This month’s “Headnotes” from the Dallas Bar Association has two items of particular interest — on page 18, information about each of the new “Slate of Eight” Justices on the Dallas Fifth District Court of Appeals; and on page 19, an article by me and my LPCH colleague John Volney about the Fifth Court’s recent cases on “trial by consent.”

Defendant Blue Cross argued that Plaintiff Encompass’s claim was barred by prescription (limitations), and that contra non valentem (the civilian analog to the discovery rule) did not apply. Plaintiff received the offending letter in 2010, which “immediately caused Encompass to confer with counsel and seek clarification from [Blue Cross],” although Plaintiff did not sue until 2013. Plaintiff argued that the letter “falsified [Blue Cross] internal policies, which it could not discover until 2013 despite diligent inquiry. Although some statements in the letter were independently verifiable, Encompass says others were simultaneously false, damaging, and opaque to outsiders, and that “its diligence to investigate the letter—calling [the author] three times in 2010 and leaving messages without response—was reasonable under the circumstances.” The panel majority accepted the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff; a dissent would have found contra non valentem unavailable as a matter of law. Encompass Office Solutions v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana, No. 17-10736 (March 19, 2019).

Papalote, a wind-power producer, had a dispute with the Lower Colorado River Authority;  a key issue was whether a $60 million limitation-of-liability clause applied.  Their contract had an arbitration provision that applied “if any dispute arises with respect to either Party’s performance.” The Fifth Circuit found that the dispute was not subject to arbitration, as it “is a dispute related to the the interpretation of the Agreement, not a performance-related dispute . . . ..” Papalote Creek II v. Lower Colorado River Authority, No. 17-50852 (March 15, 2019).

A colorful, and deft, summary of Iqbal’s pleading requirements in a § 1983 case appeared in Shaw v. Villanueva: “Shaw[] . . . has pleaded no specific facts showing that Villanueva and Ebrom misdirected Sotelo into issuing the arrest warrant. And so he has not established the exception to the independent-intermediary doctrine. In other words, his allegations are all broth and no beans.” No. 17-50937 (March 11, 2019). (A classic Texas Monthly article offers similar sayings, such as: “He thinks the sun comes up just to hear him crow,” etc.)

A non-party appealed a discovery issue, complaining about confidentiality protection for documents it produced under subpoena in a complicated antitrust case. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the issue as a collateral order in Vantage Health Plan, Inc. v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, No. 17-30867 (Jan. 9, 2019). Unfortunately for the movant, that review identified three problems with its position: “First, the bald assertion of competitive harm is insufficient, and Humana was repeatedly unable to articulate a specific harm that would be caused by the disclosure of the documents. Second, Humana ignores the fact that any documents not placed into the record will remain subject to the district court’s protective order and are restricted to ‘attorney’s eyes only.’ . . . Third, those documents that are ultimately filed on the record are still subject to the court’s redaction requirements, which cover all [specific numeric information rates and percentages].”

The Fifth Circuit reversed a contempt order related to the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of sentencing credits, noting, inter alia:

• Oral injunction? An oral injunction can be effective, where, as here: “[T]he oral injunction was not tentative, and the district court did not indicate that the sanction was open to further argument or reconsideration. Rather, the district court asked the BOP to affirm that it understood the scope of the injunction.”
• Limits to inherent power. “The contempt power is not an appropriate means for a district court to express its reasoned disagreement with a federal statute. Threatening government officials with individual contempt sanctions for complying with federal law, as the district court did here, is a clear abuse of discretion.”
• Specificity required. “The district court made no explicit factual findings to support its decisionto hold the BOP in contempt. Nor did it identify which specific court orders the BOP violated, notwithstanding the BOP’s ‘request that the Court clarify itsorder to reflect such findings as to how and when the Respondents violated anorder of th[e] court.’ The district court’s refusal to identify the basis for its contempt finding was in itself an abuse of discretion.”

In re U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 18-50512 (March 14, 2019).

.

Louisiana’s courts have seen a host of claims about asbestos exposure involving the Avondale Shipyard near New Orleans. (Now closed, Avondale was once the largest employer in Louisiana; to the right is the USS Iowa entering the shipyard for repairs.). In turn, those asbestos claims have led to a  stream of federal-court removals based on the “federal officer” statute. Those cases have brought to light some inconsistencies in Fifth Circuit precedent, culminating in a plea for en banc review in Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, which summarizes the present situation:

This case exemplifies the problem. Avondale refurbished vessels using asbestos insulation as directed by the Navy. Because Avondale ran its  own safety department free of Navy directives, however, any alleged failure by Avondale to warn its employees or others about asbestos is not an act under color of federal office, so Avondale is not being sued “for” a federal act. However, Avondale’s failure to warn about asbestos certainly “relates to” its federal act of building the ships. Applying the [current] statutory language would change the outcome of this appeal and would authorize removal of many more cases than the causal nexus test permits.

No. 18-30652 (March 11, 2019).

A 1994 Fifth Circuit opinion addressed whether the “Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act” or the “Indian Gaming Restoration Act” controlled Indian gaming in Texas (answer, the Restoration Act). In 2015, the National Indian Gaming Commission, citing intervening Supreme Court precedent, ruled otherwise. The Fifth Circuit declined to extend Chevron deference to that later ruling, noting:

“[This case] requires us to apply Chevron step one to a prior judicial interpretation and to determine whether that court employed traditional tools of statutory interpretation and found that Congress spoke to the precise issue. That is what Ysleta I did in holding that “the Restoration Act prevails over IGRA when gaming activities proposed by [the Pueblo or Tribe] are at issue. Consequently, the NIGC’s decision that IGRA applies to the Tribe does not displace Ysleta I.”

State v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe, No. 18-40116 (March 14, 2019).

United States v. Ayelotan affirmed the conviction of three cybercriminals who stole money with “a sprawling international romance scam.” In addition to using the word “fauxmance” for the first time in a Fifth Circuit opinion, and among other holdings, the Court rejected hearsay objections to a number of emails related to the scheme:

• For each email, the transmittal records maintained by Google and Yahoo! qualified as business records;
• The statements were not offered to prove the truth of the matter of asserted; rather, they were “paradigmatic nonhearsay” in the form of “the operative words of the criminal action”;
• And the “remaining content . . . updates between the coconspirators about their criminal scheme–was admissible as opposing party and coconspirator statements under Rule 801(d).”

No. 17-60397 (March 4, 2019).

An insurer argued that its insured breached the policy’s cooperation clause by not dismissing a counterclaim against a third party. The Fifth Circuit disagreed: “Mid-Continent offers no law to support its novel and dubious concept that the Cooperation Clause applies to an insured’s affirmative claims against a third party, and the direction of the law in this area is against such a conclusion.” Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Petroleum Solutions, Inc., No. 17-20652 (Feb. 26, 2019).

Collateral estoppel is ordinarily an affirmative defense that must be pleaded, with two exceptions: (1) when both actions were brought in courts of the same district, or when all of the relevant facts are contained in the record and uncontroverted. OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Barnett, No. 18-60224 (Feb. 27, 2019).

In Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board v. FTC, the Fifth Circuit declined to apply the “collateral order” doctrine to an interlocutory order of an administrative agency, leaving open the possibility that the doctrine could so be applied in a different situation. No. 18-60291 (Feb. 28, 2019).