The bankruptcy debtor in McClendon v. Springfield had lost a defamation judgment for $341,000.  No. 13-41030 (Aug. 26, 2014, unpublished).  Because “the jury’s verdict could be sustained either on intentionality or recklessness,” the bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the claim resulted from a “wilful and malicious” injury.  Concluding that it did, the court denied discharge of that claim.  On appeal, the debtor argued that “a trial judge may not use his disbelief of a witness as affirmative support for the proposition that the opposite of the witness’s testimony is the truth.”  (citing Seymour v. Oceanic Navigating Co., 453 F.2d 1185, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1972)) (Texas state practitioners are familiar with similar sufficiency principles from City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005)).  The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, both in light of the entire record received by the bankruptcy court, and because:  “[H]here, the factual inquiry was binary, a question whether [the debtor] acted willfully and maliciously or not.  . . . [T]he bankruptcy court’s disbelief of [the debtor’s] statements that he did not know the statements were false leaves only the alternative that he did know . . . .”

CAP agreed to sell a security to VPRO.  Their contract said: “The purchase price is $400,000 and this amount is to be paid to you within 10 business days from the date of transfer of the [security t]o: CITIBANK NY DTC 908 Account 089154 CSC73464, Further Credit to: [CAP], Beneficiary Deposit Account NR. 840 BSI SPA San Marino.” Collective Asset Partners, LLC v. Vtrader Pro, LLC, No. 13-20619 (Aug. 15, 2014, unpublished).

CAP hired a broker, who successfully transferred the security to the DTC account but, because the broker provided inaccurate information, failed to transfer it on to the San Marino account.  VPRO refused to pay.  CAP sold the security to another buyer for $175,069.41 and sued VPRO for the difference.

Applying Texas law, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that VPRO unambiguously had no payment obligation until both transfers occurred, noting both the “Further Credit to” language in the contract, and the fact that the broker in fact tried to make both transfers.

Plaintiffs own and operate a mineral lease in the Gulf of Mexico; they allege that their neighbors drilled so as to deplete the value of their lease.  Specifically, they pleaded claims for “waste” and “unlawful drainage and trespass” under Louisiana law, as adopted by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.  Breton Energy LLC v. Mariner Energy Resources Inc., No. 13-20307 (Aug. 12, 2014).   As to the waste claims, after a detailed review of the specific allegations and precedent, the Fifth Circuit found a cognizable waste claim pleaded against the defendant alleged to have perforated the relevant oil sands.  The Court affirmed, however, the dismissal of claims against the non-perforating defendants, finding “equivocat[ion]” in a key allegation that those defendants could have caused the Minerals Management Service to “take[] other steps to protect the correlative rights of adjacent lessees.”  The Court also rejected claims for drainage losses and trespass, describing the interplay of those claims with a waste claim under Louisiana law.

McAllen Grace Brethren Church v. Salazar presents a fascinating conflict between Native American religious practice and the preservation of endangered eagle species.  No. 13-40326 (Aug. 20, 2014)  Robert Soto, a member of the Lipan Apache Tribe, sought to use eagle feathers in a tribal religious ritual.  All parties agreed that his beliefs were sincere and that the lack of the feathers would substantially burden his ministry.  The Lipan Apaches, while recognized by Texas authorities since the 1838 Live Oak Treaty between the Tribe and the Republic of Texas, are not a “federally recognized tribe” as understood by the Interior Department.  Accordingly, under the Department’s regulations that implement various statutes about the protection of eagles, he was not entitled to the feathers.

Assuming that the Department’s stated goals — eagle protection and protection of federally-recognized tribes — served compelling interests, the Fifth Circuit held that the record did not show that the regulations used the least-restrictive means to advance those interests.  The Court found the Department’s evidence of harm to be inconclusive and subject to more than one interpretation, and also found inadequate consideration of potential alternative approaches.  Acknowledging that other courts have accepted similar arguments by the Department, the Court observed: “Soto does not seek to make the practice of his religion ‘easier,’ he seeks to avoid roadblocks of the government’s own making which have made the practice of his religion not just ‘not easier’” but impossible.”  Accordingly, it reversed a summary judgment for the Department and remanded.

The Fifth Circuit, which in recent years has shown a healthy skepticism about suits to enforce guaranty obligations, again reversed a judgment against a guarantor in JRG Capital Investors I, LLC v. Doppelt, No. 13-20418 (Aug. 5, 2014, unpublished).  The underlying note was “generally a nonrecourse debt, meaning that the borrower could not be held personally liable for any deficiency.”  While the note had several exceptions that triggered personal liability, the parties agreed that none had occurred.  The Court found that the guaranty was only for “the prompt, complete and full payment and performance when due . . . of Borrower’s Recourse Obligations,” and contrasted language involving similar guaranty documents in other cases that was not so limited.

Keep an eye on the proposed amendments to the FRCP, which will be considered by the Judicial Conference in September and then forwarded on to the Supreme Court and Congress if approved.  Two major features are:

• –A redefined scope for permissible discovery in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) [page 10 of the linked document above]
• –Revised sanctions rules about the spoliation of electronic evidence in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1) and (2) [page 37 of the above]

The Advisory Committee notes, while lengthy, are particularly informative about the reasons for these revisions and how they are intended to work in practice.

Two classic jurisdictional issues were presented in Special Industries, Inc. v. Zamil Group Holding Co., No. 13-20231 (Aug. 5, 2014, unpublished), which affirmed a dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds in a forum dispute between Texas and Saudi Arabia.

First, citing Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007), the Fifth Circuit emphasized the importance of the “hub” of contract performance, finding: “The foreseeability that [plaintiff] would perform part of its obligations under the contract in Texas, and that the parties did in fact engage other Texas companies for work on the project, is not enough for a finding of specific jurisdiction over the . . . defendants.  The contracts were formed outside of Texas, did not expressly provide for work to be done in Texas, the [plaintiff] individuals performing work under the contract did not do so solely from Texas, Texas was not the hub of the parties’ activities, the contracts’ choice of law provisions did not provide for Texas law, and payments under the contract were not made to Texas.”

Second, as to an “alter ego” theory of jurisdiction over another defendant, the Court held: “We find no authority allowing for the assertion of general jurisdiction over a foreign parent corporation premised only on the foreign corporation’s ownership of subsidiaries in the forum and representations by the foreign parent of its ‘unified’ corporate structure. The assertion of jurisdiction must be premised either on sufficient minimum contacts of the foreign parent with the forum or on some evidence demonstrating the parent company’s actual control over the internal business operations and affairs of the subsidiary.” (distinguishing Daimler-Benz AG v. Olson, 21 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.–Austin 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.)

In Forrte v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Fifth Circuit affirmed a finding of liability under the Texas Optometry Act, based on dealings between Wal-Mart and optometrists who leased space in its stores.  No. 12-40854 (revised, Aug. 25, 2014).  While the plaintiff optometrists did not claim actual damages, they obtained judgment for over $1,000,000, plus attorneys fees, based on mandatory statutory penalties.  Noting that the Act used the phrase “civil penalty,” the Fifth Circuit found that the damages fell within the cap set by Section 41.008(b) of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code  — “two times the amount of economic damages [plus] economic damages.”  In this case, that was zero, since the plaintiffs sought no other recovery.  The Court distinguished Vanderbilt Mortgage v. Flores, 692 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2012), based on the terms of the statutes at issue.  As the Texas Lawbook notes, this opinion has the potential to introduce uncertainty into other “Private Attorney General” statutes in Texas.

Chavez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-11325 (Aug. 13, 2014, unpublished) reminds of 2 black-letter principles in mortgage servicing litigation:

1.  A claim under section 392.304(a)(19) of the Texas Finance Code requires proof of a misleading affirmative statement.  “Chavez does not allege that Wells Fargo ever affirmatively represented that he qualified for the modification program.  Here, even assuming that Wells Fargo told Chavez ‘not to worry’ about whether he qualified, this is not an affirmative statement.”

2.  As to negligent misrepresentation, “Chavez argues that Wells Fargo made negligent misrepresentations that it would not foreclose on Chavez during the loan modification process and that it he should not make payments during the process.  However, ‘representations regarding future loan modifications and foreclosure constitute promises of future action rather than representations of existing fact.”  .

The Baptists bought a home insurance policy from Nationwide in 2006.  In 2008, they lost their home to foreclosure.  They remained in the house, however, until December 2011 — before a court-ordered eviction date of January 13, 2012, but after fire did serious damage to the house in December.  They made a claim on the Nationwide policy, which discovered that they no longer owned the house as part of its post-loss investigation. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baptist, No. 13-60726 (Aug. 7, 2014).  While Nationwide won a summary judgment about coverage on the ground that the Baptists no longer had an insurable interest by the time of the fire, the Fifth Circuit affirmed because the Baptists’ “renewals of their policy constituted their affirmations to Nationwide of their initial application for insurance, material portions of which were no longer true.”  Those misstatements allowed Nationwide to rescind the policy under Mississippi law.

The question in Salty Brine I, Ltd. v. United States was whether a complicated transaction involving an oil and gas project was an inappropriate assignment of income to avoid income tax.  No. 13-10799 (July 31, 2014).  Reviewing the basic principles of the “assignment of income” doctrine, the Fifth Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s findings that the taxpayers “were in control of the entire transaction.”  In summarizing the doctrine, the Court quoted a metaphor from a 1930 opinion by Justice Holmes — that income tax may not be avoided through an “arrangement by which the fruits are attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.”  The court also found that the transaction lacked economic substance, again noting the taxpayer’s control of the entities and money flow.

Relators, displeased with their treatment by the City of Dallas in connection with the redevelopment of a downtown office building, “embarked on a fifteen-month investigation that involved compiling data and performing analyses of DHA properties, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit project locations, and City plans and reports.”  United States ex rel Lockey v. City of Dallas, Nos. 13-10884 & 14-10063 (Aug. After proceedings before HUD, they filed a qui tam lawsuit, alleging that the City and the Dallas Housing Authority submitted false claims that were not in compliance with their obligations under civil rights and fair housing laws.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, noting that “[t]he overwhelming majority of the complaint is . . . based, not on the Relators’ personal experiences with the City, but on their research of publicly disclosed information.”  (applying United States ex rel. Reagan v. East Texas Medical Center, 385 F.3d 168, 177-78 (5th Cir. 2004)).

A bankruptcy court entered judgment against Defendants, who the filed a new federal lawsuit for a declaratory judgment that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction.  Jacuzzi v. Pimienta, No. 13-41111 (August 5, 2014).  The district court found that it lacked jurisdiction over that suit, and the Fifth Circuit reversed.  Noting that as a general matter, it is procedurally proper to attack a judgment for lack of jurisdiction in a collateral proceeding, the Court found that the lawsuit raised federal questions about due process rights and compliance with the federal rules for service of process.  Accordingly, there was federal jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the bankruptcy court judgment.

1.  No “split-the-note” claims — we mean it.  Echoing recent opinions about efforts to revisit Priester v. JP Morgan Chase, 708 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2013), in Paulette v. Lozoya the Fifth Circuit declined to distinguish, rehear, or certify the holding of Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 722 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2013).  No. 14-50111 (Aug. 6, 2014, unpublished).

.2.  Plead fraudulent lien claims correctly — we mean it.  In Reece v. U.S. Bank, N.A., the Fifth Circuit reiterated, and this time published, a holding from a previous unpublished opinion — that a claim based on the Texas fraudulent lien statute requires “inten[t] to cause the plaintiff physical injury, financial injury, or mental anguish.” No.14-10176 (Aug. 5, 2014).  [Cf. rejection of such a claim for other reasons in Kramer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 13-50920 (June 25, 2014, unpublished)].

3.  Priester is here to stay.  And, at the district court level, sanctions were recently imposed for failure to acknowledge the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Priester.  Some years ago, this blog’s author co-wrote an article, with Professor Wendy Couture of the University of Idaho Law School, about how courts warning litigants about continuing to press arguments perceived as weak — a topic definitely raised by these recent cases. Loud Rules, 34 Pepperdine L. Rev. 715 (2007).

The issue does not come up every day, but it can be critical when it surfaces.  “A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States.”  28 U.S.C. § 1445(c).  The defendant argued for removal based on common-law bad faith claims — an argument that once worked — but amendments to Texas law meant that “claims of bad faith no longer arise outside of the workers’ compensation laws.”  Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. 13-20717 (June 10, 2014, unpublished) (citing Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2012)).  Accordingly, the case returned to state court.

The trustee of a litigation trust formed from the bankruptcy of Idearc, Inc. sued its former parent, Verizon, alleging billions of dollars in damages in connection with its spinoff.  After a bench trial and several other orders, the district court ruled in favor of defendants, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Verizon Communications, No. 13-10752 (revised Sept. 2, 2014).

The opinion, while lengthy, still only hints at the complexity of the case, and much of its analysis is fact-specific.  Some of the issues addressed include:

1.  A bankruptcy litigation trust does not have a right to jury trial on a fraudulent transfer claim, when the defendant creditor has filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy court must resolve whether a fraudulent transfer occurred to rule on that claim (analyzing and applying Langemkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990), in light of Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011)).

2.  In the context of determining whether the district court reviewed an earlier ruling correctly, on pages 26-27, the Court provided crisp definitions of the basic concepts of dictum and holding.

3.  In the course of rejecting an argument about the refusal to admit several pieces of evidence, the Court noted that the trustee “does not discuss how each specific piece of evidence was likely to affect the outcome of the trial, in light of all the evidence presented.”

4.  A defense expert, without experience in the particular industry, was still qualified to speak to valuation methodology in the bench trial, and “we cannot reverse the district court for adopting one permissible view over the other.”

5.  The Court thoroughly reviewed the fiduciary duties owed from a parent to a subsidiary under Delaware law, while affirming the district court’s conclusions about causation associated with their alleged breach.

One party to a settlement made the last installment payment several weeks late, triggering an acceleration clause that led to more liability.  Celtic Marine Corp. v. James C. Justice Co., No. 13-30712 (July 29, 2014).  The parties had this email exchange after the last payment was due and before it was made, which the party in default said modified the agreement:

A (1-5-2013):  Are we being paid the $91,666.66 to settle this once and for all?  I have lost faith in the agreement from your side.

A (1-7-2013): Are you paying us the $91,666.66 today?

B(1-7-2013): Fri

A (1-7-2013): o/n check correct and can’t u do it Thurs for Friday devl?

The Fifth Circuit held that this exchange did not modify the agreement, for several reasons: (1) the parties had not agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means [citing Louisiana’s version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act], (2) prior contracts had been “typed agreements physically signed,” and (3) factually, the email that talks about payment “to settle this for once and for all” was 1 of 15 demands for payment in a “one-sided” set of communications.

The Fifth Circuit sees many challenges to decisions under ERISA about benefits.  In McCorkle v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., the Court reminded that “district courts hearing complaints from disappointed ERISA plan members or their beneficiaries for the administrative denial of benefits are not sitting, as they usually are, as courts of first impression.  Rather, they are serving in an appellate role.”  No. 13-30745 (July 3, 2014). After summarizing the deferential standard of review in that capacity, the Court then emphasized: “We had thought that by now this was understood and accepted by all district judges of this circuit.  But, as this case demonstrates that we were wrong, at least as to one of them, we try yet again to drive that message home.”

A little-known but powerful part of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides: “[I]f the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.”   The Fifth Circuit affirmed a dismissal under this rule in Cabot Golf CL-PP 1, LLC v. Nixon Peabody, No. 13-40912 (July 7, 2014, unpublished).  It began by noting that, in this context, the distinction between Rule 12 and Rule 56 was immaterial, where “the material facts are undisputed, and we address a pure question of law.”  On the merits, Plaintiff had filed a state lawsuit, filed a federal lawsuit, dismissed the state action, and then dismissed the federal case with a unilateral notice.  Plaintiff argued that the 2-dismissal rule “should apply only to serial litigation (i.e., suits which are filed after the earlier suits were dismissed), not to parallel/tandem litigation as in this case (i.e., suits which were already pending when the earlier suits were dismisssed).”  The Court rejected that argument as unsupported by case law or the plain terms of the Rule.

1.  In 2002, Douglas opened a checking account with Union Planters Bank and signed a signature card with an arbitration provision.  That clause included a “delegation provision,” delegating the question of a dispute’s arbitrability to an arbitrator.  She closed the account a year later.  Douglas v. Regions Bank, No. 12-60877 (July 7, 2014).

2.  In 2007, Douglas was injured in a car accident, after which she brought suit against her lawyer and his bank for allegedly embezzling her settlement funds.  That bank – Regions Bank – had acquired Union Planters in a 2005 transaction.

3.  Regions Bank moved to compel arbitration.  The district court denied the motion on a “successor-in-interest” theory that Douglas did not defend on appeal.  She argued that the delegation provision was not relevant to this dispute, and the Fifth Circuit agreed, adopting a standard under which Douglas would “only . . . bind herself to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability if the argument that the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement is not wholly groundless.”  A dissent argued that this test was foreclosed by recent Supreme Court authority on related issues about an arbitrator’s authority.

A vessel sank while in the harbor for repairs.  Afterwards, the insurer sued its insured (the harbor operator) and the vessel owner, to dispute coverage.  National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. R&R Marine, Inc., No. 10-20767 (June 30, 2014).  The insurer argued that the vessel owner had no standing under Texas law when it made a claim against the insurer, as there was no final judgment establishing the insured’s liability at that time.  The plaintiff countered that it was “forced” to assert its claim as a compulsory counterclaim under the Federal Rules.  The Fifth Circuit concluded that — although Texas state law barred the timing of the vessel owner’s counterclaim, it arose out of the same occurrence as and had a logical relationship to the coverage dispute.  Accordingly, the counterclaim was compulsory.  Treating it as such also “permitted the district court to efficiently address all disputes arising from the litigation” and was consistent with the Rules’ goal of only “alter[ing] the mode of enforcing state-created rights.”