The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of securities-fraud claims in Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., holding that the district court had misread a prior appellate opinion. The Court stated, inter alia:

Any fair reading shows why our prior opinion very clearly did not hold the alleged fraud was fully disclosed by October 2019. The most obvious sign is the absence of any statement expressly concluding that all purported fraud was fully disclosed by October 2019 and that therefore, the class period was truncated. Given that such a conclusion would all but end the case as to Oklahoma Firefighters, it stands to reason that if that was actually our decision, we would have said so explicitly. To borrow a familiar phrase from statutory interpretation principles, we do not “hide elephants in mouseholes.”

No. 23-10696 (April 18, 2024) (citation omitted).

Automation Support, Inc. v. Philippi, No. 20-10386 (Dec. 8, 2020).

A challenging case about the Texas foster-care system returned to the Fifth Circuit in M.D. v. Abbott, No. 19-41015 (Oct. 16, 2020), and the panel did not approve of revisions to an injunction that went beyond its mandate in the previous appeal: “Plaintiffs claim that the district court did not violate the mandate rule
because a court ‘invok[ing] equity’s power to remedy a constitutional
violation by an injunction mandating systemic changes to an institution’ generally has ‘the continuing duty and responsibility to assess the efficacy and consequences of its order.’ As Plaintiffs point out, we recited this general principle in Stukenberg II, stating that ‘[a] district court undoubtedly has the equitable power to oversee compliance with its own injunction.’ ‘E]quitable decrees that impose a continuing supervisory function on the court commonly . . . contemplate the subsequent issuance of specific implementing injunctions.’ But judges disagree on occasion over the proper exercise of equitable powers, just as judges disagree on occasion over the proper interpretation o statutes. When that happens, appellate courts must make the final decision—and once the decision is made, it must be followed. And that, of course, is the whole purpose of the mandate rule: ‘A district court on remand . . . may not disregard the explicit directives of [the appellate] court'”.’ A (citations omitted).

In Jacked Up LLC v. Sara Lee Corp., the plaintiff’s expert “seems to have assumed
that the projections in the Sara Lee Pro Forma were correct and then extrapolated lost-profits figures.” But the record also contained a detailed explanation by the defendant’s marketing director about why “the assumptions in the pro formas are merely
elaborate guesswork by the business and sales teams” until there are actual product sales. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of the expert under a basic Daubert principle: “Expert evidence that is not ‘reliable at each and every step’ is not admissible.” No. 19-10391 (April 3, 2020) (unpublished). (citation omitted). (LPHS represented the successful appellee in this case.)

The appellant in North Cypress Medical Center Operating Co. v. Cigna Healthcare argued that the district court failed to follow the law of the case as established by an earlier Fifth Circuit panel, citing a paragraph in the panel’s opinion that described the two-step process for resolving a particular ERISA issue. The Fifth Circuit disagreed: “This general statement of the law, expressed in terms of the facts of the case, is no mandate at all. Nor is it a statement of the whole law regarding review of ERISA benefit decisions. The court’s summary omits mention of [two key cases], in which this court established that a party may skip the legal correctness inquiry and proceed to consider
whether the plan administrator abused its discretion, as outlined in [the prior panel opinion]. The [prior] panel did not deny the authority of [those cases] (nor could it).
Accordingly, the district court properly relied on [those cases] in skipping the legal correctness analysis. In so doing, the court did not violate the law of the case and committed no error.” No. 18-20576 (March 18, 2020).

After 15-plus years of litigation, the remaining issues in Art Midwest Inc. v. Clapper related to the calculation of prejudgment interest.  No. 14-10973 (Nov. 9, 2015, last before the Fifth Circuit in Art Midwest Inc. v. Atl. Ltd. P’ship XII, 742 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2014)).  The Court reversed as to the starting date for calculating interest — even though the first judgment by the district court was reversed in part, the date of that judgment was still the proper starting point under Fed. R. App. P. 37(a) and Masinter v. Tenneco Oil Co., 929 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1991), aff’d in relevant part, 938 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1991).  The opinion also touches on waiver and law-of-the-case issues addressed in the 2014 appeal.

Chevron’s “Genesis Spar” offshore rig (right) was damaged by the installation of substandard bolts.  Chevron sued Aker Maritime and won; Aker in turn sued Oceaneering for indemnity and won; Oceaneering settled and sued its insurer. Sidestepping whether a “sistership” exclusion barred coverage, the Fifth Circuit found that  Oceaneering had not proven “property damage” within the meaning of the policy.

To be sure, a Fifth Circuit panel used that phrase in the original Chevron litigation, and a second panel discussed the type of damage at issue in the indemnity case.  But because those panels wrote about distinct issues from the coverage question in this case, and because “Oceaneering rests its argument that there was coverage . . . on these two prior opinions,” the Court affirmed judgment for the insurer. American Home Assurance Co. v. Oceaneering Int’l Inc., No. 14-20222 (April 27, 2015, unpublished).

See generally Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918) (Holmes, J.) (“A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.”); Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (“”‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'”)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, titled “Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding,” is generally invoked to vacate a judgment because of alleged misconduct, mistake, newly-discovered evidence, or other equitable reasons.  Clause (5) of that rule also allows relief if “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” That provision — and specifically, its rarely-litigated first clause — was at issue in Frew v. Janek, in which the Texas Health and Human Services Commission argued that it had fully performed under a consent decree related to the operation of a Medicaid program. No. 14-40048 (March 5, 2015).  Construing the decree “according to ‘general principles of contract interpretation,'” and declining to apply the law of the case doctrine to the interpretation of the decree by the judge who entered the order, the Fifth Circuit found no error in the district court’s ruling that the defendants had complied with the order and performed fully.

The short opinion in Navigators Ins. Co. v. Moncla Marine Operations LLC rejected the appeal of a decision to continue a stay of court proceedings, involving the proceeds from the sale of a barge, in favor of arbitration.  No. 13-30975 (May 8, 2014, unpublished).  The Court reminded: (1) a stay is not an appealable final order (citing Apache Bohai Corp. v. Texaco China, B.V., 330 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2003)); (2) absent a clear identification of an “important issue . . . completely separate from the merits,” the collateral order doctrine does not allow appeal either; and (3) neither does mandamus, distinguishing a D.C. Circuit case involving a court’s statutory authority over enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.  In a footnote, the Court noted a citation by the movant to In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013), and made the understated observation: “The factors that must be demonstrated to obtain mandamus relief in a venue transfer case are not the same as the factors in an arbitration case.”

Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. involved the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Fifth Circuit in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011).  No. 11-31073 (Oct. 25, 2012, published Dec. 27).  Pliva held that federal law preempted state laws that would require generic drug manufacturers to change a drug’s label.  Id. at 3.  The plaintiff’s counsel sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) from the rulings of the district court after remand from the Fifth Circuit, principally arguing that Pliva impliedly overruled a line of Louisiana authority.  The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of relief, finding that the plaintiff’s argument stretched Erie too far and that its mandate had been properly interpreted and applied.  Another recent case in the “expanding cohort controlled by Pliva v. Mensing” is Morris v. Pliva, Inc., No. 12-30319 (Feb. 14, 2013).

In Stoffels v. SBC Communications, the Court addressed issues about whether a “retiree concession” program involving long-distance discounts should be regulated as a retirement plan under ERISA.  No. 11-50148 (April 16, 2012).  In the court below, a district judge held a trial and made fact findings, after which he recused himself.  The second judge vacated those findings in light of a new and related Fifth Circuit opinion, Boos v. AT&T, 643 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 2011).   The Court found that Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 gave the judge authority to do so, that the “law of the case” doctrine did not constrain his authority, and that this case was not materiall different on the merits from Boos.  Op. at 8-9.