H&E Equipment sued Advanced Services after a fire at a plywood plant.  Advanced brought a third-party claim against Georgia-Pacific for indemnity, who in turn sought coverage from Kinsale Insurance.  Kinsale denied coverage on the ground that Advanced was also insured under the relevant policy, triggering this “insured v. insured” exclusion:  “This insurance does not apply to claims or ‘suits’ for ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage’ or ‘personal and advertising injury’ brought by one insured against any other insured.”  The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the insurer, reasoning: “Advanced did not, in turn, seek damages from Georgia-Pacific due to a property loss; it sought indemnity based on general tort principles for the property damage that occurred to another party. Advanced had no property damage, but it seeks protection from a potential duty to pay for someone else’s property damages.”  Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, No. 14-60770 (July 27, 2015) (distinguishing Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Conner, 973 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1992).

Plaintiff challenged a proposed development plan as violating the Fair Housing Act. Defendants argued “that because the planned redevelopment is both inchoate and designed to be mixed income and to attract a variety of tenants, [Plaintiff] can only speculate as to whether, if redevelopment proceeds, it will deprive her of the social and economic benefits of diversity,” and thus lacked standing.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding that her “asserted injury would be concretely felt in the logical course of probably events flowing from an unfavorable decision by this court: (1) HUD approves the already-pending plan for redevelopment; (2) redevelopment occurs according to the approved plan; [and] (3) segregation and minority- and poverty-concentration occur in [Plaintiff’s] neighborhood as specifically anticipated in several expert reports contained in the record.”  The Court distinguished Clapper v. Amnesty International, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), a recent case about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as “depend[ing] on a long and tenuous chain of contingent events[.]” McCardell v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Devel., No. 14-40955 (July 23, 2015).

Dixon complained that he was defrauded into leasing a Toyota Corolla, having been told that the lease would be tax-exempt because his co-lessee was a non-profit entity.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that the Consumer Leasing Act does not confer standing unless all lessees are natural persons, which the non-profit was not.   Dixon v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., No. 14-30426 (July 23, 2015).

HUD suspended a mortgage lender from doing business with the government; after some litigation, HUD withdrew the suspensions.  In the meantime, the lender had appealed the district court’s ruling that upheld the suspensions, and argued that it was not moot after the withdrawal.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding that the requested declaration that the suspension was unlawful is “no longer embedded in an actual controversy about the appellants’ legal rights.”  The Court rejected arguments based on the “voluntary-cessation” and “collateral consequences,” emphasizing the specific posture of the lender’s situation with the government and the specifics of the regulatory environment.  The Court also rejected an argument based on the past economic losses, noting that the lender was not seeking damages and could not under the applicable statute.  Allied Home Mortgage Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Devel., No. 14-20523 (July 22, 2015, unpublished).

Red Barn Motors sued its lender in a Louisiana district court.  That court transferred the case to Indiana based on a forum selection clause.  Three months later, the dealer sought mandamus relief from the Fifth Circuit, which denied its request.  The Court noted that the case was no longer in the Circuit – meaning that the only possible remedy would be to ask the Indiana court to return the case, which would require a “very extreme case.”  “Despite the potential availability” of this limited opportunity for mandamus relief, the Court found that the unexplained three-month delay in seeking review showed a lack of diligence that defeated the petition.  In re: Red Barn Motors, Inc., No. 15-30067 (July 20, 2015).

Plaintiff’s FCA claims about billing for aircraft parts were dismissed for failure to comply with the heightened pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), in that:

• it is not sufficient to argue that certain federal regulations must have been contained in the relevant contract, because by their terms, they do not automatically apply;
• neither nondisclosure of a part’s history, nor the subsequent failure of a plane containing that part, establishes that a false claim was made about it; and
• speculation about a company’s billing practices does not adequately establish when the company actually submitted the allegedly false claims.

United States ex rel Gage v. Davis S.R. Aviation, LLC, No. 14-50704 (July 14, 2015).

The district court overseeing the settlement process for Deepwater Horizon claims ordered that the program could not have access to a certain set of “claim-specific information” before making an initial determination about a claim’s eligibility.  BP sought to appeal this ruling as a collateral order.  The Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, acknowledging that it had taken three earlier appeals about the settlement.  The Court concluded that those appeals involved uniquely important issues about interpretation of the underlying agreement, and expressed concern about inviting significantly more interlocutory appeals given “the increasing frequency of court-supervised settlement agreements and consent decrees.” Lake Eugenie Land & Development v. BP Exploration & Production. No. 14-30823 (July 16, 2015).

The plaintiffs/relators in United States ex rel Rigsby v. State Farm contended that, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, State Farm improperly skewed its claims handling process in favor of finding flood damage, as “wind policy claims were paid out of the company’s own pocket while flood policy claims were paid with government funds.”  They won at trial and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that – notwithstanding earlier investigations – they were “paradigmatic . . . whistleblowing insiders” as to this specific claim who qualified as “original sources.”  The Court went on to find sufficient evidence of falsity and scienter, and reversed a discovery ruling that would not have allowed the plaintiffs to investigate the facts of other potentially false claims. ” 794 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed on an issue about violation of the FCA’s sealing requirement.

1.  As the Supreme Court term wound down, it affirmed the panel opinion in Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO, holding that under the Bankruptcy Code: “Section §330(a)(1) does not permit bankruptcy courts to award fees to §327(a) professionals for defending fee applications.” No. 14–103 (U.S. June 15, 2015).

2.  The Supreme Court also granted review of Dolgencorp Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 746 F.3d 167 (5th Cir. 2014), which addresses Indian tribal court jurisdiction over a tort claim.

Moving to dismiss?  Drafting a complaint?  Educating a colleague?  Check out the newly-revised Twombly/Iqbal page on 600Camp, which includes the recent insights from Wooten v. McDonald Transit Associates, No. 13-11035 (June 7, 2015) (statutory employment claim), Owens v. Jastrow,  No. 13-10928 (June 12, 2015) (scienter), and mortgage servicing cases.

A contract dispute about the management of several vessels (among them, the M/V Maurader, right) led to a holding that a termination fee was void as a penalty.  The contract required the boat owner to pay the management company “fifty percent of what [it] would have earned as a Management Fee had [the] Agreement not been so terminated,” and provided a formula for making that calculation, which in this case was $537,246.86.  “The termination fee formula, however, makes no deductions to account for the fact that [management company] would have fewer expenses in the event of termination, and [it] has not quantified the expenses that would remain.”   Comar Marine Co. v. Raider Marine Logistics LLC, No. 13-30156 (July 6, 2015).

Building on momentum after winning a challenge to the MERS business model, MERS succeeded in arguing that an earlier suit against Bank of America created a res judicata bar to a later suit against MERS because MERS and the bank were in privity.  Warren v. MERS, No. 14-11102 (July 2, 2015, unpublished).

At mid-year 2015, you can see here my recommendations for five cases from the last 3 months that are well worth a read.

SMI alleged ten causes of action, claiming that the defendants “had stolen both technical and business trade secrets related to VaultWorks,” a software program that helps banks manage their cash inventories.  Spear Marketing, Inc. v. Bancorpsouth Bank, No. 14-10753 (June 30, 2015).    A series of unfortunate events for SMI ensued:

1.  Defendants removed on the grounds of complete preemption under the copyright laws.  Acknowledging a lack of Fifth Circuit precedent on the specific issues in this case, as well as a split among other circuits, the Court found that “the technical trade secrets found within VaultWorks fall within the subject matter of copyright,” and that SMI’s Texas Theft Liability Act claim — and to the extent it involved intangible assets, its conversion claim – – were preempted.

2.  SMI’s post-removal amendment to drop the key language for preemption failed because “jurisdictional facts are determined at the time of removal, and consequently post-removal events do not affect that properly established jurisdiction.”  The Court concluded that “SMI has conflated the question whether the initial removal was proper . . . with the question whether the district court should, in its discretion, remand the case when the federal claims disappear as the case progresses.”

3.  The remaining claims — trade secret misappropriation, in particular — failed for a lack of proof that the defendants actually used the information in question.

An earlier panel opinion found the Golf Channel liable for $5.9 million under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”), even though it delivered airtime with that market value, because the purchaser was Allen Stanford while running a Ponzi scheme. Accordingly, the airtime had no value to creditors, despite its market value.  On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit vacated its initial opinion and certified the controlling issue to the Texas Supreme Court: “Considering the definition of ‘value’ in section 24.004(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, the definition of ‘reasonably equivalent value’ in section 24.004(d) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and the comment in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act stating that ‘value’ is measured ‘from a creditor’s viewpoint,’ what showing of ‘value’ under TUFTA is sufficient for a transferee to prove the elements of the affirmative defense under section 24.009(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code?”  Janvey v. The Golf Channel, No. 13-11305 (June 30, 2015).

In three opinions — one for each state in the Fifth Circuit — the Court remanded the “gay marriage” cases in light of Obergefell v. Hodges.  E.g., De Leon v. Abbott, No. 14-31037 (July 1, 2015).  Noting that the Supreme Court addressed both the Fourteenth and First Amendments in its opinion, the Fifth Circuit observed: “We express no view on how controversies involving the intersection of these rights should be resolved but instead leave that to the robust operation of our system of laws and the good faith of those who are impacted by them.”  (I was recently quoted by the Dallas Morning News about other matters related to Obergefell.)

Two test preparation services sued each other.  The plaintiff sought coverage for a counterclaim under a policy that covered “injury arising out of . . . infringing upon another’s copyright, trade dress or slogan in your advertisement” (in other words, “trade dress” but not “trademark” claims).  .” (emphasis added). Even under the generous standards for determining the duty to defend, the counterclaim’s allegations did not trigger coverage: “The central focus in this coverage dispute, however, is not on the confusion, but on what allegedly is causing the confusion. The alleged confusion in this case stems from the use of a similar service mark (“Testmasters”), and the false
representation that TES offers a similar service (live LSAT courses offered nationwide). None of the allegations possibly states a claim for confusingly similar trade dress.”  Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-20473 (June 29, 2015).

The Fifth Circuit remanded to calculate an attorney fee award when: “At nearly every turn, this Department of Labor investigation and prosecution violated the department’s internal procedures and ethical litigation practices. Even after the DOL discovered that its lead investigator conducted an investigation for which he was not trained, concluded Gate Guard was violating the Fair Labor Standards Act based on just three interviews, destroyed evidence, ambushed a low-level employee for an interview without counsel, and demanded a grossly inflated multi-million dollar penalty, the government pressed on. In litigation, the government opposed routine case administration motions, refused to produce relevant information, and stone-walled the deposition of its lead investigator.”  Gate Guard Services v. Perez (Secretary, Department of Labor),  No. 14-40585 (July 2, 2015, unpublished).

The owners of a self-storage company sued Morgan Stanley, alleging that it mishandled the negotiation of substantial insurance claims arising from Hurricane Katrina.  An issue on appeal was whether, under federal common law, a communication between the company’s corporate counsel to Morgan Stanley was privileged.  The Fifth Circuit noted that while “[s]everal courts — including lower courts in this circuit — have held that the [common interest] privilege extends to co-plaintiffs in litigation,” “this court has not expressly held that the privilege is inapplicable to co-plaintiffs.  The Court did not need to address that issue, however, because it found that this communication was not made to “further a joint or common interest.”  (emphasis in original)  BCR Safeguard Holding, LLC v. Morgan Stanley Real Estate Advisor, Inc., No. 14-31068 (June 2, 2015, unpublished).