A Louisiana statute lets private citizens sue to enforce certain state environmental laws, provided that “any injunction the citizen might obtain must be entered in favor of the Commissioner of Louisiana’s Office of Conservation.” Straightforward substantively, this statute raises federal-jurisdiction questions “that would make for a tough Federal Courts exam.” Grace Ranch LLC v. BP Am. Prod. Co., No. 20-30224 (Feb. 26, 2021). Specifically:

• Is Louisiana a party to the suit? If so, diversity jurisdiction does not apply. The Fifth Circuit concluded that it was not a party, notwithstanding the potential for relief issued in its name, “because [Louisiana] has not authorized landowners to sue in its name” in the relevant statute. Similarly, Louisiana is not a real party in interest because the potential for an injunction in its favor is a “contingency,” which would make it “highly inefficient to remand the case to state court only at the end stage of the lawsuit when the injunction might issue.”
• Does the 5th Circuit have jurisdiction? The matter was removed to federal court and the district court decided to abstain. Reviewing the not-always-clear history of 28 USC § 1447(c) and the cases applying it, the Court concluded that “a discretionary remand such as one on abstention grounds does not involve a removal ‘defect’ within the meaning of section 1447(c).”
• Was Burford abstention appropriate? Grace Ranch involved the remediation of environmental damage caused by a now-outlawed way of storing waste from oil and gas production. The Court reversed the district court’s decision to abstain, agreeing that the case presented “the potential need to decide an unsettled question of state law, in an area of general importance to the State”–but also finding that the case does not involve “an integrated state regulatory scheme in which a federal court’s tapping on one block in the Jenga tower might cause the whole thing to crumble.”

Just over two years ago, in a single-judge order, Judge Costa rejected a request to seal the oral argument in a Deepwater Horizon claim dispute:  “As its right, Claimant ID 100246928 has used the federal courts in its attempt to obtain millions of dollars it believes BP owes because of the oil spill. But it should not able to benefit from this public resource while treating it like a private tribunal when there is no good reason to do so. On Monday, the public will be able to access the courtroom it pays for.” BP Expl. & Prod. v. Claimant ID 100246928, 920 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2019). An echo of that order appears in a footnote in a mandamus order from earlier this week–unanimous as to substantive relief but with Judge Costa dissenting on the issue of sealing certain filings: “Judge Costa would not grant the motions to seal the motions and briefing, except for sealing the appendices filed in support of the petition in No. 21-40117, based on his conclusion that the parties have not overcome the right of public access to court filings.” A 2016 National Law Journal article further illustrated his views on these issues.

In Texas practice, “a judgment is final either if ‘it actually disposes of every pending claim and party’ or ‘it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.'” Bella Palma LLC v. Young, 601 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Tex. 2021) (emphasis in original, quoting Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).

In federal practice, however, “[w]ithout a [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 54(b) order, ‘any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties.'” Guideone Ins. Co. v. First United Methodist Church of Hereford, No. 20-10528 (Feb. 22, 2021, unpublished) (emphasis in original, quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54).

The Texas Lawbook has a great story about a TRO battle in McAllen federal court between Laboratorios Pisa and PepsiCo that led to mandamus proceedings before the Fifth Circuit. This round of their battle ended in a short order late Sunday night that granted the petition; the response is available online but the Court granted PepsiCo’s request to seal its petition and related materials. No. 21-40116 (Feb. 21, 2021).

On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit returned to the case of Echeverry v. Jazz Casino to make an Erie guess about Louisiana negligent-hiring law–specifically, whether it requires actual knowledge or only constructive knowledge. Finding its own precedent, and no on-point Louisiana Supreme Court opinion, the Court then reviewed intermediate-court opinions and “general Louisiana principles of negligence and negligent hiring outside of the context of independent contractors” to conclude that constructive knowledge was sufficient. It declined to certify the issue, reminding that “the availability of certification is such an important resource to this court that we will not risk its continued availability by going to that well too often.” No. 20-30038 (Feb. 17, 2021) (on rehearing).

A trial court in the Northern District of Texas dismissed a case, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), because a lawyer based in the Eastern District did not retain local counsel as required by the local rules. That rule says that a defendant, or the court, “may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it” “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” In Campbell v. Wilkinson, the Fifth Circuit concluded: “This case does not involve a violation of either ‘these rules’—that is, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—or ‘a court order.’ It involves the violation of a local rule. But Rule 41(b) does not mention local rules. This absence of any express reference to ‘local rules’ in Rule 41(b) thus raises the question whether it is ever appropriate to invoke Rule 41(b) based on nothing more than the violation of a local rule.” The Court concluded that it was not, and reversed because the record did not establish a failure to prosecute. No. 20-1102 (Feb. 19, 2021).

Joint and several (or “solidary”) liability does not mean shared jurisdictional contacts: “Libersat argues that, because they are solidary obligors, each defendant’s respective contacts with Louisiana should be imputed to every other defendant. Libersat asks, ‘If two corporations are obligated for the same performance and can be judicially sanctioned for conduct related to said obligation irrespective of the presence of the other, are they not alter egos?’ No, they are not. Sharing liability is not the same as sharing an identity. As our colleagues in the Ninth Circuit explained, ‘Liability and jurisdiction are independent. . . . Regardless of their joint liability, jurisdiction over each defendant must be established individually.’ Lumping defendants together for jurisdictional purposes merely because they are solidary obligors ‘is plainly unconstitutional.'” Libersat v. Sundance Energy, No. 20-30121 (Oct. 26, 2020).

Vesting both enhances the image of a distinguished law professor. and creates an exception to the ordinary rule in Mississippi that a right conveyed by a statute comes to an end if the statute is repealed or modified. To qualify as “vested,” a right must satisfy two requirements. First, there must ‘be no condition precedent to the interest’s becoming a present estate’ and, second, it must be ‘theoretically possible to identify who would get the right to possession if the interest should become a present estate at any time.’ Put another way, it must be ‘not contingent’ upon a future event taking place.” As to the claimed right in Harper v. Southern Pine Elec Coop., “the legislature left it up to the board to determine when its revenues were no longer ‘needed’ for specified purposes. Only once the board makes that determination does the statute require it to return those revenues to the members. The right that plaintiffs assert, then, is contingent upon a determination of the board. And a right that is contingent is, definitionally, not vested.” No. 20-60451  (Feb. 8, 2021) (citations omitted).

The “Official Stanford Investors Committee” (“OSIC”), a creation of the receivership arising from the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme, sought to intervene in ongoing tort litigation about the scheme. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of OSIC’s request.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) sets four requirements for an application to intervene. The first requirement, timeliness, is also defined by reference to four factors. (1) the length of time the movant waited to file, (2) the prejudice to the existing parties from any delay, (3) the prejudice to the movant if intervention is denied, and (4) any unusual circumstances.  Here, noting no unusual circumstances, the Court reasoned:

• Length of time. “Using the denial of class certification as the relevant starting point, Appellants waited 18 months before moving to intervene. … In many of our cases where we have found intervention motions to be timely, the delay was much shorter.”
• Prejudice to parties. “The existing parties would experience prejudice in at least two ways if Appellants were granted leave to intervene after a delay of 18 months. First, the existing parties would face a second round of fact discovery, significantly increasing litigation costs. …Second, Appellants’ tardiness will delay final distribution of any recovery.”
• Prejudice to intervenor. After reviewing the complex standing issues surrounding the Stanford claims: “The denial of intervention will not exclude Appellants from recovery even if it were to prejudice them in some way.”

Rotstain v. OSIC, No. 19-11131 (Feb. 3, 2021).

DM Arbor Court v. City of Houston explains that a case may become ripe during the course of the appeal process: “Although some of the ripeness-on-appeal caselaw is couched in the language of discretion,  our best reading of the decisions—especially those from the Supreme Court—is that ‘[i]ntervening events that occur after decision in lower courts should be included’ when an appellate court assesses ripeness. Supporting this view is the City’s inability to cite any case in which an appellate court declined to find a dispute ripe when postjudgment events had made it so. And we have an obligation to exercise the jurisdiction Article III and Congress grant us when any impediments, such as prudential concerns, have been eliminated. Cf.Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813, 817 (1976) (recognizing that abstention ‘is an extraordinary and narrow exception’ to the ‘virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them’).” No. 20-20194 (Feb. 12, 2021) (other citations omitted).

Mississippi Silicon (“MSH”), a manufacturer, was tricked into paying approximately $1 million to a cybercriminal, believing that it was in fact paying one of its regular vendors.  MSH sought reimbursement under the “Computer Transfer Fraud” provision of an insurance policy, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that there was no coverage.

The provision said: “The insurer will pay for loss of . . . Covered Property resulting directly from Computer Transfer Fraud that causes the transfer, payment, or delivery of Covered Property from the Premises or Transfer Account to a person, place, or account beyond the Insured Entity’s control, without the Insured Entity’s knowledge or consent.”

But here: “Coverage under the Computer Transfer Fraud provision is available only when a computer-based fraud scheme causes a transfer of funds without the Insured’s knowledge or consent. Here, three MSH employees affirmatively authorized the transfer; it therefore cannot be said that the fraud caused a transfer without the
company’s knowledge. … [T]he agreement plainly limits coverage to instances in which the transfer is made without knowledge or consent.” 

Mississippi Silicon Holdings v. Axis Ins. Co., No. 20-60215 (Feb. 4, 2021) (all emphasis in original).

Section 9.343 of the Texas UCC contains a nonuniform provision, “which grants a first
priority purchase money security interest in oil and gas produced in Texas as well as proceeds in the hands of any ‘first purchaser.’ A ‘first purchaser,’ is in pertinent part, ‘the first person that purchases oil or gas production from an operator or interest owner after the production is severed.’  The statute’s purpose is to ‘provide[] a security interest in favor of interest owners, as secured parties, to secure the obligations of the first purchaser of . . . production, as debtor, to pay the purchase price.’ It effectuates a ‘security interest’ that is ‘perfected automatically without the filing of a financing statement.'” (citations omitted). But Delaware lien-priority law does not recognize nonuniform UCC provisions, and in Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. U.S. Energy Devel. Corp., the Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Delaware law applied to the case before it. The Court observed: “The bankruptcy court adroitly untangled a thorny conflicts of law issue, the result of which, unfortunately, undermines the efficacy of a non-standard UCC provision intended to protect Texas oil and gas producers. . As a result, producers must beware ‘the amazing disappearing security interest’ and continue to file financing statements. The Texas legislature should take note.” No. 19-50646 (Feb. 3, 2021) (citations and footnote omitted).

An unusual Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) proceeding did not create appellate jurisdiction: “This case does not yet involve a final determination of the status of the interpleaded funds. Instead, it involves Rule 60(b)(5) relief from a prior order to disburse funds. The district court was not disbursing funds to the other party, but merely ordering that they be returned to the court’s registry pending the outcome of the state court action on remand. As the district court said, there has been no decision on who is entitled to the money. The final judgment has been set aside. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal.” Reed Migraine Centers of Texas v. Chapman, No. 20-10156 (Jan. 28, 2021).

At issue in Big Binder Express LLC v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. was the meaning of the term “you.” The Fifth Circuit concluded that the term “you” in the key endorsement about a large deductible, when given its “ordinary and generally accepted meaning,” referred only the named insured and not additional insureds. The Court also rejected the insured’s argument that “damages” meant only a court award of damages. No. 20-60188 (Jan. 27, 2021).

Belliveau v. Barco, Inc., discussed yesterday as to its holding about veil-piercing, also found that the plaintiff had not established a fiduciary relationship with the defendants under Texas law. The Court examined:

• The general principle that “one party’s subjective belief” is insufficient to establish an attorney-client relationship;
• The inadequacy of “vague and conclusory” statements about the parties’ dealings to satisfy that standard (especially if later deposition testimony undermines those statements); and
• The long-standing principle that to establish an informal relationship of  “trust and confidence,” that relationship must have existed before the “agreement made
  the basis of the suit.”

No. 19-5017 (Jan. 28, 2021). The dissenting judge agreed with the majority on its analysis of this claim.

In a dispute about various licensing agreements, the Fifth Circuit found that Texas law’s requirements for piercing the corporate veil had not been satisfied:

“The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not raise a fact issue regarding Barco’s dishonest purpose or intent to deceive Belliveau in entering into the Barco Sublicense. Piercing the corporate veil is not a cumulative remedy for creditors of corporate or other legal entities in Texas; that theory does not make owners of such entities codefendants for every breach of contract case. It is a remedy to be used when the actions of the entity’s owner amounting to ‘actual fraud’ have rendered the entity unable to pay its debts. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Belliveau’s claim to pierce the corporate veil.”

Specifically, the court reviewed (and rejected) arguments about the consideration exchanged in the licensing agreement, issues about disclosure, and a “badges of fraud” analysis under Texas’s fraudulent-transfer statute. Belliveau v. Barco, Inc., No. 19-50717 (Jan. 28, 2021). A dissent identified issues for trial on these matters.