Jefferson sued Delgado Community College, alleging that it was “an agency or instrumentality of the government of the State of Louisiana.”  The Louisiana Attorney General appeared for the State, argued that she had not correctly named the State in the case, and suggested how to properly serve the college.  Jefferson v. Delgado Community College, No. 14-30379 (March 12, 2015, unpublished).  The district court denied the AG’s motion to dismiss, pointing to what the pleading said.  The AG sought appellate review and the Fifth Circuit found it had no jurisdiction.  The ruling was not appealable as a collateral order: “For example, personal jurisdiction implicates a defendant’s due process rights, but a defendant may not appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction under the collateral order rule.”  The Court also denied mandamus relief, noting that the district court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous given the language of the pleading, and suggesting that the parties may wish to consider the AG’s suggestion about proper service for future proceedings in the case.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Alstom Transportation presented a challenge to an arbitration award, in a contract dispute about the maintenance of rail cars.  No. 13-11274 (Feb. 5, 2015).  The Fifth Circuit brushed aside a number of challenges to the arbitrator’s legal analysis, quoting the Seventh Circuit: “As we have said too many times to want to repeat again, the question for decision by a federal court asked to set aside an arbitration award . . . is not whether the arbitrator or arbitrators erred in interpreting the contract; it is not whether they clearly erred in interpreting the contract; it is not whether they grossly erred in interpreting the contract; it is whether they interpreted the contract.”

Also, on procedural grounds, the Court rejected a challenge to the propriety of having arbitrated “gateway questions” of arbitrability.  The district court had partially vacated the arbitrator’s award, the appellant (successfully) challenged that ruling, and BNSF had considerable latitude to defend it.  But the “gateway” argument that arbitration should never have occurred, and that the award should thus be vacated in full, could not be presented on appeal absent a cross-appeal because it “asks for an expansion of the judgment.”

The plaintiff in Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs. sued for age discrimination and the defendant defaulted.    The trial court received damages evidence and entered judgment for the plaintiff.   The defendant then appeared – unsuccessfully – but obtained reversal from the Fifth Circuit.  No. 13-11035 (Jan 2, 2015).

“On appeal, the [defaulted] defendant, although he may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, is entitled to contest the sufficiency of the complaint and its allegations to support the judgment.”   Here, the majority saw the pleading as a “threadbare recital of a cause of action,” especially weak as to causation.  At the hearing, however, “[P]laintiff’s live testimony provides sufficient evidence of each of the elements of his ADEA cause of action to support the entry of default.”

After a careful review of the language of the rules, precedent, and policy, the majority emphasized the pleadings over the evidence: “As there can be no judgment absent competent pleadings, it strains the text of [Rule 55] to suppose that this investigatory power encompasses the adduction of facts necessary to render the pleadings competent in the first place.”  The trial court should have either dismissed or, in one of various ways, ordered amendment of the pleadings and afforded the defendant the chance to answer them.  A dissent found that “[t]his result is inordinately lopsided and, even worse, favors the wearer of the black hat over the wearer of the white hat.”

Plaintiffs sued for securities fraud about their investments in a business that auctioned antiques.  Heck v. Triche, No. 14-30146 (Dec. 23, 2014). They won on many claims at trial and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, largely on procedural grounds:

1.  Appeal Deadline Extended.  As a threshold matter, the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys fees tolled the deadline for the notice of appeal, because the district court entered an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(e) that stayed the deadline until the disposition of the motion.  The Court noted some tension between its analysis of this issue and that of the Second Circuit’s in Mendes Junior Int’l Co. v. Banco Do Brasil, S.A., 215 F.3d 306 (2000).

2.  Invited Charge Error.  The Court agreed that the district court’s verdict form erroneously conflated the elements of a federal 10b-5 claim with those of a Louisiana securities claim.  It found, however, that the plaintiffs invited this error by advocating for this part of the charge (citing United States v. Gray, 626 F.2d 494, 501 n.2 (5th Cir. 1980) [“The invited error doctrine bars reversal even if the instruction constituted plain error.”])

3.  Cross-Appeal Needed.  The plaintiffs argued that the district court erred by imposing liability under state law, not 10b-5.  The Court found this argument waived, because its acceptance would change the amount of the judgment as well as its basis, and the plaintiffs did not cross-appeal.

Several labor unions arbitrated disputes with American Airlines about pilot seniority. Mackenzie v. Air Lines Pilots Association, No. 11-11098 (Dec. 23, 2014, unpublished). Two pilots sought to bring a class action to challenge the arbitration award.  The Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of standing: “[W]hen a CBA formed pursuant to the RLA establishes a mandatory, binding grievance procedure and vests the union with the exclusive right to pursue claims on behalf of aggrieved employees, an aggrieved employee whose employment is governed by the CBA lacks standing to attack the results of the grievance process in court—the sole exception being the authorization of an aggrieved employee to bring an unfair representation claim.”  (citing Mitchell v. Continental Airlines, 481 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2007)).  The Court’s analysis of this issue resembles discussion about the broader topic of claim preclusion, arising from a privity relationship, based on another party’s litigation activity.

The Fifth Circuit revised its earlier opinion in Aransas Project v. Shaw, No. 13-40317 (Dec. 15, 2014) and also denied en banc review over a dissent joined by three judges (with a fourth also voting for review).  The Court continues to hold that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause in an environmental case about the environment for whooping cranes.  The points of division are whether the panel “independently weighs facts to render judgment in violation of fundamental principles of federal law,” or simply finds that “the record permits only one resolution of the factual issue after the correct law is applied”; a related issue is whether rendition or remand is the appropriate appellate remedy for fact findings premised on an error of law.

In Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, No. 13-31130 (Nov. 24, 2014), the trial court entered this order on September 25, 2013:

“IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 16) is granted and the parties are ordered to resolve the claim presented in an arbitration conducted in accordance with the terms of their insurance policy.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action is stayed, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case for administrative purposes given the unlikelihood that further proceedings in this action will be necessary.”

Several months later, the trial court further ordered:

“This court finds that pursuant to Freudensprung and American Heritage Ins. Co. v. Orr, 294 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 2002), the September 25, 2013 order compelling arbitration and staying the underlying proceeding operates as a final, appealable decision within the statutory framework of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1-16.”

The Fifth Circuit gave little weight to that further order:

”In a later ruling on SWEPCO’s Rule 58(d) motion for a separate judgment, the district court carefully construed its earlier ruling. Notably, the district court considered case law to construe the prior order ‘as a final, appealable decision within the statutory framework of the [FAA].’ It did not issue a clarification that its prior order was intended to be final and appealable, did not purport to grant SWEPCO’s motion, and did not issue a new order with the necessary trappings of finality.”

Accordingly, because the previous order only stayed and administratively closed the matter — as opposed to dismissing it — the order was interlocutory and the Court lacked appellate jurisdiction.

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its original opinion in Scarlott v. Nissan North America to issue a revised opinion on rehearing.  No. 13-20528 (Nov.10, 2014).  The Court did not materially change its earlier holding that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied, or its disposition by a remand to the district court for purposes of remand to state court.  The Court added discussion — and a dissent — about how the district court should handle a sanctions award on remand.  The plurality simply said: “In light of our holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction over this case, the district court should reconsider whether to award attorneys’ fees and costs to the defendants; and if the court decides that attorneys’ fees and costs are still appropriate, the court should reconsider the amount of the award.”  The dissent would vacate the award; among other points, it made this basic one: “By its very nature, section 1927 involves assessing the merits of the claim, which establishes the inappropriateness of the district court’s order in light of the lack of jurisdiction.”

The parties to a contract about the construction of a barge disputed whether an amendment required price adjustments based on the price of steel.   Blessey Marine Services, Inc. v. Jeffboat, LLC, No. 13-30731 (Nov. 10, 2014, unpublished).  In a pretrial summary judgment ruling, the district court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the contract was unambiguous, and held a jury trial to hear extrinsic evidence and resolve the ambiguity.  On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held:

1.  Because the plaintiff did not renew the ambiguity argument in a Rule 50 motion (although it did raise the point in a motion in limine and in opposition to the other side’s motion), the Court could not consider it on appeal; and

2.  “By adducing some of the same extrinsic evidence at trial that it had sought to exclude in its motion in limine, [Plaintiff] waived its right to challenge the district court’s admission of that evidence.”  (citing Fed. R. Evid. 103(b) and Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 755 (2000) [“[A] party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted.”])

The forum selection clause in Waste Management of Louisiana LLC v. Jefferson Parish was permissive, not mandatory:

“Jurisdiction: This Agreement and the performance thereof shall be governed, interpreted, construed and regulated by the laws of the State of Louisiana and the parties hereto submit to the jurisdiction of the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana. The parties hereby waiving [sic] any and all plea[s] of lack of jurisdiction or improper venue.”

When Waste Management sued in Louisiana federal court, the defendant’s forum non conveniens motion was denied and the Fifth Circuit declined to review that denial by interlocutory appeal.  No. 14-90040 (Nov. 28, 2014, unpublished).  The Court noted: “Unlike their mandatory counterparts, permissive forum selection clauses allow but do not require litigation in a designated forum. As such, we have never required district courts to transfer or dismiss cases involving clauses that are permissive.”  It held that Atlantic Marine Construction v. District Court, 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013), did not change that rule, as that case involved a mandatory clause, and “[t]he vast majority of district courts deciding this issue have rejected Atlantic Marine’s application to permissive forum selection clauses.”

A mortgage servicer sued two individuals, alleging a conspiracy to defraud; the defendants argued that the servicer lacked standing because the notes in question were not properly conveyed.  The case settled during trial, and as part of the settlement “the parties stipulated to several facts, including the fact that the Trusts were the owners and holders of the Loans at issue.”  An agreed judgment followed.  BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Groves, No. 13-20764 (Nov. 3, 2014, unpublished).

The defendants then moved to vacate under FRCP 60(b), arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing.  The district court denied the motion and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  It first noted that “the court will generally enforce valid appeal waivers, [but] a party cannot waive Article III standing by agreement . . .”  Further noting that “parties may stipulate to facts but not legal conclusions,” the Court held: “That is exactly what happened here.  [Defendants] conceded facts that establish [plainitiff’s] status; thus, the district court appropriately reached the resulting legal conclusion that [plaintiff] has standing.”

Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court answered certified questions from the Fifth Circuit about the treatment of home equity loans under the Texas Constitution; that opinion summarizes: “To avoid foreclosure, homeowners and lenders often try to restructure underwater home mortgage loans that are in default by capitalizing past-due amounts as principal, lowering the interest rate, and reducing monthly payments, thereby easing the burden on the homeowners. But home equity loans are subject to the requirements of Article XVI, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has asked whether those requirements apply to such loan restructuring. We answer that as long as the original note is not satisfied and replaced, and there is no additional extension of credit, as we define it, the restructuring is valid and need not meet the constitutional requirements for a new loan.”  Sims v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, No. 13-0638 (Tex. 2014).  Following that Court’s recent denial of rehearing, the Fifth Circuit has now formally accepted the answer and ruled accordingly.

On Friday October 10, the Fifth Circuit denied mandamus relief on the eve of trial in a high-stakes False Claims case, In re Trinity Industries, Inc. — but took the unusual step of making an additional statement: “The court is compelled to note, however, that this is a close case. The writ is timely and the litigation stakes–the potential for a $1 billion adverse judgment–are unusually high. This court is concerned that the trial court,  despite numerous timely filings and motions by the defendant, has never issued a reasoned ruling rejecting the defendant’s motions for judgment as a matter of law.”  The Court went on to cite several specific opinions that caused its concern.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(f) says: “If a judgment is a lien on the judgment debtor’s property under the law of the state where the court is located, the judgment debtor is entitled to the same stay of execution the state court would give.”  In MM Steel, L.P. v. JSW Steel (USA), Inc., Appellant faced an adverse judgment for over $150 million, and sought a stay of execution based on this rule.  No. 14-20267 (Nov. 14, 2014 [revised]).

Reviewing the somewhat scattered authority about Rule 62(f) and its application in Texas, the per curiam majority concluded that the creation of a Texas judgment lien with an abstract of judgment “requires more than mere ministerial acts.”  Accordingly, a Texas judgment is not a lien within the scope of Rule 62(f), and Appellant’s motion to stay was denied (applying Rodriguez-Vazquez v. Lopez-Martinez, 345 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2003)).

In dissent, Judge Jones (a) saw the case as controlled by a different line of authority (citing Castillo v. Montelepre, Inc., 999 F.2d 931 (5th Cir. 1993)), under which “Rule 62(f) is applicable where a judgment creditor is otherwise afforded sufficient security under state law” such as Texas’s $25 million bond cap, and (b) observed: “The majority overstates the difficult of filing an abstract of judgment. . . . It is a single page with a few simple fields, like names and addresses of the parties.”

Claimants in the compensation system created by BP after the Deepwater Horizon accident received an award in October 2013.  Lake Eugenie Land & Development v. BP Exploration & Production,  No. 14-30398 (Aug. 25, 2014, unpublished).  Unpaid by March 2014, they filed a “Motion to Confirm Award and Order Payment,” which the district court denied because an interim injunction had stayed the entire program while aspects of it were under legal challenge.  After appealing, the injunction lifted.  The Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the trial court’s ruling was neither an order that “vacates, modifies, or corrects” an arbitration award, nor an “interlocutory order . . . continuing . . . an injunction against an arbitration.”

The trustee of a litigation trust formed from the bankruptcy of Idearc, Inc. sued its former parent, Verizon, alleging billions of dollars in damages in connection with its spinoff.  After a bench trial and several other orders, the district court ruled in favor of defendants, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Verizon Communications, No. 13-10752 (revised Sept. 2, 2014).

The opinion, while lengthy, still only hints at the complexity of the case, and much of its analysis is fact-specific.  Some of the issues addressed include:

1.  A bankruptcy litigation trust does not have a right to jury trial on a fraudulent transfer claim, when the defendant creditor has filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy court must resolve whether a fraudulent transfer occurred to rule on that claim (analyzing and applying Langemkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990), in light of Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011)).

2.  In the context of determining whether the district court reviewed an earlier ruling correctly, on pages 26-27, the Court provided crisp definitions of the basic concepts of dictum and holding.

3.  In the course of rejecting an argument about the refusal to admit several pieces of evidence, the Court noted that the trustee “does not discuss how each specific piece of evidence was likely to affect the outcome of the trial, in light of all the evidence presented.”

4.  A defense expert, without experience in the particular industry, was still qualified to speak to valuation methodology in the bench trial, and “we cannot reverse the district court for adopting one permissible view over the other.”

5.  The Court thoroughly reviewed the fiduciary duties owed from a parent to a subsidiary under Delaware law, while affirming the district court’s conclusions about causation associated with their alleged breach.

A little-known but powerful part of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides: “[I]f the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.”   The Fifth Circuit affirmed a dismissal under this rule in Cabot Golf CL-PP 1, LLC v. Nixon Peabody, No. 13-40912 (July 7, 2014, unpublished).  It began by noting that, in this context, the distinction between Rule 12 and Rule 56 was immaterial, where “the material facts are undisputed, and we address a pure question of law.”  On the merits, Plaintiff had filed a state lawsuit, filed a federal lawsuit, dismissed the state action, and then dismissed the federal case with a unilateral notice.  Plaintiff argued that the 2-dismissal rule “should apply only to serial litigation (i.e., suits which are filed after the earlier suits were dismissed), not to parallel/tandem litigation as in this case (i.e., suits which were already pending when the earlier suits were dismisssed).”  The Court rejected that argument as unsupported by case law or the plain terms of the Rule.

A large group of Dallas firefighters and police officers, involved in class action litigation against the City, filed a declaratory judgment action in the bankruptcy case of a law firm that had once represented them.  They sought a declaration that neither the firm, nor the bankruptcy trustee, continued to represent them in their litigation or was entitled to any fee in that litigation.  Caton v. Payne, No. 13-41182 (July 16, 2014, unpublished).  After reminding in a lengthy footnote one that the final judgment rule for bankruptcy appeals is viewed “in a practical, less technical light,” the Fifth Circuit nevertheless agreed that the appeal from the ruling on that declaration was not ripe: “It is undisputed that the Class Action Lawsuits remain pending, that no recovery has been made, and that there may never be a recovery, which would preclude any contingent fee award as to which [bankrupt firm] (through the Trustee) may or may not be entitled to a share.  Moreover, the Trustee has not yet demanded a fee, or threatened legal action to recover a fee.”

In Muchison Capital Partners, L.P. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., the district court remanded a case to an arbitration panel for further consideration of damages, making clear that it was not vacating the award.  No. 13-10852 (July 25, 2014).  Appeal ensued. Acknowledging that an order vacating an award and remanding is final, the majority concluded that this order was not final (and thus not appealable) as a matter of precedent and the general policy favoring arbitration and discouraging piecemeal appeals.  A dissent warned that “mischief will come of this error,” pointing out that the district judge closed the case, issued a final judgment, and did not stay or retain jurisdiction over the case after the remand.  The dissenting judge would take the appeal, reach the merits, and affirm the award.  A main point of difference between the majority and dissent was the holding of of Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000).

In Lemoine v. Wolfe, the Fifth Circuit certified an important question of malicious prosecution law to the Louisiana Supreme Court; namely, whether dismissal of a prosecution constitutes a “bona fide termination in his favor” as required by that tort.  No. 13-30178 (July 18, 2014, unpublished).  “For example, in a case such as this one, the dismissal served almost as a determination of the merits.  The dismissal of [the] cyberstalking charge was expressly based on the fact that the district attorney had determined that there was ‘insufficient credible, admissible, reliable evidence remaining to support a continuation of the prosecution.'”

Various products liability claims against both generic and brand-name drug manufacturers were found to be preempted in Johnson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, No. 12-31011 (July 11, 2014).  The Court relied on recent Circuit precedent after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011).  As to the brand defendants, the Court declined to certify “the question of whether a brand-name manufacturer can be held liable for injuries caused by a plaintiff’s ingestion of a generic product that was neither manufactured nor distributed by the brand-name manufacturer, reviewing several relevant considerations and authorities.  A dissent would certify, seeing the issue as having “potentially grave ramifications” and taking a different view of the strength of the relevant authority.

After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, BP’s share price declined and several employee benefits sustained major losses. An ERISA lawsuit on behalf of the beneficiaries was dismissed, noting that an ERISA fiduciary’s to maintain an investment in company stock receives a “presumption of prudence,” sometimes referred to as the Moench presumption. Whitley v. BP, P.L.C., No. 12-20670 (July 15, 2014, unpublished).  In June 2014, the Supreme Court eliminated that presumption and held that ERISA fiduciaries managing a plan invested in company stock are subject to the same duty of  prudence as any other ERISA fiduciary, “except that they need not diversify the fund’s assets.” Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751 (U.S. June 25, 2014).   Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the appeal for reconsideration in light of that opinion.

Chesapeake’s lease obliged it to pay the Warrens a royalty based on “the amount realized by Lessee, computed at the mouth of the well.”  A lease addendum said the royalty “shall be free of all costs and expenses related to the exploration, production, and marketing . . . including, but not limited to, costs of compression, dehydration, treatment and transportation.”  Warren v. Chesapeake Exploration LLC, No. 13-10619 (July 16, 2014).

The addendum went on to say that “Lessor will, however, bear a proportionate part of all those expenses imposed upon Lessee by its gas sales contract to the extent incurred subsequent to those that are obligations of Lessee.”  The Warrens contended that this sentence defined certain shared expenses which should not have been deducted from the royalty.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the Rule 12 dismissal of their complaint, finding that the sentence only referred to “the cost of delivering marketable gas to a sales point other than the mouth of the well.”  (distinguishing Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. 1996)).

The Court reversed, however, as to another pair of plaintiffs with a different lease addendum.  Noting simply that it was different, the Court found that their claim should not have been dismissed, as “[i]t is not apparent from the face of the complaint or its attachments that they could not conceivably state a cause of action.”

At issue in Meadaa v. K.A.P. Enterprises LLC was the relative liability of three defendants for a $3.5 million claim.  No. 12-30918 (July 1, 2014).  In a summary judgment affidavit, an expert opined that transactions of Defendant 1 had not resulted in unfair advantage to Defendants 2 and 3, and had kept its affairs separate from those of Defendant 4.  The expert had reviewed financial documents from Defendant 1 and tax returns from Defendant 4.  The Fifth Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s striking of this affidavit for a lack of personal knowledge.  Because “[i]t is by no means clear how a [CPA] can obtain personal knowledge of the effects of the actions of one entity on other parties without reviewing the latter’s financial documents,” it was “incumbent upon him to explain how he acquired such knowledge.”  As a procedural matter, the Court also found that a notice of appeal from a final judgment encompassed a later ruling on a Rule 59 motion.

The agreed protective order said:  “At any time after the delivery of documents designated ‘confidential,’ counsel for the receiving party may challenge the confidential designation of any document or transcript (or portion thereof) by providing written notice thereof to counsel for the opposing party.”  The producing party then has 15 days to seek protection; if it does not do so, “then the disputed material shall no longer be subject to protection as provided in this order.”  Moore v. Ford Motor Co., No. 13-40761 (June 20, 2014).

Pursuant to the order, Ford produced four boxes of documents related to Volvo safety issues.  These communications ensued:

• On May 11, 2004, plaintiffs’ counsel emailed to challenge the confidentiality designations of several documents.
• On June 4, Ford’s counsel asked for Bates numbers.
• On June 23, plaintiffs’ counsel responded, expanded on the confidentiality argument, and said it “will begin passing them out to any and everyone that is interested”
• In July, plaintiffs’ counsel asked: “what’s the word . . . on confidentiality?”
• The next day, Ford’s counsel withdrew its designations as to some documents, said it was “evaluating your claims” as to others, and “expects you to abide by the terms of the Protective Orders in the meantime”
• Plaintiffs’ counsel responded: “I gave Ford adequate time.  I am sending the materials out.  Thanks for trying.”  (He did not specify what “materials”)
• On February 22, 2005, plaintiffs’ counsel asked for an update on the “confidentiality issue”
• On March 8, 2005, Ford responded that “in the spirit of cooperation” it would “officially de-designate from the Protective Order” specified other documents.

In 2012, documents surfaced in other litigation that Ford had produced pursuant to the above protective order; while the opinion does not specify what they were, it seems clear that they were documents which Ford had not formally “de-designated.”  Ford moved to enforce the protective order and the district court agreed, finding no “clear written notice . . . challenging the confidential designation of these documents.”

On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the 15-day period ran from the first email, and Ford thus waived its designations by not moving for protection.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding the protective order ambiguous on this issue, and stating: “This interpretation may well be the better reading without more, but the parties understanding of these agreed orders bears upon the interpretation, and the actions of both parties strongly suggest” otherwise, noting the lengthy dialogue between the parties.    Noting that “[a]lthough on de novo review a different outcome may obtain,” the Court found the district court’s conclusion that no waiver occurred to not be clearly erroneous.

A dissent, among other arguments, noted that (1) the 15-day provision only requires that confidentiality be “in dispute,” (2) Ford drafted the agreement so any ambiguity should be construed against it, and (3) Ford had the burden to establish confidentiality.  The dissent concluded the majority opinion undermined “efficient resolution of discovery disputes” by allowing “Ford . . . to undermine this purpose through vague, non-responsive answers.”

In Tetra Technologies, Inc v. Continental Ins. Co., the district court ruled on several key issues in an insurance coverage dispute, declined to certify the rulings for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) because it found no substantial ground for difference of opinion, and entered judgment on those matters pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).  No. 13-30516 (June 10, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit found that judgment improper, and thus dismissed on jurisdictional grounds for lack of a final and appealable order. Rather than sounding the “death knell” of claims as required by Rule 54, the Court concluded that the rulings would allow “Tetra and Maritech to prevail completely nor not at all on their indemnification claim against Continental, depending on the resolution of certain ‘factual issues.'”  “Thus, what we are presented with here is a request by the district court for us to sign off mid-litigation on legal questions it considers non-contentions.  Since the inception of the federal judiciary, however, our role has been to review final decisions of trial courts, not to tinker with ongoing cases through piecemeal appeals . . . “

1.  Request a limiting instruction to help preserve evidentiary error:  “Moreover, even if there is merit to this distinction, [Defendant] never requested a limiting instruction during trial that would have enabled the jury to consider the evidence regarding insurance only for permissible purposes. Where ‘counsel never requested a more complete limiting instruction,’ the district court ‘cannot [be] fault[ed] . . . for failing to give one spontaneously.” Eagle Suspensions, Inc. v. Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, Inc. (June 9, 2014, unpublished).

2.  Renew earlier issues to help preserve charge error: “Essentially, [Defendant] now argues that the district court should have recalled [Defendant’s] federal preemption argument from January and February 2013 when drafting the final jury instructions on March 20, 2013, even though [Defendant] itself never referenced this federal preemption argument in [Defendant’s] objections to the proposed jury instructions. . . . [A]  party cannot merely rely on ‘‘the fact that the court is already aware of its position as an excuse for a failure to make a specific, formal objection at the charge conference.’  Rule 51 specifically requires parties to make their objections after the proposed jury charge has been drafted and distributed for comment.”  Id. (quoting Jimenez v. Wood County, 660 F.3d 841, 845-46 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc)).

Two boats collided.  The district court dismissed the resulting tort litigation in favor of Mexico on forum non conveniens grounds.  Cotemar S.A. de C.V. v. Hornbeck Offshore Services, No. 13-20230 (May 21, 2014, unpublished).  After that dismissal, the plaintiff seized the offending vessel in Louisiana (still there at the time of this writing).  The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further analysis.  The first point dealt with a potential time bar in the Mexican system.  “If access to relief in the Mexican courts has become time-barred for reasons not of Appellants’ ‘own making,’ then the Mexican courts are no
longer an available alternative forum.”  (citing Veba-Chemie AG v. M/V Getafix, 711 F.2d 1243, 1248 n.10 (5th Cir. 1983)).   Second, the “supervening change of circumstances” arising from the vessel seizure may affect the balancing of private and public factors, because a transfer to Mexico would now likely result in duplicative proceedings.

The Fifth Circuit has now resolved the challenges to BP’s Deepwater Horizon settlement, as follows:

1.  In October 2013, in three separate opinions, First Panel remanded for more fact findings as to accounting issues about the settlement.

2.  In January 2014, in a 2-1 decision, Second Panel affirmed the settlement over challenges based on Rule 23 and related standing issues.

3.  In March 2014, satisfied with the results of the remand, First Panel affirmed the mechanics of the settlement in a 2-1 decision.

4.  On May 19, 2014:

A.    First Panel denies panel rehearing, concluding in a 2-1 opinion: “In settling this lawsuit, the parties agreed on a substitute for direct proof of causation by a preponderance of the evidence.  By settling this lawsuit and agreeing to the evidentiary framework for submitting claims, the claimants did not abandon their allegations of Article III causation.”

B.  Second Panel also denies panel rehearing, also in a 2-1 opinion, noting its “complete agreement” with the denial of panel rehearing by First Panel.

C.  The full court denied en banc rehearing as to First Panel and also as to Second Panel, both over dissents that stressed Article III issues.

That’s all folks!

In Songcharoen v. Plastic & Hand Surgery Associates, the district court denied cross-motions for summary judgment about the meaning of a contract and had a trial as to the terms it believed to be ambiguous.  No. 13-60315 (April 2, 2014, unpublished).  Even though both matters present a common issue of law, because “the ‘evidence’ presented at pretrial may well be different from the evidence presented at trial,” the Court reviewed the issue through review of the denial for judgment as a matter of law.  The Court reminded: “because Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law are not required following a bench trial, reviewing a district court’s denial of summary judgment is appropriate following a bench trial.”  (citing Black v. J.I. Case Co., 22 F.3d 568, 570 (5th Cir. 1994), and Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 586 F.3d 358, 365-66 n.4 (5th Cir. 2009)).

Colbert v. Brennan arises from the difficult litigation involving the Brennan family, the noted New Orleans restaurateurs.  No. 13-30069 (May 9, 2014, unpublished).  Ted Brennan filed an unopposed motion to dismiss an appeal, pursuant to a settlement agreement [the finality of the agreement is not clear from the opinion].  (Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), “an appeal may be dismissed on an appellant’s unopposed motion if the parties agree about costs.”)  Two months later, he sought to reinstate the appeal.  Citing Williams v. United States, 553 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1977), the Fifth Circuit held that the voluntary dismissal “voided” the notice of appeal, noting that “[h]e failed to file a new notice of appeal within the time limits required by Ruel 4(a) or to seek relief in the district court as provided by Rule 4(a).”  Citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), the Court declined to apply any “equitable exception” to the rule that a notice of appeal is jurisdictional.  The Court also held it was not bound, on this jurisdictional question, by a previous single-judge ruling that reinstated the appeal.

1.  Defendants’ Rule 59 motion was filed a day late, “therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.”

2.  Post-verdict, the defendant did not renew, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), an earlier Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion that challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the plaintiff’s mental anguish claims.  The Court “decline[d] to review” the issue, noting that the Fifth Circuit’s cases “are not entirely uniform” as to whether this oversight was a waiver or allows review under a plain error standard.

3.  The Court found no plain error from the plaintiff’s closing argument, including the lawyer’s “odd tactic of handing his business card to the jury during argument, especially in light of the court’s curative instructions and [defendant’s] failure to move for a mistrial.” McLendon v. Big Lots Stores No. 13-20338 (April 14, 2014, unpublished).

In Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s RESPA claim, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and remanded them to state court.  No. 12-20806 (April 9, 2014).  Appellees argued that “because this judgment remanded the remaining state claims to the state court without addressing their respective merits, it is not a final disposition of all claims in the case, and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”  The Fifth Circuit disagreed, concluding that “as a practical matter, remands end federal litigation and leave the district court with nothing else to do.”  (applying Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996)).

The stark facts of Bierwith v. Countrywide Bank, FSB are: “[A[ppellant’s] notice of appeal was filed on August 16, 2013, thirty-one days after the district court’s entry of final judgment on July 16, 2013.  Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 provides that a notice of appeal ‘must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.’  As the Supreme Court has made clear, a party’s failure to take an appeal within the prescribed time precludes our jurisdiction.   Accordingly, [Appellants’] appeal is DISMISSED.”  No. 13-50755 (April 3, 2014, unpublished) (footnotes omitted).

The district court granted a dismissal in favor of New Zealand, on forum non conveniens grounds, in Royal Ten Cate USA, inc. v. TT Investors, Ltd.  No. 13-50106 (March 25, 2014, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit remanded for further consideration of what it saw as a key private-interest factor — “whether two key witnesses who reside in Texas would be amenable to process in New Zealand.”   The witnesses in question were former party employees living in Texas, and the parties disputed whether those individuals’ employment contracts obligated them to cooperate with litigation after their employment.  Their importance was heightened because they were particularly significant to one side, while the other side did not appear to have comparable problems with its likely witnesses.  The Court did not express an opinion about the proper result on remand, and noted that “[t]he decision regarding whether or not to take additional evidence is one that we leave to the sound discretion of the district court.”

A law firm appealed the disposition of its fee application.  The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court in part, vacated in part, and remanded for the firm to make another fee request that provided more necessary information.  Okin Adams & Kilmer v. Hill, No. 13-20035 (March 24, 2014).  The firm appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which concluded it had no appellate jurisdiction because the order was not final: “Given that the bankruptcy court must perform additional fact-finding and exercise discretion when determining an appropriate attorney’s fee award, the district court’s order requires the bankruptcy court to perform judicial functions upon remand.”  A detailed dissent concluded that, while the district court’s order required “more than a mechanical entry of judgment,” “it also involves only mechanical and computational tasks that are ‘unlikely to affect the issue that the disappointed party wants to raise on appeal.'”  Accordingly, it warned that “refusing to hear this appeal undermines the long-recognized, salutary purpose of allowing appeals in discrete issues well before a final order in bankruptcy.”

The plaintiffs in Moran v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC ran afoul of the holding in Priester v. JP Morgan Chase, 708 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2013), that “liens that are contrary to the requirements of § 50(a) [of the Texas Constitution] are voidable rather than void from the start.”  No. 13-20242 (March 24, 2014, unpublished).  They sought certification to the Texas Supreme Court to correct what they contended was an erroneous holding in Priester.  The Fifth Circuit gave two valuable general reminders in this area. First: “It is a well-settled Fifth Circuit rule of orderliness that one panel of our court may not overturn another panel’s decision, absent an intervening change in the law, such as by a  statutory amendment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc court.”  Second, “While the Texas Constitution allows this court to certify questions to the Texas Supreme Court, certification is not a proper avenue to change our binding precedent.”

After the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Fifth Circuit in Mississippi v. AU Optronics, which held that the case was not a “mass action” under CAFA, AU Optronics argued that federal courts still had jurisdiction over the matter as a “class action.”  The Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding that it had addressed and rejected that argument in its prior panel opinion.  Mississippi v. AU Optronics, No. 12-60704 (March 19, 2014, unpublished).  Its treatment of the issue was not dicta because it was “an explication of the governing rules of law” that received the Court’s “full and careful consideration.” Because that analysis “was a proper holding, the law-of-the-case doctrine forbids its reconsideration.”  Alternatively, the point was waived when AU Optronics did not appeal it to the Supreme Court.  (While the distinction between holding and dicta is fundamental to the common law, much less appellate practice, a formal definition such as this is rare.  A detailed analysis appears in Loud Rules, an article in the Pepperdine Law Review by this blog’s author and Professor Wendy Couture of the University of Idaho Law School.)

A law firm argued that the Texas “anti-SLAPP” statute protected its efforts to solicit former patients of a dental clinic as clients.  NCDR, LLC v. Mauze & Bagby PLLC, No. 12-41243 (March 11, 2014).  (This statute has led to a great deal of litigation about communication-related disputes, often in areas that the Legislature may not have fully anticipated — this blog’s sister details such litigation in the Dallas Court of Appeals.)  In a detailed analysis, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the district court’s ruling against the firm was appealable as a collateral order.  The Court then sidestepped an issue as to whether the anti-SLAPP statute was procedural and thus inapplicable in federal court, finding it had not been adequately raised below.  Finally, on the merits, the Court affirmed the ruling that the law firm’s activity fell within the “commercial speech” exception to the statute:  “Ultimately, we conclude that the Supreme Court of Texas would most likely hold that M&B’s ads and other client solicitation are exempted from the TCPA’s protection because M&B’s speech arose from the sale of services where the intended audience was an actual or potential customer.”

In Naquin v. Elevating Boats, LLC, the Fifth Circuit found that the verdict and resulting judgment in a Jones Act case erroneously included compensation for mental anguish from seeing the death of another person.  No. 12-31258 (March 10, 2014).  The Court disposed of the case as follows: “[S]erious practical problems would be presented at trial if we were to save some elements of the damage award and retry only other elements of damage.  ‘Where, as here, the jury’s findings on questions relating to liability were based on sufficient evidence and made in accordance with law, it is proper to order a new trial only as to damages.’  We therefore retain the jury’s liability finding but order a new trial on damages.”  (quoting Hadra v. Herman Blum Consulting Engineers, 632 F.2d 1242, 1246 (5th Cir. 1980)).

The “ART entities” sued the “Clapper entities” for fraud about a real estate transaction, and they countersued for breach of fiduciary duty.  A jury found against both sides.  The Clapper entities appealed; the Fifth Circuit reversed on a legal issue and remanded for new proceedings on liability and damages. The ART entities then sought to raise the fraud claim again; the district court found it barred by the mandate rule, and on appeal from the second trial, the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  ART Midwest Inc. v. Clapper, No. 11-11140 (Feb. 3, 2014).  It reasoned: “We hold that the ART entities’ decision not to cross-appeal the jury’s fraud findings in the first district court proceeding prevented them from raising the same rejected fraud claims in the second district court proceeding. Even though they prevailed on many of their claims in the first district court proceeding, the consensus of circuit authority supports that the ART entities could have filed a ‘protective’ or ‘conditional’ cross-appeal of the adverse fraud finding.”   The Court otherwise affirmed, reversing as to one issue relating to “double-counting” of damages in light of the parties’ correspondence.

In Credit Union Liqudity Services, LLC v. Green Hills Devel. Co. LLC, the Fifth Circuit found that a creditor lacked standing under section 303(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to file an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding, because the creditor’s debt was subject to a ‘bona fide dispute.’  No. 12-60784 (Feb. 3, 2014).  The Court first held that the debtor had not waived arguments about 303(b) by failing to file a conditional cross-appeal from the district court’s dismissal order, finding that the arguments fell under the rule allowing affirmance on any argument supported by the record.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court noted that the claim had been subject to “unresolved, multiyear litigation.”  The Court also observed that 2005 amendments to the Code defined a bona fide dispute as one “to liability or amount,” a change which drew into question earlier authority that focused only on liability.  That change can allow consideration of counterclaims related to the creditor’s claim.

A painstaking panel issued two detailed tax opinions on the same day.  In the first, “substantial underpayment” penalties were found appropriate, in a partnership-level proceeding, where substantial authority did not support the taxpayer’s position as to a well-known inappropriate tax shelter.  NPR Investments LLC v. United States,  No. 10-41219 (Jan. 23, 2014).  In  the second, the Court affirmed a finding that certain claimed tax credits were not “qualified research expenses” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, while also remanding to enforce a stipulation made by government before the Tax Court, In an evidentiary holding of broader interest, the court found no abuse of discretion in the exclusion under Rule 403 of the taxpayers’ alleged lab records, agreeing that they were voluminous and not pertinent to the specific tax law issues at hand. Shami v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 12-60727 (Jan. 23, 2014).  Both opinions discuss the appropriate standards of review for appeal from the U.S. Tax Court.

BAL Metals stored roughly $500,000 of copper in a warehouse operated by Mundell Terminal Services.  Thieves stole the copper.  BAL Metals’ insurance carrier paid the claim and then sued the warehouse as BAL’s subrogee.  United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Mundell Terminal Servs., Inc., No. 13-50052 (Jan. 23, 2014). The warehouse asked its carrier for defense and indemnity, coverage litigation ensued, and the district court granted summary judgment for the warehouse’s carrier.  It reasoned that because a bailor is presumed to insure a bailee’s interest as well as its own under Texas law, the policy was “other insurance” to BAL’s coverage.  The Court noted that the warehouse had a first-party property damage policy rather than liability coverage.  The Court also concluded that another coverage argument, about the characterization of the metal under the policy’s definition of “property,” had been waived because it was not presented with enough specificity to the district court.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a) says that the notice of appeal from bankruptcy to district court must be filed within 14 days of the judgment or order at issue. Here, Smith filed his notice of appeal to district court thirty days after entry of final judgment. Smith v. Gartley, No. 13-50154 (Dec. 16, 2013).  After reviewing the continuing validity of its older precedent of In re Stangel, 219 F.3d 498 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that this deadline is jurisdictional, the Fifth Circuit looked to In re Latture, 605 F.3d 830 (10th Cir. 2010), which reached the same conclusion. Because “the statute defining jurisdiction over bankruptcy appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 158, expressly requires that the notice of appeal be filed under the time limit provided in Rule 8002,” the time limit is jurisdictional.

In Coleman v. H.C. Price Co., a toxic tort case, the Fifth Circuit certified to the Louisiana Supreme Court the question whether that state’s one-year limitations statute for survival actions is “prescriptive” (limitations does not run until the cause of action accrues, based on the plaintiff’s actual or constructive knowledge), or or “preemptive” (the cause of action is extinguished even if it has not accrued).  No. 13-30150 (Dec. 18, 2013, unpublished). The issue is significant, as the opinion says: “the answer will define the time period governing all survival actions brought in Louisiana . . . .”

In Croft v. Lowry, the debtor filed for bankruptcy after judgment was entered against him for attorneys fees and sanctions in two lawsuits.  No. 13-50020 (Dec. 10, 2013).  The debtor sought to lift the stay to pursue appeals of those judgments; the adverse parties in the lawsuits opposed, arguing that the debtor’s defensive appellate rights were estate property and could be sold.  The district court ruled for the debtor and the Fifth Circuit reversed.  Noting that only two courts have addressed this issue, and reached different results, the Court concluded that the rights had quantifiable value and were thus “property” under Texas law. The Court noted that the rights had value to the estate, since appellate success would reduce liability, as well as the judgment creditors, who may be willing to pay some amount to avoid litigation expense and reversal risk.  “Whether the defensive appellate rights are sold depends upon whether the parties can agree on the value of those rights, not whether they have any value at all.”  (emphasis in original)

After a recent merciful reception for an untimely notice of appeal, the Fifth Circuit reacted differently in M.D. v. Perry, No. 13-90045 (Nov. 19, 2013, unpublished).  The district court certified a large class of children in the Texas foster care system.  The State of Texas filed a petition for leave to appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), a day late.  Sidestepping the technical question whether the deadline was “jurisdictional” or simply “claims-processing,” the Court found it binding, noting that the “narrow window” set by the rule reflected a careful balance of policies.  The Court also rejected a request to suspend the deadline under Fed R. App. P. 2, noting that Fed. R. App. P. 26 expressly prohibits deadline suspension as to a petition for permission to appeal.

The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s False Claims Act case on October 31, 2012. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and motion to extend time on December 5, 2012 — 35 days later.  King v. University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, No. 12-20795 (Nov. 4, 2013, unpublished).  Plaintiff argued that her attorneys (1) mistakenly believed there was a 60-day deadline, reasoning that the U.S. was the real party in interest, and (2) had busy trial dockets in November that kept them from noticing the error in time.  The district court granted the extension and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  The Court applied Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 385 (1993) and Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 1998), and Court noted that while an attorney’s legal error or scheduling problems could constitute inexcusable neglect, here the defendant was not prejudiced and the rule at issue was ambiguous.  The Court also noted a distinction between review of a district court’s finding of excusable neglect and a finding that neglect was not excusable.

The district court handling the Deepwater Horizon litigation rebuffed BP’s complaints that the agreed-upon claims processing formula was not working correctly.  Lake Eugenie Land & Development v. BP Exploration & Production, No. 13-30315 (Oct. 2, 2013).  A fractured opinion from the Fifth Circuit reversed in substantial part.  It required remand for further development of the record on how the agreement was intended to handle several accounting issues about claimed losses.  The Court then imposed a “tailored stay” on further payments to “allow[] the time necessary for deliberate reconsideration of these significant issues on remand.”  Judge Clement wrote the plurality, which Judge Southwick joined on the foregoing grounds.  Her opinion went on to note that, for standing reasons, a court lacked jurisdiction to administer a settlement “that included [class] members that had not sustained losses at all, or had sustained losses unrelated to the oil spill . . . .” Judge Dennis dissented as to the reasons for remand and disagreed with the standing analysis.