Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit found an abuse of discretion, under Texas substantive law, in not modifying a noncompetition agreement at the preliminary-injunction stage. Calhoun v. Jack Doheny Cos., Inc. But because the parties had settled their case in the meantime, notifying the district court but not the Fifth Circuit, the case had become moot at the time of that opinion, prompting the Court to withdraw its opinion and dismiss the matter with prejudice. No. 20-20068 (Aug. 28, 2020).

(This activity about a case named Calhoun prompted me to check in on the M/V CALHOUN, a ship that under another name created a memorable mootness argument– “The ship has sailed!” – when it left the Fifth Circuit before creditors could seize it. The ship continues to be elsewhere, arriving in Venezuela as of the date of this post.)

“The Texas Supreme Court has held that a Texas court of civil appeals does not have jurisdiction to initiate an award of appellate attorneys’ fees because ‘the award of any attorney fee is a fact issue which must [first] be passed upon the trial court.’” In Texas state courts, requesting appellate fees at the original trial is a placeholder requirement to ensure the state trial courts maintain jurisdiction over the issue. Those are procedural rules that do not apply in federal court. Our local rules provide for appellate litigants to petition this court for. Local Rule 47.8 does not require a party seeking appellate attorneys’ fees to first request appellate attorneys’ fees in the district court as a placeholder.” Atom Instrument Corp. v. Petroleum Analyzer Co., No. 19-20151 (Aug. 7, 2020) (citations omitted).

The trap: “The Funds sought to render an interlocutory decision appealable by dismissing at least one defendant without prejudice. And under [Williams v. Seidenbach, 958 F.3d 341, 369 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc)], that means—absent some further act like a Rule 54(b) certification—there is no final, appealable decision.”

The hint: “Because the dismissal without prejudice in this case occurred after the order the Funds seek to appeal, we do not decide how Williams . . . would apply where the dismissal occurred before the adverse, interlocutory order. See Schoenfeld v. Babbitt 168 F.3d 1257, 1265–66 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding that there was a final decision in such a case).”

Firefighters’ Retirement System v. Citco Group Ltd., No. 19-30165 (July 7, 2020).

In long-running litigation about liability for hotel occupancy taxes, the Fifth Circuit’s prior mandate said that “plaintiff-appellee cross-appellant pay to defendants-appellants cross appellees the  costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.” The Court held that this language did not preclude the trial court clerk from assessing appropriate costs on remand pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(e).

The Court also held: “The fact that the decretal language in the first appeal used the word ‘vacated’ instead of ‘reversed’ does not change this result. . . . While an argument can be made that ‘reversed’ might have been the better choice for the decretal language in the first appeal, what matters for purposes of Rule 39(a) is the substance of the disposition, not merely the form.” San Antonio v. Hotels.com, No. 19-50701 (May 11, 2020) (citations omitted, emphasis in original).

PRACTICE TIP: Fed. R. App. P. 39(e)(3) includes “premiums paid for a bond or other security to preserve rights pending appeal” as a taxable cost–in this litigation, a cost exceeding $2 million.

In affirming a preliminary injunction in a noncompete case, Realogy Holdings Corp. v. Jongeblood suggested that the district court could “when determining the term of any injunction, to reweigh the equities . . . in light of the time that has passed during the pendency of th[e] appeal.” Interestingly, this suggestion came after the Fifth Circuit had granted a stay during the preliminary-injunction appeal, which it also expedited. Specifically, the relevant covenants last for a year, the injunction was granted on November 15, 2019; the appellate stay was granted on January 24, 2020, and the opinion issued on April 27. No. 19-20864.

Gonzales cited two Texas Supreme Court cases, decided after a summary judgment against her, holding that an insurer’s payment of an appraisal award does not preclude a Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (“TPPCA”) claim. The Fifth Circuit found that she failed to preserve this argument in the district court. The Court noted that “a change in law . . . does not permit a party to raise an entirely new argument that could have been articulated below”–a rule that applies when a party “could have made the same ‘general argument’ to the district court, but had not done so.” As for the state of the law at the time of the summary-judgment briefing, the Court observed:

We recognize that several courts, including our own, had previously concluded a TPPCA claim was extinguished as a matter of law after the payment of an appraisal award. But the Supreme Court of Texas granted review in [the two relevant cases] on January 18, 2019, seven days after Allstate moved for summary judgment and thirteen days before Gonzales filed her response to the motion. This fact undermines her assertion here that she “could not have made a good faith argument in the trial court that payment of the appraisal award did not preclude her from recovering under the TPPCA as a matter of law.”

Gonzales v. Allstate Vehicle & Property Ins. Co., No. 19-40250 (Feb. 11, 2020) (emphasis added, footnote omitted).

Appellants complained about the treatment of their claims by the system established to resolve the “Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Multi-District Litigation.”  They contended that “a disagreement with the District Court’s interpretation and application of the settlement agreement invalidates the waivers” of appeal rights in that agreement. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, concluding that this argument “negates the entire purpose of the appeal waiver and would render these agreed upon terms meaningless,” and reminding that to make such a waiver, “a party need only understand the right to appeal that is given up, not all the facts relating to all potential challenges that could be raised on appeal.” Asch v. Gebrueder Knauf, No. 18-31223 (Dec. 12, 2019, unpublished).

“Here, however, we have an appeal from grant of a motion to dismiss without prejudice to refile. It is not a final judgment because ‘the district court did not adjudicate or dispose of any substantive issues on the merits.'” The King-Morocco v. Banner of N.O., L.L.C., No. 19-30323 (Nov. 27, 2019) (unpubl.) (citations omitted).

Diece-Lisa Indus., Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., a dispute about trademark rights related to “Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear” (right), analyzed whether the disposition of several consolidated cases on personal-jurisdiction grounds could be reviewed. After reviewing the specific claims and the applicable standards, the Fifth Circuit “conclude[d] that we have jurisdiction to review the interlocutory orders . . . because they can be ‘regarded as merged into the final judgment terminating'” one of the case numbers. It then affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs’ “franchise theory” (a kind of single-business-enterprise argument) lacked merit, and that a nonexclusive license agreement also was not, by itself, a basis for jurisdiction. No. 17-41268 (Nov. 19, 2019).

In Williams v. TH Healthcare Ltd., No. 19-20134 (Nov. 14, 2019, unpubl.), the Fifth Circuit made two broadly-applicable points about the deadline running from receipt of an EEOC right-to-sue letter:

• Extra days for the weekend. Williams received a right-to-sue letter for her Title VII and ADA claims on July 29, 2018. The ninety-day deadline for filing suit fell on Saturday, October 27, 2018. Williams thus had until the following Monday, October 29, 2018, to file suit. Williams filed suit that day. Her lawsuit was therefore timely and the district court erred in dismissing it.
• Substantive, but not jurisdictional. “he district court concluded that it “d[id] not have jurisdiction over Dovie Williams’s claims because she did not sue within ninety days of receiving the [right-to-sue] letter.” The ninety-day filing requirement, however, “is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, but more akin to a statute of limitations.” Harris v. Boyd Tunica, Inc., 628 F.3d 237, 239 (5th Cir. 2010). The court therefore treats the district court’s order as a dismissal of Williams’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to comply with the ninety-day filing requirement.

“Since the issue of whether the district court applied the correct state’s law to resolve the matters before it is of primary importance in determining whether the district court ultimately reached the correct result in granting Gray’s request for summary judgment, we reject Gray’s categorization of its appeal as ‘conditional.’ Either the district court applied the correct law, or it did not. Whether the district court applied the correct law cannot and does not revolve on whether it reached a result that benefits Gray. Thus, we will address the propriety of the district court’s decision to apply Texas law regardless of whether we agree with the court’s conclusion under Texas law.” Aggreko LLC v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., No. 18-40325 (Nov. 11, 2019).

The en banc Fifth Circuit will consider the panel opinion in Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., No. 18-31159 (Aug. 15, 2019), which continued to find a lack of appellate jurisdiction over a dispute because of the so-called “finality trap.” In a previous appeal, the Court found a lack of appellate jurisdiction over an order after three defendants had been dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiff returned to district court and obtained a new order directing dismissal with prejudice (with some caveats), but to no avail: “[T]he rule 54(b) judgment did not retroactively transform the prior without-prejudice dismissals into with-prejudice dismissals. . . . [T]he finality trap, which was found to bar appellate jurisdiction in Williams I, remains shut.”  Judge Haynes’s concurrence in the panel opinion asked for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit’s cases on this topic.

“This case is a perfect example of when we should certify cases, and why certification is valuable. We are presented with a question of pure statutory interpretation on a recurring issue of interest to citizens and businesses across Texas. What’s more, it is a question that divided judges on this court. As reflected in our competing concurring opinions, different judges on this court have disagreed about whether the district court correctly interpreted the Texas Sales Representative Act (“TSRA”). But we all agreed that reasonable minds could differ. So rather than provide a partial answer—binding only litigants who file in federal court, not those in state court— we instead certified the question to the Supreme Court of Texas, which can speak with authority for all litigants, in state and federal court alike. We now have that answer, and accordingly affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.” JCB Inc. v. Horsburgh & Scott Co., No. 17-51023 (Oct. 17, 2019).

After an unsuccessful detour to the High Court of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a plaintiff tried to appeal an award from the Western District of Texas of $26,726 in costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d) (“Costs of a Previously Dismissed Action”), along with a related order that administratively closed the Texas matter until the costs were paid. The Fifth Circuit found it had no jurisdiction because: (1) administrative closure is not a final judgment; (2) the collateral-order doctrine did not apply, “[s]ince there is no indication that the ordered costs could not be paid and later recovered upon a successful appeal of a final judgment,” and (3) mandamus was not available, especially when: “[A]ppellants here do not allege that they are unable to pay. Unwillingness to pay based on disagreement with the district court’s decision is insufficient. Appellants can obtain relief through direct appeal after a final judgment.” Sammons v. Economou, No. 18-50932 (Oct. 10, 2019).

The Fifth Circuit (minus the two Mississippi judges, who are) voted to take en banc the difficult voting rights case of Thomas v. Bryant, No. 19-60133 (as revised, Sept. 3, 2019), which also presents important issues about justiciability and appellate procedure. At the panel level, all three judges wrote opinions.

Another discovery dispute in litigation about governance of the airport in Jackson, Mississippi (a previous proceeding involved a mandamus proceeding related to the deposition of the governor’s chief of staff) arose from subpoenas to several legislators, who asserted legislative privilege in response. The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs lacked standing (“The plaintiffs cite no precedent supporting their theory that Jackson voters have a right to elect officials with the exclusive authority to select municipal airport commissioners”), and that this issue was properly raised even during an interlocutory appeal of a collateral order: “[E]ven nonparty witnesses refusing to comply with a discovery order may challenge standing . . . because ‘the subpoena power of a court cannot be more extensive than its jurisdiction.'” Stallworth v. Bryant, No. 18-60587 (Aug. 21, 2019).

Double Eagle Energy Services filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and then sued two defendants for breach of contract in federal district court. Double Eagle then assigned that claim to one of its creditors; the defendants argued that this assignment destroyed federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, relying upon the “time-of-filing” rule to find that the “related to bankruptcy” jurisdiction existing when the case was filed continued to exist after the assignment. The separate question–whether the district court should nevertheless its exercise discretion to dismiss the case–was remanded, as the Court’s “ordinary practice for discretionary decisions is remanding to ‘allow the district court to exercise its discretion in the first instance.'” Double Eagle Energy Services v. Markwest Utica EMG, No. 19-30207 (Aug. 26, 2019).

Longoria, a truck driver in Laredo, prevailed in a 3-day jury trial about his injuries arising from an accident, and won judgment for $2.8 million in total, based on the jury’s awards as to nine types of damages. The Fifth Circuit noted these points, among others, in reviewing the defendant’s appeal of that judgment:

• Sufficiency v. Excessiveness. “The sufficiency challenge asks only whether there is any evidence for a jury’s award; if there is, the judge’s job is at an end. An excessiveness challenge requires more extensive scrutiny, including—as will be seen—consideration of verdicts in similar cases. And we review the district court’s decision on remittitur only for an abuse of discretion. We cannot assess whether such discretion was abused if the district court was not asked to exercise it in the first instance.”
• Federal v. State. In a review for excessiveness: “The state/federal issue is presented because Texas does not use the maximum recovery rule. It instead conducts a more holistic assessment at both stages of the inquiry.”
• Pain. “This pain is significant. But an award of $1 million is ‘contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence,’ given that Longoria can mostly manage the pain by stretching and taking over-the-counter medicine.”
• Anguish. “Longoria points to his fear that he may be unable to keep working as a truck driver. He testified that this occupation is his ‘childhood dream’ and that without it, he could not support his family. But Longoria is cleared to work, and no doctor indicated his ability to work may change in the future. His understandable concern for the future is not the high degree of distress or frequent disruption Texas law requires.”

Longoria v. Hunter Express, No. 17-41042 (Aug. 1, 2019).

Appellants argued that it a securities-registration exemption plainly applied to a transaction; the Fifth Circuit observed: “While the Gleasons now argue that section 4(a)(1)’s applicability is so obvious that the district court committed a clear error of law or manifest injustice, their able lawyers went in a different direction when opposing summary judgment,” and affirmed. Gleason v. Markel Am. Ins. Co, No. 18-40850 (July 30, 2019, unpublished).

Hard-fought litigation about reform to Texas’s foster-care system led to an injunction, an appeal, a limited remand to revise the injunction, and a renewed appeal. The panel majority affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding, inter alia: (i) the revised injunction exceeded the mandate of the limited remand; (ii) that a requirement affirmed in the appeal was, upon further review, in fact unnecessary; and (iii) that a provision about data use required additional confidentiality safeguards.

A strong dissent protested the overall lack of deference to the district court’s discretion, focusing in particular on a provision about “an integrated computer system to rationalize record keeping.” It argued that by vacating that provision, “the majority completes its walk away from the district court’s interlaced remedial scheme, taking away provisions essential to its success . . . a decision flawed by the evidence and controlling legal principles.”  The dissent further observed: “[The State’s] reflexive resistance to the federal district court’s remedial orders–both direct confrontation and a refusal to cooperate or otherwise participate in the crafting of a response–bespeaks a view of our federalism inverted to look past the unchallenged finding of this court of the State’s deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of PMC children . . . .”  M.D. v. Abbott, No. 18-40057 (July 8, 2019).

Lake Eugenie Land & Devel. v. BP, the latest in the “body of federal common law in this Circuit” about the Deepwater Horizon settlement, presents both a crisp summary of the mandate rule and a dramatic tale of piracy on the high seas.

Mandate rule. As to the mandate rule, the opinion succinctly summarizes its theoretical basis –

“The mandate rule is a subspecies of the law-of-the-case doctrine: When a court decides a question, it usually decides it once and for all ‘subsequent stages in the same case.’ This doctrine operates on a horizonal plane—constricting a later panel vis-à-vis an earlier panel of the same court.  It also operates on a vertical plane—constricting a lower court vis-à-vis a higher court. The vertical variant is what we call the ‘mandate rule,’ and it’s the kind at issue here.”

(citations omitted), as well as the way to implement it: “The first step is figuring out what our mandate said. . . . The next question is whether the district court deviated from that mandate.” (citations omitted).

Piracy on the high seas. The opinion cites some 19th-Century authority about the foundations of the mandate rule; among them, Himley v. Rose, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 313 (1809), which involved a “decree . . . formerly rendered” about the restoration of cargo from the merchant ship Sarah. The earlier opinion, Rose v. Himley, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 241 (1808), presents an amazing tale of a load of coffee, sent from the port of Santo Domingo by “brigands” during a slave revolt against the French government, which was then intercepted and seized by a French privateer and sold in Cuba.

The Fifth Circuit’s unfortunate Erie guess in Priester v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 708 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2013), about limitations for an action to quiet title on a home-equity lien, was later rejected by the Texas Supreme Court in Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, 505 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2016). Meanwhile, the Priesters’ problems with their lender continued. The Fifth Circuit declined to consider their motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), noting a lengthy delay by the Priesters in bringing the motion, and observing: “If a ‘change in law’ automatically allowed the reopening of federal cases, then anytime the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, the courts that had taken the view that did not prevail would have to reopen cases no matter how long ago the judgments issued. . . . [The Priesters] are worried that the earlier federal judgment against them may pose a res judicata problem. But res judicata is the ordinary result of a final judgment, not an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from one.” Priester v. JP Morgan Chase, No. 18-40127 (re-released as published on July 1, 2019).

District courts frequently “administratively close” an inactive matter, but that housekeeping measure does not create an appealable order: ‘”A ‘final decision’ generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” In contrast, “a district court order staying and administratively closing a case lacks the finality of an outright dismissal or closure.” By administratively closing the case, the district court retains jurisdiction, meaning it can “reopen the case—either on its own or at the request of a party—at any time.” “[R]eservation of jurisdiction for the purpose of hearing substantive claims . . . precludes appellate jurisdiction because an order framed this way is not a final judgment.”’ Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, No. 18-50605 (May 23, 2019) (unpubl.)

Emphasizing a significant difference between Texas and federal practice, ENI US Operating Co. v. Transocean clarified Circuit precedent and held: “Under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 52(a), implicit findings will not automatically be inferred to support a conclusory ultimate finding. The district court must lay out enough subsidiary findings to allow us to glean ‘a clear understanding of the analytical process by which [the] ultimate findings were reached and to assure us that the trial court took care in ascertaining the facts.” Finding that the district court’s reasoning was insufficiently developed under this standard, the Fifth Circuit remanded for more detailed findings on a key point. The Court also reversed on two other issues of contract law:

• A clause referring to an indemnity obligation for “special, indirect, or consequential damages,” while a “limitation on the type of damages allowed . . . says nothing about what type of claims can be brought” (and thus, does not preclude a breach-of-warranty action); and
• A damages calculation based on a steady contract price was flawed because “it looks to what Eni actually did after termination, when the operative question is what Eni would have done in a non-breach world. . . . The district court should have attempted to determine, in the hypothetical non-breach world, how many days the Pathfinder [above, left] would have spent at each applicable rate.”

No. 18-20115 (March 28, 2019).

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].”

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).

In a borrower’s lawsuit against the servicer of a home equity loan, the district court entered a partial final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) on January 4, 2018. Then, after further review of a remaining claim by a magistrate judge, it entered a second judgment resolving the rest of the case on January 31. The Fifth Circuit held that the notice of appeal was timely as to the second judgment, but not the first. The Court had considerable doubt about whether the appeal of the second judgment could be used to question whether Rule 54(b) had properly been invoked in the first, and also found that the district court had properly used that Rule to handle the borrower’s various claims. Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, No. 18-10257 (Feb. 21, 2019).

Xitronix Corp. alleged that KLA-Tencor Corp. violated the antitrust laws by fraudulently obtaining a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The trial court granted summary judgment to KLA, appeal was taken to the Federal Circuit, which then transferred the appeal to the Fifth Circuit – who then transferred the case back to the Federal Circuit in Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp. Distinguishing the recent Supreme Court case about an attorney malpractice claim involving patent law, Gunn v. Minton, 133 S.Ct. 1059 (2013), the Fifth Circuit observed:

“This case concerns a patent that is currently valid and enforceable, issued following a PTO proceeding heretofore viewed as lawful. This litigation has the potential to render that patent effectively unenforceable and to declare the PTO proceeding tainted by illegality. This alone distinguishes the present case from Gunn. The adjudication of this Walker Process claim also implicates the interaction between the PTO and Article III courts. The district court’s acerbic statements about the PTO at summary judgment point to the complexity of relations between proceedings in federal court and before the PTO.”

No. 18-50114 (Feb. 15, 2019).

84 Lumber lost, at the pretrial stage, a construction dispute with Paschen, a general contractor. Paschen then dismissed without prejudice its third-party action against J.A., a general contractor, after which 84 Lumber appealed. The jurisdictional question was whether that dismissal without prejudice made the case unappealable under Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum  577 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1978). The Fifth Circuit concluded that it did not: “The purpose of the Ryan rule is to prevent the appealing party from manufacturing jurisdiction by using an ‘end-run around the final judgment rule to convert an otherwise non-final—and thus nonappealable—ruling into a final decision appealable under § 1291.’ But the plaintiff, 84 Lumber, did not participate in Paschen’s dismissal of its remaining third-party claim against J & A, so it did not manufacture appellate jurisdiction.” 84 Lumber Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 18-30170 (Jan. 24, 2019).

After the November 2018 elections, the new leadership of Harris County moved to dismiss the appeal of long-running litigation about the county’s pretrial bail policy (most recently, the stay pending appeal granted in O’Donnell v. Goodhart, 900 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2018)). That panel rejected the movants’ request to vacate its opinion, noting the exceptional effort made to handle the case quickly and accurately, and finding that that situation was not analogous to an appeal that becomes moot. The panel agreed that “a merits panel is not bound by a motions panel,” but observed: “[T]hat is irrelevant because there is not, and never will be, a merits panel” as a result of the dismissal. O’Donnell v. Salgado, No. 18-20466 (Jan. 14, 2019).

Thompson v. Dallas City Attorney’s Office appears to present the first use, in the history of the federal judiciary, of both the words “augurs” and “morphed” in a circuit-court opinion. It also carefully reviews the “vexing” question of when an earlier Fifth Circuit opinion should not be followed, despite the “rule of orderliness,” because that opinion was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent when written. The Court found that Henson v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co., 651 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1981) was such a case, noting:

• prior Supreme Court precedent on the relevant res judicata question, which Henson did not address or even acknowledge;
• further Supreme Court precedent, issued soon after Henson, reaffirming the earlier opinion;
• consistent Fifth Circuit case law since Henson that did not apply it; and
• a paucity of citations to Henson.

In sum: “Orderliness, rightly understood, compels deference, not defiance. And disregarding on-point precedent in favor of an aberrational decision flouting that precedent is the antithesis of orderlinesss.” No. 17-10952 (Jan. 11, 2019).

A textbook example of the “rule of orderliness” appears in Gahagan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, a dispute about the recovery of attorneys’ fees under FOIA by an attorney proceeding pro se:

• In Cazalas v. DOJ, 709 F.2d 1051, 1057 (5th Cir. 1983), a panel majority of the Fifth Circuit held that “a litigant attorney represent[ing] herself or himself” is eligible for “an award of attorney fees under the FOIA.”
• In Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 438, 435 (1991), which arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the Supreme Court rejected “[a] rule that authorizes awards of counsel fees to pro se litigants— even if limited to those who are members of the bar,” for fear it “would create a disincentive to employ counsel whenever such a plaintiff considered himself competent to litigate on his own behalf.” Therefore, “a pro se litigant who is also a lawyer may [not] be awarded attorney’s fees.”
• In Texas v. ICC, 935 F.2d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 1991), citing Cazalas, the Fifth Circuit held that :”courts can in appropriate circumstances award attorneys fees to states” under FOIA.

“Whether Cazalas is still binding turns on first- and second-order questions under the rule of orderliness. The first question is whether ICC requires us to follow Cazalas. It does not. The second question is whether Kay requires us to abandon Cazalas. It does.” Kay overruled the rationale of Cazalas, and while ICC nominally followed Cazalas, it did not analyze the effect of Kay.

Mauldin sued Gonzalez, Hernandez, and Allstate Insurance. The district court denied Mauldin’s motion to remand as to Gonzalez and entered a final judgment in Gonzalez’s favor. Two weeks later, it transferred the remaining claims to Oklahoma under § 1404(a). As to Gonzalez, it found that the remand ruling was appealable because it was combined with a final judgment – an exception to the general rule that denials of motions to remand are interlocutory and not appealable. And it found that the Fifth Circuit retained jurisdiction over the appeal about Gonzalez notwithstanding the transfer – an important if rarely-encountered point about the interplay among the jurisdiction of the federal circuits. Mauldin v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 17-11274 (Dec. 10, 2018, unpublished).

The Fifth Circuit noted that “[t]he parties agree that we have jurisdiction over this appeal” in Aggreko LLC v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., which arose from rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment in a dispute about insurance coverage. Unfortunately for the parties seeking appellate review, the Court also reminded that “we must sua sponte examine the basis of our own jurisdiction when necessary.” Here, the disposition on summary judgment below did not end the litigation, as it resolved only some claims between some parties, and did not expressly result in the dismissal or entry of relief with respect to any parties’ claims.” No. 18-40325 (Nov. 21, 2018).

The issue in SCF Waxler Marine LLC v. Aris T MV was whether the excess insurers for a multi-vessel accident could enforce a “Crown Zellerbach clause,” and thus limit their liability to the value of the insured vessel. (The vessel at issue, the Aris T (right) is presently in the Atlantic en route to Rotterdam from Mobile.) The Fifth Circuit found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s ruling that the excess insurers could enforce such a clause: “The fundamentals of Bucher-Guyer bear a striking resemblance to this case. There, the district court determined the boundaries of a party’s liability— $500—based on the applicability of statutory language. Nevertheless, whether the opposing party was entitled to anything and, if so, how much was still to be determined. In this case, the court decided the boundaries of a party’s liability through determination of whether a contractual provision permitted them to do so. Whether Valero, Shell, and Motiva are legally permitted to recover anything from the Excess Insurers and, if so, how much remains to be determined.” No. 17-30805 (Oct. 30, 2018).

Griggs was ordered to arbitrate his dispute with Stream Energy. Griggs refused to do so. When asked by the district court for a status report, in an echo of Bartleby the Scrivener’s famous “I would prefer not to,” Griggs responded in relevant part:

“Griggs anticipated that this Court would have already dismiss[ed] this case for want of prosecution because this Court left him only an arbitration which he has not pursued. So, Griggs states the following for the Court’s consideration: 1. Griggs understands and appreciates this Court’s order compelling arbitration. Griggs believes that the Court cons[idered] all arguments before it ruled. 2. However, Griggs disagrees with this Court’s conclusion that this matter must go to arbitration. 3. Griggs will not pursue arbitration. 4. Griggs stands ready to litigate this case before this Court to a conclusion.”

The district court then dismissed the case without prejudice. After review of the various kinds of dismissals addressed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, the Fifth Circuit treated the dismissal order as one for “delay or contumacious conduct” under Rule 41(b) – and thus, declined to reach the merits of the arbitration ruling: “Griggs should not be permitted, through recalcitrance, to obtain the review of the arbitration clause that he was expressly denied in the district court, a review that Congress has foreclosed under the Federal Arbitration Act.” Griggs v. SGE Management LLC, No. 17-50655 (Sept. 27, 2018).

The hard-fought litigation over Harris County’s bail policies returned to the Fifth Circuit after a limited remand on the scope and structure of proper injunctive relief. The Court granted a stay pending resolution of the merits; in particular, noting the effect of the appellate “mandate rule” on 3 parts of the revised injunction:

• “The original injunction contained the requirement that a hearing be held within 24 hours. Thus, the same issue of what to do with arrestees during the gap between arrest and hearing—be it 24 or 48 hours—was always at issue and could have been addressed during the initial proceedings. Remand is not the time to bring new issues that could have been raised initially. Thus, Section 7 plainly violates the mandate rule, and the Fourteen Judges are likely to succeed on the merits as to that section.” (emphasis added)
• “[The first appeal determined that 48 hours was sufficient under the Constitution.. . . [I]n the model injunction, the proposed remedy for failure to comply with that requirement was for the County to make weekly reports to the district court identifying any delays and to inform the detainees’ counsel or next of kin about the delays. . . .  The district court was to monitor the situation for a pattern of violations and only then take possible corrective action. Anything broader than that remedy violates any reasonable reading of the mandate.” (emphasis added).

O’Donnell v. Goodhart, No. 18-20466 (Aug. 14, 2018).

The district court dismissed fraud claims against an accounting firm for not complying with a Louisiana pre-suit review requirement. The Fifth Circuit affirmed but remanded for clarification as to whether the dismissal was with, or without, prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 generally assumes that silence means “with prejudice,” but the Supreme Court has recognized that that rule’s exception for “jurisdiction” goes so far as “encompassing those dismissals which are based on a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a precondition requisite to the Court’s going forward to determine the merits of his substantive claim.”
Firefighters’ Retirement System v. EisenerAmper LLP, No. 17-30273 (Aug. 2, 2018).

The issue in Kirchner v. Deutsche Bank was whether a spouse’s signature on a deed of trust – but not the loan instrument – satisfied the Texas Constitution’s requirements about home equity loans. The Fifth Circuit found the issue was squarely addressed by a prior unpublished opinion, which it called “persuasive,” and affirmed – this time, in a published opinion. The broader principle is that unpublished opinions can work their way into published “status” when the issues they address are recurring ones. No. 17-50736 (July 11, 2018).

A practical tidbit about whether a notice of appeal is “jurisdictional” appeared during the last SCOTUS term in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services: “Several Courts of Appeals, including the Court of Appeals in Hamer’s case, have tripped over our statement in Bowles [v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 210–213 (2007)], that “the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’ The ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ formulation is a characterization left over from days when we were ‘less than meticulous’ in our use of the term ‘jurisdictional.’ The statement was correct as applied in Bowles because, as the Court there explained, the time prescription at issue in Bowles was imposed by Congress. But ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ is erroneous and confounding terminology where, as here, the relevant time prescription is absent from the U.S. Code. Because Rule 4(a)(5)(C), not § 2107, limits the length of the extension granted here, the time prescription is not jurisdictional.” No. 16-658 (Nov. 18, 2017) (citations and footnote omitted).

An emotionally-charged lawsuit about the disposal of embryonic and fetal tissue led to an unfortunately-timed subpoena (during Holy Week) to the Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops, which in turn led to emergency appellate proceedings. The Fifth Circuit’s panel majority found the order was appealable as an interlocutory order notwithstanding Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), noting the importance of the First Amendment issues involved and that “Mohawk does not speak to the predicament of third parties, whose claims to reasonable protection from the courts have often been met with respect.” A dissenting opinion would not have accepted the interlocutory appeal, noting that mandamus was also available (although requiring a “clear and indisputable” right rather than simply a substantial question), and observing that the movants’ “failure to object to the in camera inspection [at issue] certainly forfeits an appellate challenge to it, and the affirmative act of producing the documents likely amounts to full-scale waiver.” Whole Woman’s Health v. Smith, No. 18-50484 (revised July 17, 2018).

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss under the TCPA (the Texas “anti-SLAPP” statute), noting that the appellant’s arguments to the district court limited him to “only . . . the theory that the TCPA applies because the claims are based on, related to, or in response to a communication in or pertaining to a judicial proceeding” within the meaning of that statute. The appellant submitted a Rule 28(j) letter citing a recent Texas Supreme Court opinion that, inter alia, recommended a “holistic review of the pleadings” in the TCPA context. The Fifth Circuit did not agree, characterizing this “point, at its core, [a]s the Texas Supreme Court’s application of that court’s argument waiver principles,” and observing: “Because this court consistently applies its waiver precedent in diversity jurisdiction cases, we will do so here.” Diamond Consortium, Inc. v. Hammervold, No.17-40582 (May 3, 2018).

A lawyer sought to appeal a sanctions order; the Fifth Circuit found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction:

• The Court did not accept the district court’s certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), as “the claim for relief is the wrongful death and survival cause of action brought by [Plaintiff] . . . [t]he Rule 11 sanctions and referral to the disciplinary committee with findings of . . . misconduct are not claims for relief in this suit”;
• The district court’s Rule 54 order did not contain a certification about “a legal issue that satisfies the substantive requirements of § 1292(b),” and thus could not be treated as an appealable interlocutory order;
• The sanctions ruling was not a “collateral order,” as it is “reviewable after the district court makes its determinations of liability on the merits . . . .”; and
•  A potentially-viable doctrine about the appeal of sanctions orders, combined with an attorney’s withdrawal, did not apply because the relevant counsel remained in the case

Nogess v. Poydras Center LLC, No. 17-30449 (April 3, 2018).

Making a not-so-subtle remark about the requirements for a successful en banc petition, the Fifth Circuit has amended local rule 35.5 to say: “35.5 Length. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(2). The statement required by Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1) is included in the limit and is not a “certificate[ ] of counsel” that is excluded by Fed. R. App P. 32(f).” In other words, the certificate of counsel about the specific cases inconsistent with the panel opinion counts against the length limit.

In Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter remarked: “If I had a world of my own . . . Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?” In that spirit,  under 28 U.S.C. §  1447(d), a remand order is unreviewable on appeal if issued under one of the grounds in § 1447(c) – either a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or the plaintiff moves ” to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . .  within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal.” In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Starr Indemnity, the plaintiff argued that the district court erred by remanding based on subject matter jurisdiction, when the issue before it was properly characterized as a late-raised procedural matter. The Fifth Circuit agreed, but held: “[Defendants],  however, cannot evade the reviewability bar of § 1447(d) by establishing this defect. . . . . Indeed, each passage from the district court’s order to which the Insurers point as a clear and affirmative statement of a non-§ 1447(c) ground in fact expressly invokes that court’s perceived lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This belief, however erroneous, ‘sufficiently cloaks the remand order in the § 1447(c) absolute immunity from review’ and ends the inquiry.” No. 16-20821 (March 26, 2018, unpublished).

Many years, ago, “the Supreme Court viewed the fashioning of statutory remedies as within the property judicial rule [u]nder the now-abandoned maxim that ‘a statutory right implies the existence of all necessary and appropriate remedies.'” But that view has changed, and now, “the judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed.” Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). Proceeding from that starting point, after a review of the text and structure of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, the Court agreed that the Act did not create a private right of action, and it recognized that earlier Circuit authority on the issue had been essentially overruled by the analytical framework in Sandoval. Stokes v. Southwest Airlines, No. 17-10760 (April 5, 2018).

In Howard v. Maxum Indemnity Co., “Howard’s appeal raises as a central, threshold question whether he waived application of Oklahoma law” in an insurance dispute. Unfortunately, “[a]lthough Howard did raise the choice of law issue in his Rule 59(e) motion, ‘this court will typically not consider an issue or a new arugment raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration in the district court.’ . . . ‘Parties generally are bound by the theory of law they argue in the district court, absent some manifest injustice.'” No. 16-11746 (Dec. 13, 2017).

A premature notice of appeal is certainly better than nothing, but may not be enough, as the Fifth Circuit noted in Johnson v. Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc.: “Before we address Johnson’s contentions on appeal, we note that Johnson’s notice of appeal from the summary judgment dismissing the claims against some, but not all, of the defendants, was premature. Nevertheless, because the district court could have certified that the summary judgment was appealable, and it subsequently entered a final judgment, the notice of appeal gives us appellate jurisdiction over the summary judgment.  However, because Johnson did not file a notice of appeal from the final judgment, which dismissed his remaining claims against REMNI/Homebridge, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the dismissal of his claims against REMNI/Homebridge.” No. 17-20347 (Dec. 1, 2017, unpublished).

In an insurance coverage dispute, the district court granted both sides’ motions for summary judgment as to the meaning of various policy terms. The net result was final judgment for the insurance company. The insured appealed; the insurer cross-appealed, and on that procedural point, the Fifth Circuit held that the cross-appeal was unnecessary, noting:

• “National Union is conflating the district court’s opinion (i.e., the order) with its judgment. Appellate courts review judgments, not opinions. . . . To the extent that the district court rejected the arguments in National Union’s cross-appeal, ‘an appellee may urge any ground available in support of a judgment even if that ground was . . . rejected by the trial court.'” (citations omitted);
• The recent case of ART Midwest v. Atlantic Limited Partnership XII,742 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2014), in which a party was not allowed to raise certain issues after not taking a cross-appeal, was distinguishable because judgment had actually been entered against that party on those issues. “Here,there is no adverse judgment against National Union, such that it might need to protect its rights—just some adverse reasoning”; and
• “This is not just formalism. ‘A cross-appeal filed for the sole purpose of advancing additional arguments in support of a judgment is “worse than unnecessary”, because it disrupts the briefing schedule, increases the number (and usually the length) of briefs, and tends to confuse the issues.’ . . . In this case, National Union’s improper cross-appeal resulted in an over-length opposition brief and an additional reply (giving National Union over four thousand words of additional briefing).” (citations omitted)

Cooper Indus. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 16-20539 (revised Dec. 11, 2017).

In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit found that Ezekiel Elliott failed to exhaust remedies within the NFL’s dispute-resolution process before filing suit, meaning that the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his complaints. A dissent found a sufficient question about the adequacy of the process to justify the exercise of jurisdiction under the relevant authorities. NFLPA v. NFL, No. 17-40936 (Oct. 12, 2017). While of enormous interest to Cowboys fans, so far as arbitration goes, the opinion is centered on issues unique to collective bargaining agreements.