The plaintiffs in Elson v. Black brought a putative class action against the manufacturers of the “FasciaBlaster, a two-foot stick with hard prongs that is registered with the Food and Drug Administration as a massager,” alleging that they “falsely advertised that the FasciaBlaster was able to ‘virtually eliminate cellulite,’ help with weight loss, and relieve pain.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of those class claims, noting that class-wide issues did not predominate:

1. Law. “[V[ariations in state law here ‘swamp any common issues and defeat predominance'” as to reliance and other basic matters; and
2. Fact. “Plaintiffs’ allegations introduce numerous factual differences that in no way comprise a coherent class. … [T]he named plaintiffs do not complain about the same alleged misrepresentations. Some are disgruntled because they expected the FasciaBlaster to reduce cellulite. Others are dissatisfied because they expected it to reduce their pain or address certain health concerns. And others are displeased because they expected it to help them lose weight. … Moreover, even within these groups, the possibility of class analysis disintegrates because the members did not rely on the same alleged misrepresentations.”

No. 21-20349 (Jan. 5, 2023).

Thanks to diversity jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit reviews some fundamental state-law tort issues along with its loftier docket of constitutional disputes.

In Badeaux v. Louisiana-I Gaming, Badeaux sued for damages after he tripped over a sprinkler head at a casino. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the casino because the sprinkler head was “open and obvious,” noting, inter alia: “There are multiple photographs of the scene showing that: (1) there were working lights in the parking lot on the night of Badeaux’s fall; (2) the sprinkler head was located in a grassy, landscaped area that was separated from the parking lot by a raised curb; and (3) the raised curb surrounding the sprinkler head was painted bright yellow.”

No. 21-30129 (Jan. 20, 2023).

On January 29, the Washington Post published a lengthy article about issues of the day in the Fifth Circuit.

Significantly different and tone and focus, it is similar in scope to a Texas Monthly article of last summer about the Court.

An exasperated Fifth Circuit granted mandamus relief to require FERC to explain significant delay in a nuclear-power rate dispute, In re Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, No. 22-60458 (Jan. 18, 2023).

As to jurisdiction, the Court observed: “This court has jurisdiction over the LPSC’s petition to safeguard our prospective jurisdiction to review final FERC orders under the Federal Power Act. When federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to review agency action, ‘the All Writs Act empowers those courts to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the agency to complete the action.'” (footnotes omitted).

As to the merits, the Court observed: “FERC is correct that ratemaking is challenging work, and we are fully aware of the difficulties attending the substitution of nuclear for other power sources, with its attendant difficulties of allocating huge installation costs among electrical suppliers now looking to a new power source. Yet Congress has duly charged FERC with this important duty, and FERC has yet to provide this court with a meaningful explanation for its inability to expeditiously conclude Section 206 proceedings. FERC must convince this court that it has acted ‘within a reasonable time . . . to conclude [the] matter presented to it.’ In failing to do so, FERC risks judicial intervention to protect the rights of the parties before it and the interests of consumers.” (footnotes omitted).

Cargill v. Garland, an en banc opinion released earlier this month, holds that the ATF’s “bump stock” rule was invalid. The diagram to the right, referenced by a link in the majority opinion, illustrates the firing mechanism for a semi-automatic firearm, which a bump stock facilitates by allowing rapid operation of the trigger.

The majority opinions aligned as follows:

The three Democratic appointees on the court at the time (Higginson, Dennis, and Graves) dissented.

The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a securities claim against Six Flags involving its public statements about an expansion effort in China, concluding that as to some of the challenged statements, the plaintiff had satisfied the PSLRA’s demanding requirements. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., No. 21-10865 (Jan. 18, 2022). The opinion provides detailed discussion of just is required to adequately plead falsity and scienter, especially in the context of forward-looking statements. It also provides what appears to be the first reference in the Federal Reporter to vexillology (the study of flags):

Last July, I fearlessly predicted that “[a] petition for en banc rehearing seems a near certainty” in Wages & White Lion Investments v. FDA, a challenge to a significant FDA regulation in the vaping industry. The full court has now voted to consider the matter en banc; time will tell if the panel majority’s analysis goes up in smoke, or whether the case simply offers smoke and no fire.

The main issue in Hanover Ins. Co. v. Binnacle Devel., LLC was the interpretation of a Texas Water Code provision about MUDs (“municipal utility districts”) — yes, “MUDdy waters.” Resolution of that issue led to a short discussion as to whether a key contract provision was a damage-limitation clause or a liquidated damages clause, and the Fifth Circuit said:

The damages clause is entitled “LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY/ECONOMIC DISINCENTIVE” and expressly provides for “liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500 for each [] calendar day” of delay. This provision does not, in substance, set a mere limitation of liability or delimit damages to “an agreed maximum.” 24 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 65:6 (4th ed.). Rather, the clause provides that Hassell is liable for the liquidated damages of $2,500 for every day the Projects are late. Looks like a liquidated-damages provision to us.

No. 21-40662 (Jan. 12, 2023).

The Fifth Circuit and Texas Supreme Court both recently addressed limitations issues in commercial cases:

• Civelli v. JP Morgan Securities involved an investor’s claim that JP Morgan wrongly transferred certain shares of stock in an oil company. The Fifth Circuit declined to apply the discovery rule, stating: “Any injury incurred from the J.P. Morgan defendants’ alleged negligence in transferring the shares without plaintiffs’ consent arose at the time of the transfer. Because Civelli admits that he knew by February 2014 that they had transferred the funds, the rule of discovery does not apply.” No. 21-20618 (Jan. 11, 2023).
• Marcus & Millichap v. Triex Texas Holdings LLC was a suit against a real-estate broker about the sale of a gas station. The Texas Supreme Court held: “It is undisputed that Triex knew it was injured in December 2012. The question before us is whether the discovery rule defers accrual of Triex’s cause of action until it knew that Marcus & Millichap caused its injury. We hold that it does not.” No. 21-0913 (Jan. 13, 2023) (per curiam).

Yes, the defendant “intentionally” coded a key record in a certain way. But that “intentional” action did not establish an “intent” to harm the victim of an industrial accident:

“Populars fails to show that Trimac knew it mislabeled the tanker. It is not enough that Trimac intentionally coded into its system that the tanker contained MDI. Doing so may have been reasonable, negligent, or reckless … [but Populars instead needed to demonstrate that Trimac (or a reasonable company in Trimac’s position) knew this designation was wrong, and, therefore, knew that Populars’s injury was inevitable. Despite claiming that ‘Trimac knew it possessed chemicals that would produce a violent exothermic reaction when mixed together,’ Populars points to no evidence to support that assertion.”

Populars v. Trimac Transportation, Inc., No. 22-30413 (Jan. 3, 2023, unpublished) (emphasis in original).

In a time of well-documented skepticism in the federal courts about the administrative state, the FTC has doubled down, seeking public comment on a rule that would ban enforcement of noncompetition agreements.

As part of the explanation for its authority, the FTC cited authority that “Section 5 reaches conduct that, while not prohibited by the Sherman or Clayton Acts, violates the spirit or policies underlying those statutes.” That broad language will sound familiar to readers of the vaccine-mandate cases and their discussions of the EEOC’s rulemaking authority.

Given the present climate in the courts about expansive claims of agency authority, it seems likely that any FTC rule in this area will lead to extensive litigation before such a rule actually takes effect.

In Louisiana v. Biden, No. 22-30019 (Dec. 19, 2022), a panel majority invalidated a Presidential vaccination mandate, holding: “This so-called ‘Major Questions Doctrine’ – that is, that ‘[w]e expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,’ – serves as a bound on Presidential authority.” (citation omitted, emphasis added, applying West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022)).

A dissent saw matters otherwise. A commentator in Slate criticized the expansion of the major questions doctrine to actions by the executive branch. On this general topic, I’ve suggested in Law360 that the major questions doctrine may have the unintended consequence of justifying Congressional restrictions on Article III jurisdiction.

Now available! My (free) e-book, “Originalism Ascendant,” which builds upon recent media appearances to describe where the Constitution finds itself, for the rest of the 2020s, after the overruling of Roe v. Wade.

Topics include:

• How clear are the guidelines for state laws about abortion activity in another state?
• Will Lochner make a comeback?
• If so, what body of academic thought will provide guidance for the courts?
• What would Alexander Hamilton really think about modern economic regulation?
• Who exactly are “the people’s elected representatives” referred to by the Supreme Court in Dobbs?

The Fifth Circuit recently summarized the sometimes-confusing law about when an adverse ruling about a grand-jury subpoena may be appealed:

Our jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing final decisions of a district court. This rule applies to appeals of orders issued in grand jury proceedings. There are two exceptions. First, if a witness chooses not to comply with a grand jury subpoena compelling production of documents and is held in contempt, that witness may immediately appeal the court’s interlocutory order. Second, under what is called the Perlman doctrine, a party need not be held in contempt prior to filing an interlocutory appeal if “the documents at issue are in the hands of a third party who has no independent interest in preserving their confidentiality.

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 21-30705 (Dec. 14, 2022). (At least in theory, a mandamus petition may also be available in this setting, see generally David Coale, Five Years After Mohawk, 34 Rev. Litig. 1 (2015)).

Coming next week! My (free) e-book, “Originalism Ascendant,” which builds on recent media appearances to describe where the Constitution finds itself for the rest of the 2020s after the overruling of Roe v. Wade. A link will be available on this blog.

iiiTec v. Weatherford Technology Holdings presents a series of unfortunate events that led to dismissal of an appeal.

1. “iiiTec filed two motions on July 23, 2021, the twenty-eighth day after judgment. The first was a request to exceed the page limit on its proposed Rule 59/60 motion; the second was a short 14-page motion to alter the judgment. A request for leave to file is not one that can toll the deadline to appeal, but a motion to alter is.” (footnote omitted). So far, so good. But then …
2. “[W]hen the court struck iiiTec’s motion to alter on October 4, the deadline to appeal reset to thirty days later on November 3. But by that date, iiiTec still had not filed its notice of appeal; it had only filed another Rule 59/60 motion to reconsider. Under Rule 59, the motion was untimely for exceeding the strict 28-day period to file; and under Rule 60, the motion could not toll the deadline because it was filed more than 28-days after final judgment.” (footnote omitted).

No. 22-20076 (Dec. 27, 2022, unpublished).