra missing musicians, it is hard to balance the powers of a government missing key officials.

In Songcharoen v. Plastic & Hand Surgery Associates, the district court denied cross-motions for summary judgment about the meaning of a contract and had a trial as to the terms it believed to be ambiguous.  No. 13-60315 (April 2, 2014, unpublished).  Even though both matters present a common issue of law, because “the ‘evidence’ presented at pretrial may well be different from the evidence presented at trial,” the Court reviewed the issue through review of the denial for judgment as a matter of law.  The Court reminded: “because Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law are not required following a bench trial, reviewing a district court’s denial of summary judgment is appropriate following a bench trial.”  (citing Black v. J.I. Case Co., 22 F.3d 568, 570 (5th Cir. 1994), and Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 586 F.3d 358, 365-66 n.4 (5th Cir. 2009)).

The defendant in Advanced Nano Coatings, Inc. v. Hanafin “entered into an employment agreement with [plaintiff] in which [defendant] agreed to devote 100% of his professional time and effort to [plaintiff] or its subsidiary . . . .”  No. 13-20109 (Feb. 19, 2014, unpublished).  “The district court . . . found that Hanafin breached his fiduciary obligations . . . a finding Hanafin does not dispute on appeal.”  Quoting ERI Consulting Engineers v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 872 (Tex. 2010), the Fifth Circuit noted that under Texas law, “if the fiduciary . . . acquires any interest adverse to his principal, without a full disclosure, it is a betrayal of his trust and a breach of confidence, and he must account to his principal for all he has received.” The Court then held: “Accordingly, [defendant’s] breach of fiduciary duties obligates him to repay everything he gained by virtue of his position, including payments for his salary and any expenses he may have incurred.”

Chesapeake sued two defendants to recover a large overpayment.  Harleton Oil & Gas intervened to claim a share of that payment.  Chesapeake Louisiana L.P. v. Buffco Prod., Inc., No. 13-40458 (May 7, 2014, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit ruled: (1) Harleton should have been aligned as a plaintiff rather than a defendant, since it “intervened to seek affirmative relief, not to protect its interests . . . .”; (2) that change destroyed diversity and mooted a summary judgment granted by the district court; (3) the case should then be remanded for the district court to consider whether Harleton is indispensable and its joinder requires dismissal of the entire action; but (4) the district court had jurisdiction over the defendants’ counterclaims against Chesapeake, which involved different wells than the one relevant to Harleton.  “When an independent basis for jurisdiction exists with respect to a counterclaim, a federal court may adjudicate the claim even if the original claim was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”

The short opinion in Navigators Ins. Co. v. Moncla Marine Operations LLC rejected the appeal of a decision to continue a stay of court proceedings, involving the proceeds from the sale of a barge, in favor of arbitration.  No. 13-30975 (May 8, 2014, unpublished).  The Court reminded: (1) a stay is not an appealable final order (citing Apache Bohai Corp. v. Texaco China, B.V., 330 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2003)); (2) absent a clear identification of an “important issue . . . completely separate from the merits,” the collateral order doctrine does not allow appeal either; and (3) neither does mandamus, distinguishing a D.C. Circuit case involving a court’s statutory authority over enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.  In a footnote, the Court noted a citation by the movant to In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013), and made the understated observation: “The factors that must be demonstrated to obtain mandamus relief in a venue transfer case are not the same as the factors in an arbitration case.”

In the earlier case of Levy Gardens Partners v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., the Fifth Circuit concluded that a pleading about the extent of coverage was “fundamental to the complaint” and “did not raise a new matter outside of the complaint”; accordingly, it did not implicate the rules about the pleading of affirmative defenses.  706 F.3d 622, 633 (5th Cir. 2013).  In contrast, in LSRef2 Baron LLC v. Tauch, the Court held that a guarantor’s defense of payment by the primary obligor was an affirmative defense.  After a review of Louisiana law on the topics of offset and setoff, which characterizes those matters as defenses, the Court concluded that “[Plaintiff] simply had to allege in its complaint that there was an event of default, which is defined in the Loan Agreement, not in the Guaranty.”  The Court also agreed that the issue had not been raised in a “pragmatically sufficient time,” as “all of the critical pretrial deadlines had passed or were about to expire.”

Colbert v. Brennan arises from the difficult litigation involving the Brennan family, the noted New Orleans restaurateurs.  No. 13-30069 (May 9, 2014, unpublished).  Ted Brennan filed an unopposed motion to dismiss an appeal, pursuant to a settlement agreement [the finality of the agreement is not clear from the opinion].  (Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), “an appeal may be dismissed on an appellant’s unopposed motion if the parties agree about costs.”)  Two months later, he sought to reinstate the appeal.  Citing Williams v. United States, 553 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1977), the Fifth Circuit held that the voluntary dismissal “voided” the notice of appeal, noting that “[h]e failed to file a new notice of appeal within the time limits required by Ruel 4(a) or to seek relief in the district court as provided by Rule 4(a).”  Citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), the Court declined to apply any “equitable exception” to the rule that a notice of appeal is jurisdictional.  The Court also held it was not bound, on this jurisdictional question, by a previous single-judge ruling that reinstated the appeal.

In United States ex rel Spicer v. Navistar Defense, LLC, the Fifth Circuit found that bankruptcy debtors failed to make adequate disclosure of a potential False Claims Act claim as an estate asset.  No. 12-10858 (May 5, 2014).  Accordingly, the trustee was the real party in interest and was able to take over the administration of the claim, even though he did not learn of it until after the bankruptcy closed and long after suit was filed on the claim.  The review of the debtors’ disclosure is of broad general interest.  As to the merits, the Court affirmed dismissal, reminding that “a false certification of compliance, without more, does not give rise to a false claim for payment unless payment is conditioned on compliance.”

Legal advice or business discussion?  This question is the key issue in most privilege disputes about in-house counsel.  The Fifth Circuit addressed that question and offers practical guidance for in-house counsel in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Hill, No. 13-30830 (May 6, 2014).

ExxonMobil intervened in tort litigation to contend that the attorney-client privilege protected a short 1988 memo by an in-house lawyer. The lawyer created the memo during negotiations between Exxon Mobil and ITCO, a company that would store oil production equipment for it.  The memo recommended that Exxon Mobil, in response to an information request by ITCO, make a limited disclosure from a report it had about radioactivity associated with the equipment. As the Fifth Circuit summarized: “Stein [the lawyer] suggested that Guidry [the client] disclose only Table IV [of the report], because it contained the only data that ITCO specifically had requested, and that Guidry remove the caption ‘Table IV’ so as not to flag the existence of other tables.”   (The memo identifies the sender as “Counsel,” but does not otherwise say that the contents are privileged.)

Plaintiffs contended that the effect of this advice was to conceal information about dangerous levels of radiation.  The district court opinion [page 61 of the attached] rejected ExxonMobil’s position about privilege, reasoning that it had not shown that the “primary or predominant” purpose for consultation with the lawyer was for legal advice, “particularly in light of the fact that the [memo] itself does not contain any reference to a legal justification for Stein’s advice, or legal concerns prompting Guidry to seek such advice. . . . [I]t appears from the face of the document that the primary purpose of Stein’s advice to Guidry was to help secure more favorable contract terms . . . .”

The Fifth Circuit reversed.  Stating that its conclusion would be the same under de novo or clear error review, the Court held: “The manifest purpose of the draft [attached to the memo] was to deal with what would be the obvious reason Exxon Mobil would seek its lawyer’s advice in the first place, namely to deal with any legal liability that may stem from under-disclosure of data, hedged against any liability that may occur from any implied warranties during complex negotiations.”

This opinion offers practical guidance for maintaining privilege as to in-house counsel. First, the memo is focused.  Written in 1988, before long email chains became common, it presents a short exchange on a specific topic.  Second, it has a specific audience — it is written to a specific person rather than a large group — or a “reply all.”  Finally, it is clear. The memo refers directly to legal concepts such as warranty liability and property interests.  The memo’s focus, audience, and clarity appear to have been critical for the Court’s analysis and the preservation of Exxon Mobil’s privilege with its in-house counsel.

The plaintiff in Marucci Sports LLC v. NCAA alleged that the “Bat-Ball Coefficient of Restitution Standard” — a testing protocol “to ensure that aluminum and composite bats perform like wood bats” — was in fact an anticompetitive device calculated to protect the NCAA’s relationship with large bat manufacturers.  No. 13-30568 (May 6, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding: (1) inadequate pleading of a conspiracy under Twombly; (2) inadequate pleading of an injury to “competition among non-wood baseball bat manufacturers” as opposed to its own; and (3) that the standard could fairly be called a procompetitive “rule and condition” of athletic competition.  Denial of leave to amend was also affirmed.

Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. presents an interesting, if unlikely to recur, issue about the tolling of limitations during appellate review of class certification.  No. 13-10037 (April 1, 2014).  The question was whether one of the plaintiffs in the original Wal-Mart v. Dukes class action was barred by limitations, when the Ninth Circuit’s en banc ruling had remanded the “former employee” claims (which included hers) for further consideration under a different part of Rule 23 that what the district court used.   The Fifth Circuit concluded that, under the considerations detailed by American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) and later Circuit cases applying it, the claim was not time-barred: “To rule otherwise would frustrate American Pipe‘s careful balancing of the competing goals of class action litigation on the one hand and statutes of limitation on the other, by requiring former class members to file duplicative, needless individual lawsuits before the court could resolve the class certification issue definitively.”

A restaurant showed the pay-per-view broadcast of a boxing championship without the approval of the holder of the licensing rights.  J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Mandell Family Ventures, LLC, No. 13-10485 (May 2, 2014).  The licensor sued the restaurant under the Federal Communication Act, and the district court granted summary judgment to the licensor for $350 in statutory damages and $26,730.30 in attorneys fees.  The Fifth Circuit reversed, reviewing two issues.  First, as to the licensor’s claim under section 553 of the Act, the Court found a fact issue as to whether the restaurant had been “specifically authorized . . . by a cable operator” to make the showing, which would bring the restaurant within a statutory safe harbor.  The Court reviewed affidavit testimony of the cable company that at least showed “the Defendants did not steal, intercept, or obtain the broadcast under false pretenses.”  Second, the Court rejected a claim based on section 605 of the Act, finding it limited to radio communications only (thereby siding with the Third Circuit in a split with the Seventh about the applicability of that section to cable television).

The Fifth Circuit released a slightly revised opinion in Excel Willowbrook LLC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 12-20367 (revised April 24, 2014), a dispute about the FDIC’s rights upon assigning the assets of a failed bank.  Of particular interest is the new footnote 34, which observes: “[T]he continued vitality of prudential ‘standing’ is now uncertain in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014).  See id. at 1388 (‘[A] court . . . cannot limit a cause of action . . . merely because “prudence” dictates.’).”

At issue in Asarco v. Baker Botts. L.L.P. was a fee enhancement associated with an exceptional recovery in fraudulent transfer litigation for a bankruptcy estate.  No. 12-40997 (April 30, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit credited the bankruptcy court’s detailed findings about the quality of the law firms’ work and the “rare and extraordinary” result.  In so doing, the Court reminded that “[b]ecause this court, like the Supreme Court, has not held that reasonable attorneys’ fees in federal court have been ‘nationalized,’ the bankruptcy court’s charts comparing general hourly rates of out-of-state firms and rates charged in cases pending in other circuits are not relevant.”  The Court rejected the firms’ request for compensation from the estate for defending their fee applications, reasoning that the Code had sufficient protections against vexatious litigation, and declining to further expand the American Rule about defendants’ fees.

1.  The Fifth Circuit vacated its panel opinion in Sawyer v. duPont to certify two questions to the Texas Supreme Court — paraphrased slightly, they were (1) whether an at-will employee can sue for fraud for loss of employment, and (2) whether a 60-day “cancellation-upon-notice” collective bargaining agreement would change a “no” answer to (1).  The Texas Supreme Court has now answered those questions: “no” as to the basic question about a fraud claim arising from at-will employment, and “in the situation presented, no” to the second question about the effect of the CBA.  “The Employees argue that it would contravene public policy to allow an employer to benefit from its duplicity, but public policy is not better served by allowing contracting parties to circumvent their agreement.”  No. 12-0626 (Tex. April 25, 2014).  (The Fifth Circuit formally adopted that reasoning and affirmed on June 11, 2014).

2.  Similarly, the Court vacated its panel opinion in Ewing Construction v. Amerisure Insurance Corp. to certify the question whether a CGL policy’s “Contractual Liability Exclusion” would reach a contract in which a contractor commits to work in a “good and workmanlike manner.”  The Texas Supreme Court answered “no”: “[A] general contractor who agrees to perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner, without more, does not enlarge its duty to exercise ordinary care in fulfilling its contract, thus it does not ‘assume liability’ for damages arising out its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion.”  No. 12-0661 (Tex. Jan. 17, 2014).  The opinion has been called a “significant reassurance” to policyholders in the construction business.