With several hundred noisy demonstrators outside the courthouse, the Fifth Circuit held oral argument on Friday the 18th about an interim stay in Texas v. United States – the New York Times has an excellent summary; Law360 interviews me about it here.
Category Archives: General Court Information
The panel has been announced for Friday’s arguments in “the immigration case,” Texas v. United States: Judges Smith, Elrod, and Higginson. Like the recent panel in Crane v. Johnson (No.14-10049, April 2, 2015), this panel draws from the major “wings” of the Court – a senior Reagan appointee, a recent Bush appointee (both from Texas) and the second-newest appointee by Obama.
The similarity of panel makeup suggests the potential for a similar result. Interestingly, while Judge Smith is a strong separation-of-powers conservative (consider his dissent in the en banc False Claims Act case of Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, 252 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2001)) he is also a strong voice for judicial action when there is jurisdiction; for example, he has led the Court toward expanded pretrial oversight of district courts in opinions such as In re: Radmax. Judge Higginson, while new, has a record of thorough opinions that comport with the majority view of legal issues (consider his recent opinion in the False Claims Act case of United States ex rel. Shupe v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 759 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2014)). The panel will give the plaintiffs a full hearing but may well find problems with their standing theories.
At the risk of reading one tea leaf too many, it is worth noting that Judge Elrod dissented from the denial of en banc rehearing in Radmax, as well as a recent panel opinion that granted mandamus relief on a forum issue, In re Lloyd’s Register North America, Inc., No. 14-20554 (Feb. 24, 2015). The analogy between the Court’s mandamus jurisdiction and the justiciability issues in Texas v. United States is not powerful – and indeed, Judge Smith was on the opposite side of both matters from Judge Elrod – but it does suggest a healthy concern for judicial constraint.
The district court has denied an interim stay of its injunction against the Obama Administration’s immigration policies; the Fifth Circuit has recently rejected, on standing grounds, a comparable case; and oral argument is set for April 17 before the Fifth Circuit on an appellate motion to stay the injunction. I was recently interviewed by Law360 about the matter and anticipate announcement by the Court of the panel for the April 17 argument in the near future.
With a stay motion still pending in the district court, the United States has asked the Fifth Circuit for an emergency stay of the recent ruling that enjoins President Obama’s immigration program. No. 15-40238. A short clerk’s order, which does not reveal the identity or involvement of any judge “behind the curtain,” has set a response date of March 23. Law360 has written a good article with more detail about the current status in the district court.
In November, a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed the NLRB’s $30,000 award in a retaliation case based on the employer’s handling of a whistleblower. Halliburton Co. v. Administratve Review Board, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, No. 13-60323. The full court has now denied the petition for en banc review, by the close margin of 7 judges for review and 8 against. A 3-judge dissent criticizes the “ad hoc nature” of the panel opinion and warns that it will lead to confusion about what specific conduct can amount to a materially adverse employment action in the context of a retaliation claim.
The Fifth Circuit has now docketed the federal government’s appeal of the recent ruling that enjoins President Obama’s immigration program; meanwhile, in the district court, the plaintiffs’ response to the federal government’s motion to stay pending appeal is due by March 2.
Monday evening, a district judge in South Texas enjoined President Obama’s immigration program; the full text of his opinion is available here. (The case has the remarkably awkward caption of “Texas v. United States.”) An appeal has not yet been docketed with the Fifth Circuit. As with the recent gay marriage arguments, the makeup of the panel will be critical to the resolution of this extremely important case. The Washington Post story is a good example of the media coverage of the ruling.
1. The Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments on Friday, January 9, in the gay marriage appeals from each of the three states in the Circuit. Here is a representative news article about the arguments, and the recording of the arguments is available here.
2. Also on January 9, the Court denied en banc review of a Clean Water Act case arising from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The vote was 6 in favor of review, 7 opposed, with a short dissenting opinion. I have not followed this opinion previously, and the en banc split is not as telling about commercial cases as a a trio of other votes, but it is nevertheless an uncommon insight on the full Court’s view of an issue.
Judge Emilio Garza of San Antonio, who served ably on the Fifth Circuit over 20 years, has retired effective January 5, 2015.
Here’s a holiday gift from 600Camp — a short article called “How (not) to Draft Arbitration Clauses.” It reviews five cases to offer practical, specific tips for drafting arbitration clauses; specifically, in business settings involving more than one contract signed at different times. Enjoy!
The Supreme Court has granted review of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Vandegriff, a First Amendment case about Texas’s denial of a request for a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate battle flag.
The Supreme Court has denied review of BP’s challenges to the Deepwater Horizon settlement, resolved by the Fifth Circuit earlier this year in a complicated series of panel opinions and denials of rehearing.
After an unusual pretrial mandamus ruling by the Fifth Circuit in a high-profile False Claims Act case, and after the jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict for $175 million — which could be trebled upon final judgment — the defendants returned to the Fifth Circuit last week. They filed a renewed mandamus petition — drawing on the Court’s statements in the prior ruling — supported by amici filings from Texas A&M and another company. In re: Trinity Industries, Inc., No. 14-41297. The Court has requested a response, presently due on December 1. Further briefing, and the ultimate disposition of this mandamus petition, will be of interest both procedurally and substantively. (Disclaimer: I am not counsel of record in this proceeding, but do represent Trinity.)
This summer, in the panel opinion of Barron & Newburger, P.C. v. Texas Skyline, Ltd., No. 13-50075 (July 15, 2014), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the partial denial of a fee application based on its earlier opinion of In re: Pro-Snax Distributors, Inc., 157 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 1998). That earlier opinion rejected a “reasonableness” test in the application of Bankruptcy Code § 330 — which would have asked “whether the services were objectively beneficial toward the completion of the case at the time they were performed” — in favor of a “hindsight” approach, asking whether the professionals’ work “resulted in an identifiable, tangible, and material benefit to the bankruptcy estate.” All three panel members joined a special concurrence asking the full Court to reconsider Pro-Snax en banc, and that invitation was recently accepted by a majority of active judges. Law360 provides some good additional commentary about the en banc vote.
The Fifth Circuit has launched an attractive new website, with the customary features and some great pictures of the John Minor Wisdom courthouse and surrounding landmarks.
The concept of “proportionality” in discovery began its modern ascendance in Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, with observations such as these: “Probably, then, it is only by taking care to require allegations that reach the level suggesting conspiracy that we can hope to avoid the potentially enormous expense of discovery in cases with no ‘reasonably founded hope that the [discovery] process will reveal relevant evidence’ to support a § 1 claim.” 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1968 (2007).
Over time, the “proportionality” concept has moved from the discovery rules to pervade the entire system of federal procedure. Consider Advisory Committee Note to revised Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 (approved by the Judicial Conference in September 2014 and now before the Supreme Court): “Effective advocacy is consistent with — and indeed depends upon — cooperative and proportional use of procedure.”
While arising under state law rather than the Federal Rules, the recent Texas Supreme Court of In re National Lloyds Ins. Co. illustrates the concept of proportionality in a highly practical context. The plaintiff in an insurance bad faith case sought evidence about similar claim denials, arguing “that the trial court’s discovery order was (1) limited in time, because it compelled only production of evidence relating to the two storms at issue, and (2) limited by location, because it involved only properties in Cedar Hill.” ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 13-0761 (Tex. Oct. 31, 2014) (per curiam).
That Court disagreed: “Scouring claim files in hopes of finding similarly situated claimants whose claims were evaluated differently from [plaintiff’s] is at best an ‘impermissible fishing expedition.’ . . . [Plaintiff] is correct that discovery must be reasonably limited in time and geographic scope. But such limits in and of themselves do not render the underlying information discoverable.” It concluded that there were still too many likely differences between this set of claims and the plaintiff’s case to justify the discovery request.
Because the Fifth Circuit rarely acts en banc in business-related cases, votes by the full court on civil matters deserve careful review as examples of the judges’ broader philosophical leanings. As detailed in another post, I place particular emphasis on (1) the vote to deny en banc review in the Daubert case of Huss v. Gayden (balancing judicial authority with the jury’s); (2) the vote to grant mandamus relief in the venue dispute of In re Volkswagen (balancing appellate authority with that of the trial court); and (3) the 7-8 vote to deny en banc review in the venue case of In re Radmax (same).
The issue in the recent en banc case of McBride v. Estis Well Service, LLC, No. 12-30714 (revised Oct. 24, 2014), while facially addressing an important but technical issue of admiralty law, offers insight about the judges’ views of another topic — the authority of the judiciary as opposed to Congress’s. The introduction to Judge Higginson’s dissent succinctly captures that point: “The question presented by this case is whether seamen may recover punitive damages for their employer’s willful and wanton breach of the general maritime law duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. Because the Supreme Court has said that they can, and Congress has not said they can’t, I would answer in the affirmative, and REVERSE.”
Nine judges (spread across three opinions) saw the answer differently. The conclusion to the majority opinion begins: “In the words of the Supreme Court, ‘Congress has struck the balance for us.'” (citing Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618, 623 (1978)). Two concurrences make similar observations. Notably, all of the active judges appointed by a Democratic president at the time of en banc submission are in dissent.
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.
On October 2, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in ASARCO v. Baker Botts, L.L.P., a Fifth Circuit case about enhancement of professional fees for a “rare and extraordinary” result in bankruptcy fraudulent transfer litigation.
On September 9 at noon at the Belo Mansion in downtown Dallas, a panel consisting of Judges Gregg Costa, Jennifer Elrod, James Graves, and Stephen Higginson — and moderated by Judge Catharina Haynes — will offer tips about effective advocacy before the Fifth Circuit. It is sponsored by the DBA’s Business Litigation Section; co-sponsored by the Appellate Law & Trial Skills Sections. Terrific opportunity for advice that comes straight from the source.
Keep an eye on the proposed amendments to the FRCP, which will be considered by the Judicial Conference in September and then forwarded on to the Supreme Court and Congress if approved. Two major features are:
- –A redefined scope for permissible discovery in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) [page 10 of the linked document above]
- –Revised sanctions rules about the spoliation of electronic evidence in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1) and (2) [page 37 of the above]
The Advisory Committee notes, while lengthy, are particularly informative about the reasons for these revisions and how they are intended to work in practice.
On Monday the 14th, a 2-1 Fifth Circuit opinion affirmed the free speech rights of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. On Tuesday the 15th, a 2-1 Fifth Circuit opinion rejected a constitutional challenge to the “top ten percent” admissions policy of the University of Texas: “[T]he backdrop of our efforts here includes the reality that accepting as permissible policies whose purpose is to achieve a desired racial effect taxes the line between quotas and holistic use of race towards a critical mass. We have hewed this line here, persuaded by UT Austin from this record of its necessary use of race in a holistic process and the want of workable alternatives that would not require even greater use of race, faithful to the content given to it by the Supreme Court.” Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 09-50822. Both opinions — and the dissents — offer thoughtful analyses of the institutional, historical, and precedential structure of the law governing highly sensitive issues of race, in the geographic area that was once the western portion of the Confederacy. Ideological sound bites will fly about both cases, as the First Amendment allows and encourages, but their reasoning deserves respect and study.
At the recent University of Texas Conference on State and Federal Appeals, Fifth Circuit Clerk Lyle Cayce gave a presentation about the Court that included a demonstration of a remarkable new technology. After an attorney files a brief, the Court has software that quickly adds hyperlinks for all case and record citations (which is the reason for the recent local rule change to standardize the form for record references). Those links are then available to the judges and staff on their computers and tablets. Among other implications, this new technology means that pre-argument, review of the record is no longer limited to the parties’ record excerpts.
The full Senate confirmed Judge Gregg Costa’s appointment to the Fifth Circuit yesterday. While great news for the Court and bar, it bears mention that the seat was open for 837 days, and two vacancies still remain on the Fifth Circuit. Just as it is difficult to balance the sound of an orchestra missing musicians, it is hard to balance the powers of a government missing key officials.
This week, the Texas Lawbook has posted an excellent profile of Chief Judge Carl Stewart, titled “Meet Chief Judge Carl Stewart: ‘A Brilliant Legal Mind Housed in a Very Nice, Regular Person.'” The ABA Journal will publish the profile later this week.
Gregg Costa, a recent appointee to the Galveston division of the Southern District of Texas, has been nominated by President Obama to the Fifth Circuit. A Rehnquist clerk and the lead prosecutor in the Allen Stanford case, Judge Costa enjoys substantial bipartisan support for his intellect and abilities.
In a 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit panel about the enforcement of a forum selection clause. Atlantic Marine Construction v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. ___ (December 3, 2013). The panel opinion questioned enforceability when the district of suit was otherwise proper under the federal venue statutes; a strong dissent by Judge Catharina Haynes argued otherwise. The Supreme Court endorsed her position: “When the parties have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause. Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties should a §1404(a) motion be denied. And no such exceptional factors appear to be present in this case.” Procedurally, while the Supreme Court noted in its introduction that the case arose in a mandamus context, it nowhere discusses how that posture affects the analysis — a significant point that divided the Fifth Circuit’s recent en banc vote in the case of In re Radmax.
Two new briefing rules took effect in the Fifth Circuit on December 1. The first eliminates the requirement of a separate statement of the case, and consolidates a matter’s procedural and substantive history into a single statement of facts. The second standardizes record citations. “For multiple record cases, parties will cite ‘ROA’ followed by a period, followed by the Fifth Circuit appellate case number of the record they reference, followed by a period, followed by the page of the record. For example, ‘ROA.13 12345.123.’ In single record cases, parties cite the short citation form, ‘ROA,’ followed by a period, followed by the page number. For example, ‘ROA.123.'” This standardized form should help the Court in electronically matching record citations and the actual record.
The Fifth Circuit has voted to rehear en banc the case of Department of Texas, VFW v. Texas Lottery Commission. Texas allows charitable bingo if the sponsoring organization does not use the proceeds for political advocacy and several charities challenge that restriction on First Amendment grounds. The case presents the challenging question whether this limitation violates the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine.
The machinery of justice needs fuel to function. An eloquent letter by the Judicial Conference of the United States summarizes today’s serious situation about the funding of the federal courts. Please speak out.
The Fifth Circuit has affirmed in all respects the high-profile corruption convictions associated with former Dallas City Councilman Don Hill: United States v. Reagan et al. (August 2, 2013).
The Court released a revised opinion in National Rifle Association v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, a gun control case of broad general interest that has grown in social significance since its original release in October of 2012. No. 11-10959 (revised April 29, 2013). A thoughtful opinion rejects a Second Amendment challenge to restrictions on handgun purchases by 18-to-20 year-olds, noting: “considerable historical evidence of age- and safety-based restrictions on the ability to access arms . . . .” The Court rejected challenges to the standing of the NRA as an organization to sue on behalf of members with personal interests in the dispute. This case was found to control in a later dispute about a similar law, NRA v. McCraw, No. 12-10091 (revised May 22, 2013).
The Fifth Circuit’s 2012 business litigation opinions suggest these five tips for the New Year:
1. Plead key details. While not removing the limits on Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the Court has reminded twice of the importance of “what,” “how,” and “when” in pleading under Twombly and Iqbal. It also reversed a Rule 12 dismissal in a contract case because the plaintiff adequately pleaded an industry custom about the relevant terms.
2. Plead reasonably. The Federal Circuit, applying Fifth Circuit law, reversed the denial of Rule 11 sanctions for what it saw as an objectively unreasonable construction of a patent.
3. Stretch the long arm carefully. Applying recent Supreme Court authority, the Fifth Circuit found no personal jurisdiction over cases about an “off-the-shelf” software contract, a distributorship arrangement based outside the forum state, and an alleged corporate “alter ego” situation.
4. Watch the eight corners. During 2012, the Court reversed once, and then again, to reject exceptions to Texas’s “eight corners” rule about insurance coverage, but also reversed to allow a mistake claim to proceed despite that rule.
5. Don’t count on mandamus. After granting mandamus in a high-profile venue dispute in 2008, the Court has since declined to grant the writ as to the wrongful denial of a remand motion and an alleged error about a forum selection clause.
Judge Edith Jones has resigned as Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit, to be succeeded by Judge Carl Stewart from Louisiana. She will continue to serve on the Court. This change returns the Court to a familiar balance seen with Chief Judges Henry Politz and Carolyn King, when a Democratically-appointed Chief presided over a court with a majority of Republican-appointed judges.
From the second third of 2012, here are 5 commercial litigation cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit worth knowing:
1. Personal jurisdiction. “[O]ff-the-shelf, out-of-the-box” software contract did not create a “long-term interactive business relationship” with Texas. Pervasive Software v. Lexware GMBH & Co., No. 11-50097 (5th Cir. July 20, 2012).
2. Class certification. No “commonality” for claims about “whether each individual qualified for the discount based on the evidence in his or her file.” Ahmad v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins., No. 11-10695 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2012).
3. Daubert challenges rejected. Several issues about mechanical engineering testimony “ultimately . . . affected the weight of the evidence” rather than admissibility. Roman v. Western Manufacturing, No. 10-31271 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2012)
4 and 5. Satisfying Twombly and Iqbal
Not enough: pleading that “invokes three potentially cognizable theories of liability,” but “does not identify by date or amount or type of service, any of the alleged bad-faith denials and delays . . . .” Patrick v. Wal-Mart, 681 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 2012).
Not enough: “no allegations regarding the types of businesses . . . the size . . . where they are located, or what laws and regulations they have violated.” Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2012).
Compare: “Particularity” standard under FRCP 9(b) “require[s] a plaintiff pleading fraud to specify the statements contended to be fraudulent, identify the speaker, state when and where the statements were made, and explain why the statements were fraudulent. . . . the who, what, when, where, and how of the events at issue.” E.g., Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, 540 F.3d 333, 339 (5th Cir. 2008).
From the first third of 2012, here are 5 commercial litigation cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit worth knowing:
1. Unenforceable arbitration clause. A clause in an employee manual, which could be amended by giving appropriate notice, was illusory and not enforceable. Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, 669 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 2012).
2. Personal jurisdiction. The defendant’s 55 transactions in Mississippi were not sufficiently related to the claim to create personal jurisdiction. This was the Circuit’s first jurisdiction case since two major Supreme Court cases in 2011. ITL International, Inc. v. Sonstenla, S.A., 669 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2012).
3. Sufficient causation evidence. A thorough opinion finds that expert testimony was not needed in a personal injury case, but even then, the evidence of causation was not sufficient. Huffman v. Union Pacific Railroad, 675 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2012).
4. Business Torts Damages 101. The defendants’ acts were not actionable in fraud, did not amount to fraudulent inducement, but did support liability for misappropriation of trade secrets. Bohnsack v. Varco, 668 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2012).
5. Statute of Frauds 101. Sufficient evidence to satisfy the Statute of Frauds is different than what may establish contract liability. Preston Exploration Co. v. GSF, LLC, 669 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 2012).
In response to a pointed request by the argument panel in a health care case, Attorney General Holder filed a letter brief on April 5 that affirms DOJ’s recognition of Marbury v. Madison while also defending its right to contest federal jurisdiction. The request, and the letter brief, form part of the national debate now before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of recent health care legislation.
Here is a helpful summary of the “Federal Court s Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011,” H.R. 394, P.L. 112-63, which took effect in January 2012.
The Fifth Circuit and its courthouse are linked to life in the downtown of New Orleans – note that the clerk’s office will close at 4:00 on January 9 because of the BCS championship game at the Superdome that evening.
Today’s Texas Lawyer features a list of the Fifth Circuit’s “top ten” cases from 2011: http://tinyurl.com/78navn2
Stephen Higginson’s nomination to the Fifth Circuit has been confirmed by the Senate.