A Louisiana-based defendant removed a class action brought by an individual citizen of Louisiana, contending that a co-defendant’s “non-diverse Louisiana citizenship could be disregarded because the [statutory] claims against [the co-defendant] were ‘improperly and egregiously misjoined’ with the assignment-based bad faith claim against the removing defendant.”

This concept — called “fraudulent misjoinder” and reliant upon state-law procedural rules — is distinct from the traditional concept of “improper joinder” (a/k/a “fraudulent joinder”), which focuses on the viability of the claim against the nondiverse defendant.

The panel majority in Williams v. Homeland Ins. Co., written by Judge Haynes and joined by Judge Ho, soundly rejected removal based on fraudulent misjoinder, emphasizing the doctrine’s practical consequences: “Adopting the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine will dramatically expand federal jurisdiction, putting the federal district courts in this circuit in the position of resolving procedural matters that are more appropriately resolved in state court—all without a clear statutory hook.” No. 20-30196 (Nov. 30, 2021).

A concurrence by Judge Ho emphasized the importance of the statutory text in rejecting the doctrine; a dissent by Judge Jones focused on “the unusual circumstances here, which bespeak obvious joinder machinations undertaken to avoid federal court.” (both opinions are in the above link). The trio of opinions suggests that this case may receive serious consideration for en banc review.

In a coverage dispute between two excess carriers, the Fifth Circuit observed: “At bottom, the allocation issue depends upon the sufficiency of Great American’s summary judgment evidence. To support its allocation theory and establish that the covered claims were worth at least $7 million, Great American submitted the affidavits of (1) Brent Anderson, Liberty Tire’s attorney in the Underlying Litigation, and (2) Carol Euwema, Great American’s lead adjuster for the relevant claims.” Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. The trial court found those affidavits conclusive, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed; they provide good references for summary-judgment practice generally. No. 20-11113 (Nov. 17, 2021).

The question whether an insurance statute violated the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on “retroactive laws” presented a textbook case for certification in Fire Protection Service, Inc. v. Survitec Survival Prods, Inc.: “Beyond the closeness of the question and the dearth of on-point precedent, considerations of comity counsel in favor of certification.” No. 21-20145 (Nov. 22, 2021).

If you think that the modern administrative state relies heavily upon acronyms, you are not alone, as the Fifth Circuit illustrated in Leigh Ann H v. Reisel ISD, No. 20-50003-CV (Nov. 22, 2021):

In Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., both the Great American and Employers’ umbrella policies were “excess,” in that they both provided coverage for liability “in excess” of a “retained limit.” That said . . .

• the Employers’ policy defined “retained limit” as “the available limits of all ‘underlying insurance,'” a term that was, in turn, defined by two descriptions of primary coverage; while
• the Great American policy defined “retained limit” to include “the applicable limits of any other insurance providing coverage to the ‘Insured’ during the Policy Period.” (emphasis added).

Thus, “[b]ased on the plain terms of these policies, the Great American Umbrella Policy was the true excess policy after all other policies.” No. 20-11113 (Nov. 17, 2021).

In a rough stretch for the administrative state, after the Fifth Circuit’s recent skeptical rejection of an FDA regulation of e-cigarettes, another panel stayed OSHA’s vaccine-mandate regulation. It based its decision on several administrative-law principles and summarized:

“[T]he Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a “grave danger” in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat). The Mandate’s stated impetus—a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years, and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to—is unavailing as well. And its promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority.”

No. 21-60845 (Nov. 12, 2021) (footnotes omitted, emphasis in original).

The dispute in Guzman v. Allstate Assurance Co. was whether the insured was a smoker when he applied for insurance; the Fifth Circuit concluded that “self-serving” affidavits by family members were sufficient to raise a fact issue and avoid summary judgment. The details offer an excellent, general example about this sort of affidavit:

“Mirna’s and Martha’s affidavits are competent summary judgment evidence. They are based on personal knowledge, set out facts that are admissible in evidence, are given by competent witnesses, and are particularized rather than vague or conclusory. Mirna and Martha testify about their personal experiences with Guzman. In her deposition and affidavit, Mirna claimed that Guzman was not a smoker; that she was often with Guzman and would know if he smoked; that she is “able to tell whether [people] use tobacco because they have a peculiar and specific smoke smell”; and that neither Guzman nor his belongings, including his clothes and truck, ever smelled like smoke. Martha made substantially similar claims in her own affidavit. Though self-serving, this testimony is sufficient to—and does— create a genuine dispute of material fact.”

No. 21-10023 (Nov. 10, 2021).

“Federal courts can enforce an arbitration agreement only if they could hear the underlying ‘controversy between the parties.’ 9 U.S.C. § 4. In Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), the court told us to define that ‘controversy’ by looking to the whole dispute, including any state-court pleadings.” ADT, LLC v. Richmond, No. 21-10023 (Nov. 10, 2021).

ADT presented the question whether that technique for definition also applies to the parties in the case–a material issue in that case, because federal diversity jurisdiction over the arbitration suit depended on how the court treated nondiverse parties in the underlying state-court lawsuit.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that Vaden did not apply,, based on the plain language of section 4: “Having agreed to arbitrate its claims against a diverse defendant, a plaintiff may not escape our power by joining to its state-court suit nondiverse persons whom it could not hale into arbitration. ‘Parties,’ in § 4, means the parties to the § 4 suit–not everyone against whom one party claims relief.” (emphasis added).

In Wages & White Lions Investments LLC v. FDA, the Fifth Circuit found many problems with the FDA’s denial of a company’s application to market flavored e-cigarettes. Among them, the Court identified two issues with the FDA’s review of the company’s marketing plan to avoid improper product use by young people; the Court’s reasoning is of broad general interest for Daubert practice as well as administrative law:

1. The FDA’s contention “that no marketing plan would be sufficient, so it stopped working”: “That’s like an Article III judge saying that she stopped reading briefs because she previously found them unhelpful.”
2. Reliance on expertise and experience. “An agency’s ‘experience and expertise’ presumably enable the agency to provide the required explanation, but they do not substitute for the explanation, any more than an expert witness’s credentials substitute for the substantive requirements applicable to the expert’s testimony under [Rule] 702.”

No. 21-60766 (Oct. 26, 2021).

In Gezu v. Charter Communications, “the record show[ed] a valid modification to [plaintiff’s] employment contract–i.e., notice and acceptance,” when:

• Notice. “On October 6, 2017, Charter sent an email notice to Gezu of its new Program aimed at ‘efficiently resolv[ing] covered employment-related legal disputes through binding arbitration.’  … The email stated that by participating, the recipient and Charter ‘both waive[d] the right to initiate or participate in court litigation … involving a covered claim’ and that recipients ‘would be automatically enrolled in the Program unless they chose to ‘opt out of participating … within … 30 days.’ This language, along with the referenced links to additional information about the Program provided in the email, was sufficient to notify Gezu unequivocally of the arbitration agreement.” (emphasis added); and
• Acceptance. “The October 6, 2017 email ‘conspicuously warned that employees were deemed to accept’ the Program unless they opted out within 30 days. In re Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex. 2006). The email also provided recipients with directions on how to opt out. Nonetheless, Gezu did not opt out of the Program and continued working for Charter for over a year until he was terminated in May 2019.”

No. 21-10198 (Nov. 2, 2021).

A key issue facing OSHA’s new COVID regulation is whether a “grave danger” justified the agency acting so rapidly. In an unusual flash of appellate-court wit, the Fifth Circuit temporarily stayed the regulation, observing:

(Regrettably, Judge Graves was not on the panel.)

The Texas Supreme Court is using a new, standard layout for its opinions. Similar in some ways to what the Fifth Circuit has used for some time (most notably, the use of Old English for the court name), it is based on a Century font rather than the Equity font used by the Fifth Circuit.

“It should be obvious to any reasonable police officer that locking up a journalist for asking a question violates the First Amendment. Indeed, even Captain Lorenzo, the stubborn police chief in Die Hard 2, acknowledged: ‘Now personally, I’d like to lock every [expletive] reporter out of the airport. But then they’d just pull that “freedom of speech” [expletive] on us and the ACLU would be all over us.”  Die Hard 2 (1990).                                        Captain Lorenzo understood this. The officers in Laredo should have, too. Cf. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 443 (2000) (‘Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.’). The complaint here alleges an obvious violation of the First Amendment. The district court erred in holding otherwise.”

Villarreal v. City of Laredo, No. 20-40359 (Nov. 1, 2021).

In the course of resolving a long-running dispute about arbitration, the Fifth Circuit highlighted an important but infrequently litigated collateral-estoppel issue:

…  an unappealable ruling like a remand order is not entitled to preclusive effect. Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665, 673 (5th Cir. 2002) (explaining that when “a litigant, as a matter of law, has no right to appellate review, then he has not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate and the issue is not precluded”); see Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387, 395 (5th Cir. 1998) (suggesting that “collateral estoppel may not be applied offensively to a jurisdictional decision—such as one granting a motion to remand—that is not capable of being subjected to appellate review”) …  The unappealability of remand orders is why, after a remand, a state court may revisit the federal court’s jurisdictional reasoning. … We recognized this principle in dismissing the appeal of the 2002 remand: “[T]he district court determined that the arbitration clause was invalid in the process of ascertaining whether it had subject matter jurisdiction,” which meant the ruling “has no preclusive effect in state court.” Dahiya, 371 F.3d at 211. The state court could freely reexamine the issue and “reach a different conclusion about [the] dispute’s arbitrability.” Beiser, 284 F.3d at 674.

Neptune Shipmanagement Services v. Dahiya, No. 20-30776 (Oct. 1, 2021) (emphasis added).