A federal jury awarded $4 million in compensatory damages for a car wreck.  The district judge interpreted the award to include $2.2 million in noneconomic damages, and then reduced that portion of the award to $1 million because of Mississippi’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages.  Learmonth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 09-60651 (Feb. 27, 2013, revised March 20, 2013).  The plaintiff challenged the cap as violating the Mississippi Constitution’s jury trial guarantee and separation of power provisions.  The Mississippi Supreme Court declined to answer certified questions about those issues.  The Fifth Circuit found that the cap did not violate the Mississippi Constitution.  The Court declined to consider an argument that the Erie doctrine prevented the district judge from segregating the verdict as a matter of state substantive law, finding that the point was not asserted timely and was thus waived.

The Bankruptcy Code requires that a plan receive a favorable vote from “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan.”  11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10).  In Western Real Estate Equities LLC v. Village at Camp Bowie I, LP, thirty-eight unsecured trade creditors of a real estate venture voted to approve the debtor’s plan, while the secured creditor voted against it.  No. 12-10271 (Feb. 26, 2013).  The secured creditor complained that the consent was not valid because the plan “artificially” impaired the unsecured claims, paying them over a three-month period when the debtor had enough cash to pay them in full upon confirmation.  Recognizing a circuit split, the Fifth Circuit held that section 1129 “does not distinguish between discretionary and economically driven impairment.”  The Court conceded that the Code imposes an overall “good faith” requirement on the proponent of a plan, but held that the secured creditor’s argument here went too far by “shoehorning a motive inquiry and materiality requirement” into the statute without support in its text.

The appellants in Texas Medical Providers v. Lakey sought $60,000 in attorneys fees after successful defense of civil rights claims about new abortion laws.  No. 12-50291 (Feb. 26, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit rejected a request based on 42 U.S.C. § 1988, noting: “Lack of merit does not equate to frivolity . . . .”  The Court also rejected a request based on inherent power, which relied upon statements by plaintiff’s counsel that they dismissed several challenges because the initial Fifth Circuit panel had declared all future appeals in the case would be heard by the same panel.  It stated: “The short answer to this charge is that if courts treated as a willful abuse of process every self-serving statement of counsel at the expense of a judge or judges, there would be no end to sanctions motions.”

In First American Title v. Continental Casualty, the Court analyzed a “claims-made-and-reported” policy under the Louisiana direct action statute, which allows an injured third party to directly sue the responsible party’s insurer.  No. 12-30336 (Feb. 28, 2013).   Notice was not given to the insurer during the required period.  The Court concluded that unlike an occurrence policy, where a notice requirement is intended to protect the insurer and a failure to give notice will not bar a direct action, proper notice under this policy was a condition precedent to coverage and thus barred the direct action.  A concurrence agreed with the result but advocated a narrower ground for decision.

Con-Drive contracted to provide an offshore diving system to ARV Offshore, did not perform, and was found liable for millions of dollars that it cost ARV to arrange a substitute system for an oil-drilling project.   ARV Offshore Co. v. Con-Dive LLC, No. 12-20098 (Feb. 22, 2013, unpublished).  A key damage issue was whether ARV was reimbursed by its customer for a substantial amount of the costs for the substitute.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment, noting a potential waiver issue because Con-Dive had not adequately pleaded offset as a defense, and found that the relevant testimony from an ARV representative was “non-specific and did not establish a basis for the district court to recompute the damage amount.”  The opinion is fact-specific but this observation has broader applicability in commercial damages litigation.

The insured in Mid-Continent Casualty v. Eland Energy recovered a multi-million dollar verdict against its insurer, alleging that the insurer’s efforts to unilaterally settle a claim for environmental damage after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita undermined the defense of an ongoing class action about similar claims.  No. 11-10649 (Feb. 22, 2013).   The district court granted JNOV and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  Recognizing that “[the insured] is understandably upset,” the court rejected a common-law duty of good faith under Texas law in the handling of third-party insurance claims, dismissing as dicta or distinguishing several cases cited by the insured.   Potential claims under Louisiana law failed for  choice-of-law reasons since the claim was handled in Texas. Claims based on the Texas Insurance Code failed to establish a causal link between the alleged misconduct and the ultimate settlement terms of the class action.

Hisaw & Associates General Contractors (“HIGAC”) defaulted on contracts, requiring Liberty Mutual to pay on a surety bond.  Liberty Mutual v. Hisaw & Associates, No. 11-11012 (Feb. 20, 2013, unpublished).  After it paid, Liberty Mutual sought recovery from HIGAC’s principals; the question for appeal was whether certain transactions involving them violated a covenant about a minimum asset requirement.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that several payments to third parties by HAGC were not “received by” the principals under the contract, and that loan repayments by HAGC to its principals were not “as a result of . . . loans [to the principals].”  The Court then reversed in favor of the principals on whether a salary payment was a “distribution.”  The Court noted that Liberty Mutual could use more precise contract language, and faulted a senior Liberty Mutual counsel for changing testimony on a relevant issue during a deposition.

A Louisiana statute requires a well operator to provide landowners “a sworn, detailed, [and] itemized statement” about drilling costs.  Brannon Properties v. Chesapeake Operating, No. 12-30306 (Feb. 21, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for the operator, finding that the district court correctly concluded that its report lacked enough detail under the unambiguous language of the statute, and that the analysis should have ended there.  Id. at 5 (“The statute clearly connects the costs reported to the benefits received in exchange.  . . . [I]t must tell the unleased mineral owner what it is getting for its money.”).  The Court faulted the district court for proceeding to analysis of the statute’s purpose after reaching a conclusion that its terms were unambiguous, and also for finding an incorrect purpose inconsistent with those terms. Id. at 6-7.

The defendant in Innovation First Int’l v. Zuru Inc. removed a trade secret case about a toy robotic fish and then obtained dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds.  No. 12-10511 (Feb. 19, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusions that the design and production of the fish took place in China and that the bulk of witnesses and evidence were in China, and affirmed based on the analogous case of Dickson Marine v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1999).  A revised opinion slightly changed the Court’s analysis of the deference due to the plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Knoles v. Wells Fargo presented a rare encounter between an eviction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  No. 12-40369 (Feb. 19, 2013, unpublished).  The borrower lost a forcible entry & detainer (eviction) matter at trial in JP court and on appeal.  The borrower then sued for damages, Wells removed, and the borrower unsuccessfully tried to get a TRO about possession from the federal district court.  The district court denied relief based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine about federal review of final state court judgments.  The Fifth Circuit found that it had jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), even though the appeal was nominally from a TRO, because the relief at issue was “more in the nature of a temporary injunction in fact, though not in name.”  The court deflected an argument about mootness to hold that the order sought a federal injunction against a final state court judgment in violation of the Anti-Injunction Act.

The judgment debtors in Seven Arts Pictures v. Jonesfilm were found in civil contempt for failure to answer postjudgment discovery and other issues about enforcement of a judgment.  No. 11-31124 (Feb. 18, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court had general personal jurisdiction over the debtors, that the debtors had waived arguments about the orders by not timely and properly objecting below, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $21 thousand in attorneys fees.  While the holdings on jurisdiction, waiver, and attorneys fees draw heavily from the specific facts of the case, the legal framework used is of broad applicability.  Footnote 7 acknowledges the unusual procedural posture of the jurisdiction issue, which had not been raised until after the notice of appeal was filed.

The case of Tekelec, Inc. v. Verint Systems, Inc. presented a contract dispute, sufficiently intricate that the Court attached a four-color chart to its opinion to illustrate the facts.  No. 11-40418 (Feb. 13, 2013).  In affirming summary judgment for the plaintiff on largely case-specific grounds, the Court reached two principal holdings: (1) an assignee has a right to enforce a payment obligation even if the contract documents do not create an express enforcement right, and (2) the contract payments were not “royalties or other patent damages” within the specific context of these parties’ dealings, or as the terms “royalty” and “reasonable royalty” are generally understood.  The first holding draws upon the general principle in Texas law that a contract construction leading to an exclusive remedy is disfavored unless that intent is clearly stated; an issue arising in contract litigation generally when potential equitable remedies are evaluated.

The borrowers in Priester v. JP Morgan Chase alleged two violations of the Texas Constitution about their home equity loan — not receiving notice of their rights 12 days before closing, and closing the loan in their home rather than the offices of a lender, attorney, or title company.  708 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2013).  A cure letter was not answered and they sued for forfeiture of interest and principal under the state constitution. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim under the Texas 4-year “residual” limitations period, finding that was the prevailing view of courts that had examined the issue, and disagreeing with a district court that had found no limitations period.  That court reasoned that a noncompliant home equity loan was void, but the Fifth Circuit concluded that the cure provision in the Constitution instead made it voidable. Tolling doctrines did not apply since it was readily apparent where the closing occurred.  The Court also affirmed the denial of a motion for leave to amend to add new claims and non-diverse parties, reviewing the factors for both aspects of such a motion.

In long-running litigation and arbitration about alleged environmental contamination in Ecuador, Chevron obtained discovery from U.S. courts several times under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 on the basis that a “foreign or international tribunal” was involved.  Republic of Ecuador v. Connor, No. 12-20122 (Feb. 13, 2013).  Chevron then successfully resisted a § 1782 application on the ground that the arbitration was not an “international tribunal.”   The Fifth Circuit applied judicial estoppel and reversed, asking: “Why shouldn’t sauce for Chevron’s goose be sauce for the Ecuador gander as well?  The Court dismissed a jurisdictional issue by characterizing § 1782 as a grant of administrative authority.  It then rejected Chevron’s arguments that judicial estoppel could not apply to legal issues and that reliance by earlier courts on Chevron’s position had not been shown.  The opinion reminds that: “Because judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, courts may apply it flexibly to achieve substantial justice.”  (quoting Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 752 (2001)).  (The “goose-and-gander” saying traces to an early collection of English proverbs.)

If you can’t make it to New Orleans for Fat Tuesday, 600camp suggests you try Emeril Lagasse’s excellent gumbo recipe.

A manufacturer of ship propulsion systems contracted with a ship operator, who in turn contracted with a shipbuilder.  The manufacturer and the operator had a sales contract (with an arbitration clause), and the operator and the shipbuilder had a separate contract.  VT Halter Marine v. Wartsila North America, No. 12-60051 (Feb. 8, 2013, unpublished).  The component manufacturer and shipbuilder had dealings as part of the overall relationship but did not have a direct contract.  The shipbuilder sued the manufacturer for supplying allegedly defective parts.  Its breach of warranty claim, derivative of the operator’s rights, was conceded to be arbitrable.  The tortious interference claim, however, could only be arbitrated under an estoppel theory since the shipbuilder was not a party to the manufacturer-shipbuilder contract.  The district court’s order was not clear about the basis for ordering arbitration of that claim, and the Fifth Circuit remanded for resolution of whether estoppel applied.  The Court reminded that while orders compelling arbitration are usually reviewed de novo, an order compelling a third party to arbitrate under an estoppel theory is reviewed for abuse of discretion (citing Noble Drilling v. Certex USA, 620 F.3d 469, 472 n.4 (5th Cir. 2010)).

The insurers in Pride Transportation v. Continental Casualty faced a claim arising from a truck accident that left the victim a paraplegic, with evidence that the driver falsified her logs to make deliveries on time, and with plaintiff’s counsel who had won personal injury verdicts in the same county for amounts in excess of policy limits.  No. 11-10892 (Feb. 6, 2013, unpublished).  Under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insurers did not incur Stowers liability under Texas law for accepting (rather then rejecting, the classic Stowers fact pattern) a settlement offer at policy limits and then withdrawing from the defense of the insured trucking company.  The Court did not address potential issues arising from the specific release in this settlement (it only named the driver, and excluded the company) except to note that potential indemnity claims between them would fall within the “insured-v.-insured” exclusion.

The insured in Kerr v. State Farm filed a claim about a stolen fishing boat, but declined to give an examination under oath (EUO).  No. 12-30332 (Feb. 5, 2013, unpublished).  State Farm claimed that refusal was a material breach that prevented recovery on the policy.  The insured said that State Farm was not prejudiced.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for State Farm, citing “affidavits from members of [State Farm’s] Special Investigative Unit stating that an EUO is an important tool in the claim investigation process and that by refusing an EUO, Kerr impeded State Farm’s ability to gather information about the claim.”  The Court declined to address an argument by State Farm that prejudice need not be shown when an EUO is refused in a first-party case.

An apartment developer sought recovery on a title insurance policy after unfortunate zoning stopped the project.  Levy Gardens Partners v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance, No. 12-30010 (Jan. 31, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the finding of coverage, concluding, among other matters, that: (1) state court rulings about zoning laws deserved deference by federal courts in later coverage litigation; (2) the state court preliminary injunction litigation about zoning had become a sufficiently “final decree” to trigger coverage; (3) delay in giving notice did not cause prejudice; and (4) the policy did not require the developer to invoke a “conditional use process.”  The Court also found, however, that the policy “unambiguously restricts liability to the difference in the value of the title with and without the zoning encumbrance,” thus limiting the insured’s recovery to roughly $650,000 rather than several million in development expenses.  In rejecting the insured’s arguments about the policy, the Court also found no prejudicial violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) about the pleading of defensive matters.

A group of chicken farmers supplied poultry to Pilgrim’s Pride.  After the company terminated its contracts and entered bankruptcy, the farmers sued for damages under a promissory estoppel theory, alleging that its oral promises of a long-term relationship induced them to invest in chicken houses.  Clinton Growers v. Pilgrim’s Pride, No. 12-10063 (Jan. 31, 2013) at 2.  The Court affirmed summary judgment for Pilgrim’s Pride, finding that the plain language of the contract specified a contract duration (“flock-to-flock,” roughly 4-9 weeks), and foreclosed an estoppel claim about that topic.  Id. at 7.  Similarly, contract provisions about the farmers’ compensation and maintenance obligations foreclosed other attempts to recast the subject of the estoppel claim.  Id. at 8.   The Court distinguished a prior Arkansas case about a commitment by Tyson Foods to supply hogs to a hog grower, both on legal grounds and on the strength of the evidence about the alleged misrepresentations by Tyson.  Id. at 8-10.  The Texas Law Book covered the opinion shortly after its release.

In the fourth of a series of unrelated cases about mortgages and foreclosures in 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims about the foreclosure on a home used as collateral for a business loan.  Water Dynamics v. HSBC Bank, No. 12-10307 (Jan. 30, 2013, unpublished).  The holdings included: (1) the foreclosure price exceeded 50 of the claimed value, and was thus not “grossly inadequate” and appellants could not state a wrongful foreclosure claim, (2) appellants’ prior breach of contract foreclosed their contract claims, and the contract modifications they alleged were barred by the Texas statute of frauds, (3) acts of the lender alleged to be inconsistent with the loan documents did not state a waiver claim, especially given the deed of trust’s anti-waiver provision, and (4) “Appellants’ allegations may demonstrate a failure to communicate between themselves and the lender, but they fall far short of . . . [showing] ‘a course of harassment that was willful, wanton, malicious, and intended to inflict mental anguish and bodily harm'” so as to state a claim for unreasonable collection efforts.

The plaintiff in Akerblom v. Ezra Holdings sued several companies for damages arising from their business dealings.  No. 12-20182 (Jan. 28, 2013, unpublished).  Federal jurisdiction turned on whether one defendant, called “Subsea” in the opinion, was improperly joined.  To determine whether “the defendant has demonstrated that there is no possibility of recovery by the plaintiff against an in-state defendant,” the Court reminded that the focus is on pleadings at the time of removal — any later pleadings or affidavits can only “amplify or clarify facts alleged in the state-court complaint.”  Id. at 7.  Applying Texas’s “fair and adequate notice” standard for proper pleading, the Court found that the fraud claim against Subsea failed to say that misrepresentation Subsea allegedly made, or who from Subsea allegedly made it.  Id. at 10.  There were also substantive issues as to whether several alleged representations were actionable.  The Court’s focus on “what” and “who” under Texas law echoes recent opinions under the federal Twombly standard.

An expert opined that a railroad crossing was unsafe and required active warning devices.  Brown v. Illinois Central Railroad, No. 11-60654 (Jan. 28, 2013).  He contended that the crossing had “‘narrow’ pavement, ‘skewed’ angle, ‘rough’ surface and ‘steep’ incline” but did not tie those conclusions to a guideline or publications, relying instead on “education and experience.”  He also admitted that visibility at the crossing was adequate under the Transportation Department’s standards.  Id. at 7.  Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s exclusion of his testimony under Daubert, calling it “transparently subjective.”  Id. at 8.

In 2011, Antill Pipeline joined a new third-party defendant to a case and obtained a continuance.  In 2012, Antill Pipeline had the case consolidated with another lawsuit it had filed, which had the effect of joining two new defendants, and obtained another continuance. In December 2012, the trial court dismissed several defendants, including the three joined by Antill Pipeline.  One week before the January 28 trial setting, Antill Pipeline moved to stay the trial and then sought mandamus two business days before the scheduled start date.  The Fifth Circuit held: “Antill’s petition, if granted, would further delay a trial that Antill has already caused to be delayed numerous times. Under these circumstances we cannot say that the district court clearly abused or usurped its judicial power . . . .”  In re Antill Pipeline Construction Co., No. 13-30102 (Jan. 25, 2013, unpublished).

The defendant in Factory Mutual Insurance v. Alon USA stipulated to liability after an explosion at a waste treatment plant.  The remaining issue was whether fair market value of the plant was the cost to replace it (roughly $6 million) or the cost of the plant’s component parts (roughly $900,000).  No. 11-11080 (Jan. 23, 2013).  Under deferential clear error and abuse-of-discretion standards of review, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusions that: (1) the plant system was unique and the cost of its components did not fairly estimate its value (distinguishing Hartford Ins. Co. v. Jiminez, 814 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.)); (2) the plaintiff’s expert “educated and interviewed . . . employees” about a key depreciation issue, and thus “did more than just repeat information gleaned from external sources” (distinguishing U.S. v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008)); and (3) the multiplier used to reflect installation expenses was “entirely reasonable[,]” “[g]iven the lack of useful records and resources pertaining to this particular . . . plant.”

In Ergon-West Virginia, Inc. v. Dynegy Marketing & Trade, the Fifth Circuit found that Dynegy had no duty under two natural gas supply contracts to attempt to get replacement gas after a declaration of force majeure in response to hurricane damage, affirming the district court as to one contract and reversing as to the other.  No. 11-60492 (Jan. 22, 2013).  The first contract’s force majeure clause required Dynegy to “remed[y] with all reasonable dispatch” the event.  The Court found that “reasonable” was not ambiguous but that extrinsic evidence of industry standards (favorable to Dynegy) was properly admitted to give it full meaning (contrasting its approach with the district court’s, which found the term ambiguous and admitted the testimony to resolve the ambiguity).  The second contract’s provision had language about “due diligence” by Dynegy.  The Court found the term ambiguous as both parties’ readings of it were reasonable, and then held that the district court should have credited the same evidence here as it did for the first contract.

In the third mortgage servicing opinion of 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of contract, promissory estoppel, and tort claims under Texas law arising from the attempted negotiation of a loan modification during a foreclosure situation.   Milton v. U.S. Bank, No. 12-40742 (Jan. 18, 2013, unpublished); see also Gordon v. JP Morgan Chase (contract and estoppel claims under Texas law) and Pennell v. Wells Fargo Bank (negligent misrepresentation claim under Mississippi law).  The Court also found that this mortgagor-mortgagee relationship did not create an independently actionable duty of good faith, and that reliance on alleged representations that were inconsistent with the loan documents and foreclosure notice was not reasonable.  Id. at 5, 6.

The insured in Jamestown Insurance v. Reeder successfully minimized its liability with a winning appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.  No. 12-20437 (Jan. 17, 2013, unpublished).  He only gave notice of a claim at that point, however, and despite the result, ran afoul of the concept that “[o]ne of the purposes of a notice provisions . . . is to allow an insurer ‘to form an intelligent estimate of its rights and liabilities before it is obligated to pay.'”  Id. at 5 (emphasis in original).  Because the insurer could have helped influence the trial result, or negotiated a settlement at the appellate level, the “delayed tender thwarted the recognized purposes of the notice provisions” and summary judgment was affirmed for the insurer.  Id.   

City of New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System v. Hayward affirmed the dismissal, on forum non conveniens grounds, of putative shareholder derivative suits against BP arising from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  No. 12-20019 (Jan. 16, 2013, unpublished).  Among other factors discussed, the Fifth Circuit noted and gave weight to the points that: (1) plaintiffs were “phantoms” for FNC purposes because of their attenuated interests in the case, (2) technological advances did not make geographical issues irrelevant in an FNC analysis [key witnesses and documents being located in the UK rather than Louisiana], (3) the UK had a substantial interest in applying its own, relatively new Companies Act, and (4) the BP derivative cases comprised one-third of the U.S. court’s MDL docket.

Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a school voucher program, alleging it violated a desegregation consent decree.  Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, No. 12-31218 (Jan. 14, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit found an abuse of discretion in denying a stay pending appeal.  One reason was Pullman abstention, which arises “when an unsettled area of state law . . . would render a decision on the federal issue unnecessary,” and where the Court said the defendant had a “a strong likelihood of establishing” it in light of pending state litigation about the constitutionality of the law under state law.  Another was jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, where the Court said the plaintiffs’ evidence of harm was “based merely on general financial information and speculation.”  A dissent further discussed Pullman abstention and advocated outright dismissal of the case.  The opinion appears to have been unpublished because of its expedited procedural posture, and a later panel will fully address the merits on a conventional briefing schedule.  Id. at 4 n.1

Continuing a theme begun a few days ago in Gordon v. JP Morgan Chase, the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a servicer on a negligent misrepresentation claim under Mississippi law based on statements during loan modification discussions.  Pennell v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 12-60595 (Jan. 9, 2013, unpublished).  The Court saw the statements as unactionable promises of future conduct.  In reviewing the relevant cases, the Court distinguished two federal district court cases on their facts, while also diminishing their effect under Erie compared to controlling state court authority.

The district court dismissed a case about the misappropriation of trust assets under the “probate exception” to federal diversity jurisdiction.  Curtis v. Brunsting, No. 12-20164 (Jan. 9, 2013) (applying Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006)).  The Fifth Circuit stated that “Marshall requires a two-step inquiry into (1) whether the property in dispute is estate property within the custody of the probate court and (2) whether the plaintiff’s claims would require the federal court to assume in rem jurisdiction over that property.”  Id. at 5.  Finding no evidence that this inter vivos trust was, or even could be, subject to Teas probate administration, the Court reversed and remanded.

The sales agreement for two tugboats provided for $250,000 in liquidated damages if the boat was used in violation of a noncompetition provision.  International Marine LLC v. Delta Towing LLC, No. 12-30280 (Jan. 8, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit applied federal admiralty law, using section 356 of the Second Restatement of Contracts as the guide, and placing the burden on the party seeking to invalidate the provision as a penalty. The Court quickly concluded that the second factor of that section — difficulty in proving damages — was established by evidence about the nature of the boat charter business to which the clause applied.  Id. at 9.  The Court also found that the first factor — reasonableness of the estimated anticipated loss — was satisfied by evidence about the range of expected fees and contract duration.  Id. at 9-10.  (citing Farmers Exp. Co. v. M/V Georgis Prois, 799 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1986)).  The clause was thus enforceable.

Several aspects of insurance coverage for hurricane damage to a shopping center were addressed in GBP Partners v. Maryland Casualty, No. 11-20912 (Jan. 4, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit concluded that the insured: (1) did not establish a “complete interruption” of business activity to trigger coverage for lost income, (2) raised a fact issue as to whether rent abatements were necessary to prevent possible closure of the entire center, (3) did not distinguish repair fees necessary to avoid suspension of operations from other management fees, (4) the insured was responsible for various delays in replacing a damaged roof, and (5) did not allocate window damage between covered and non-covered causes.   The Court also found that a summary judgment affiant did not create an impermissible conflict with earlier deposition testimony that described the effect of the storm on business operations.  Id. at 6-7 & n.7.

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.

An employer terminated two employees for safety violations.  An arbitrator, appointed under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, ordered them reinstated after a suspension.  The district court vacated the award, and the Fifth Circuit reversed and reinstated.  Albermarle Corp. v. United Steelworkers, 703 F.3d 821 (2013).  The Court found that “explicating broad CBA terms like ’cause,’ when left undefined by contract, is the arbitrator’s charge.”  Id. at 7.  It distinguished prior cases that left an arbitrator no discretion as to whether certain rule violations required discharge.  Id. at 5-6 (citing E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Local 900, 968 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1992)).  The Court also rejected a challenge to the award on public policy grounds, reminding that “any such public policy must be explicit, well defined, and dominant.”  Id. at 10.  Cf. Horton Automatics v. Industrial Division of the Communication Workers of America, No. 12-40576 (Jan. 4, 2013, unpublished) (reversing confirmation when labor arbitrator exceeded limited scope).

The appellant in All Plaintiffs v. Transocean Offshore (the MDL relating to Deepwater Horizon) challenged an order requiring him to submit to a psychiatric exam and supply medical records as part of the procedure.  No. 12-30237 (Jan. 3, 2013, unpublished).  Following Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), the Fifth Circuit held that the collateral order doctrine did not allow appeal of this interlocutory discovery order.  Any erroneous effect on the merits of the case could be reviewed on appeal of final judgment, and even if that review was “imperfect[]” to remedy the intrusion on his privacy interest, the harm was not so great as to justify interlocutory review of the entire class of similar orders.  A concurrence noted that while mandamus review was theoretically possible, this party had not requested it as an alternative to direct appeal, and had not made a sufficiently specific showing of harm to obtain mandamus relief.

The plaintiff in Gordon v. JP Morgan Chase alleged that a home foreclosure was prevented by the lender′s promises of a permanent loan modification under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (“HAMP”).  No. 12-20323 (Jan. 3, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lender that the Statute of Frauds did not allow such a claim to proceed under Texas contract law.  Because the SOF barred the contract claim, promissory estoppel could only arise if the lender orally promised to sign a writing that would satisfy the SOF, and that the writing was in existence at the time of the promise.  Statements about future loan papers did not satisfy this rule.  While the opinion is unpublished, its analysis has the potential for extensive citation in state and federal cases seeking to stop foreclosures because of statements made in the context of HAMP negotiations.

The district court and Fifth Circuit agreed that fraud claims by dissatisfied consumers of weight loss medicine did not allege “bodily injury” so as to trigger a duty to defend.  CSA Nutraceuticals v. Chubb Custom Insurance, No. 12-10137 (Jan. 2, 2013, unpublished): “Failing to achieve weight reduction means the body basically did not change. It does not mean that the body was injured.”  The short opinion summarizes and rejects the plaintiff′s arguments for coverage.

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).

The FDIC repudiated a North Texas office lease as receiver for a failed bank, the landlord sued for unreasonable delay in violation of the statute authorizing the FDIC’s action, and the FDIC defended on the ground that the delay caused no harm in a depressed real estate market and thus could not have been unreasonable.  Building Four Shady Oaks Management LP v. FDIC, No. 12-0080 (Dec. 21, 2012, unpublished).  The district court and Fifth Circuit agreed with the FDIC.  The opinion clearly illustrates basic statutory interpretation and how a factor such as “prejudice” may be incorporated by a statutory term such as “reasonable time.”

Denied enforcement of a $26 million arbitration award in China’s Fujian Province (that court finding the award invalid because an arbitrator was imprisoned during the proceedings), the plaintiff sought recognition in the Eastern District of Louisiana.  First Investment Corp. of the Marshall Islands v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding,  No. 12-30377 (Dec. 21, 2012, revised Jan. 17, 2013). The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction with three holdings: (1) the recent case of Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011), removed doubt as to whether foreign corporations could invoke due process protection about jurisdiction; (2) the New York Convention did not abrogate those rights; and (3) no “alter ego” relationship among the relevant companies was shown that could give rise to jurisdiction.  In a companion case, the Court affirmed a ruling that denied jurisdictional discovery based on “sparse allegations” of alter ego.    Covington Marine v. Xiamen Shipbuilding, No. 12-30383 (Dec. 21, 2012); cf.Blake Box v. Dallas Mexican Consulate, No. 11-10126 (Aug. 21, 2012) (reversing jurisdictional discovery ruling).

The plaintiff in Smith v. Santander Consumer USA received $20,43.59 in damages for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  No. 12-50007 (Dec. 20, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit agreed that damages were not recoverable solely for a reduced line of credit, but found sufficient other evidence about harm to the plaintiff’s business and personal finances to affirm.  Enthusiasts of appellate arcana will find it interesting to compare the Court’s analysis of a general federal verdict under the Boeing standard with the Texas damages submissions required by Harris County v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2002) (applying Crown Life Ins. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000)).

The parties’ agreement said: “State Farm agrees not to remove any Hurricane Ike cases filed by your firm to Federal Court.”  Horn v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 12-40410 (Dec. 21, 2012).  Roughly a year later, the firm filed a 100,000-member class action against State Farm, who removed the case.  State Farm argued that the agreement was intended to resolve large numbers of individual claims and extending it to a class action was not consistent with the specific consideration given.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the remand order, finding that the terms “any” and “cases” were not ambiguous.  The Court’s emphasis on contract wording, especially in the insurance context, is consistent with other recent cases, see, e.g., Ballard v. Devon Energy, 678 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2012).

New Orleans taxicab owners challenged new city ordinances about their business and cars.  The Fifth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction in their favor, primarily on grounds related to the substantive constitutional issues in play, and affirmed the district court’s denial of an injunction on other matters for lack of irreparable injury.   Dennis Melancon, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, No. 12-30921 (Dec. 18, 2012, revised Jan. 17, 2013).  Reminding that  “when the threatened harm is more than de minimis, it is not so much the magnitude but the irreparability that counts for purposes of a preliminary injunction,” the Court found that plaintiffs could later sue the city for costs of complying with the ordinances if they prevailed.  Footnotes 14 and 15 address other potential theories of irreparable injury based on “impairment of contract” and privacy rights.

The plaintiff in Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Babcock obtained a $1.2 million judgment for violation of a noncompetition agreement in the insurance field.  No. 11-30452 (Dec. 18, 2012).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the enforceability of the agreement.  As to its substance, the Court held that Gallagher’s prohibition of employees from competing for accounts on which they actually worked at Gallagher was “less restrictive than allowed under state law.”  As to geographic scope, the Court affirmed the district court’s narrowing of the provision from 64 parishes to the 9 in which Gallagher actually provided insurance services.  The Court vacated the damages because the key witness conflated (a) the group of clients who chose to leave Gallagher after the employee left with (b) the group of clients who actually followed Gallagher to his new employer.  See id. at 18 (“Defendants did not breach their agreements by leaving GBSI, but by accepting work from clients who departed along with them.”)

“The central issue on appeal is whether a court can establish a receivership to control a vexatious litigant.”  Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the Fifth Circuit answered “no” on the facts of Netsphere v. Baron, No. 10-11202 (Dec. 18, 2012).  The Court reviewed and rejected several rationales for imposing a receivership on a portfolio of disputed domain names, including preservation of jurisdiction, bringing closure to long-running litigation, payment of a series of attorneys and controlling vexatious litigation.  It then addressed how to handle the fees related to the vacated receivership.  The opinion thoroughly reviews prior Circuit precedent about the reasons for and proper boundaries of a receivership. A Dallas Observer article adds some backstory about the dispute.

Servicios Azucareros v. John Deere arose from a suit by a Venezuelan company against a Louisiana-based affiliate of John Deere about the termination of a distributorship agreement in Venezuela.  No. 11-30776 (Dec. 13, 2012).  The district court dismissed, finding that the plaintiff failed to adequately brief an issue of “prudential standing” about the ability of foreign plaintiffs to sue U.S. citizens in federal court.  The Fifth Circuit found the standing issue “totally without merit,” noting that alienage jurisdiction originated to allow British creditors to sue Americans after the 1783 Treaty of Paris and avoid a “notoriously frosty” reception in state court that hurt international commerce.  The Court also disagreed with the conclusion that the briefing amounted to a waiver, reviewing case law about the handling of similar dispositive motions.

A police dispatcher was terminated based on texts and pictures found on her cell phone in violation of department policy.  Garcia v. City of Laredo, No. 11-41118 (Dec. 12, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on her claim that this data was protected by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. ch. 121, finding that the phone was not a “facility” and the data saved on it was not in “electronic storage” as the statute defined those terms.  The Court also rejected her contention that the district judge had shown bias against her counsel in the course of the proceedings below.

Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a fee enhancement in the Pilgrim’s Pride bankruptcy pursuant to section 330 of the Code.  In ASARCO LLC v. Barclays Capital, the Court reversed an enhancement under section 328.  No. 11-41010 (Dec. 11, 2012).  “Section 328 applies when the bankruptcy court approves a particular rate . . . at the outset of the engagement, and § 330 applies when the court does not do so.”  Id. at 13.  A “necessary prerequisite” to section 328 enhancement is that the professional’s work was “not capable of anticipation.”  Here, the Court found that the length of the ASARCO bankruptcy and the exodus of its employees after filing led to “commendable” work by Barclays that was still “capable of being anticipated.”  See id. at 19 (analogizing Barclays to a car buyer who finds a new Corvette “needed far more than a car wash”).

Applying Fifth Circuit law, the Federal Circuit found an abuse of discretion in not awarding sanctions under Rule 11 and 38 U.S.C. § 985  for what it saw as a frivolous patent lawsuit, and remanded to the Eastern District of Texas for consideration of an appropriate award.  Raylon LLC v. Complus Data Innovations (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2012).  The court found that the plaintiff’s claim construction was objectively unreasonable and that the district court erred in how it weighed the plaintiff’s subjective motivation.  Only time will tell whether the case leads to a wave of sanctions motions.  The opinion is a strong reminder of the power of Rule 11 in civil litigation generally, where the Fifth Circuit has tended to focus recently on litigation conduct rather than positions taken.

Paddle Tramps Manufacturing made wooden paddles with the emblems of several fraternities, a group of 32 fraternities sued to enjoin it for trademark infringement and unfair competition, and the company defended with unclean hands and laches.  Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega, No. 12-10525 (revised Feb. 7, 2013).  The district court entered partial injunctive relief after a jury trial found for the company on the defenses.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the instructions given, finding that the appellant’s arguments about unclean hands conflated elements of trademark liability with elements of the defense and that the laches instruction fairly handled the concept of “progressive encroachment.”   The Court also found sufficient evidence to support the “undue prejudice” element of laches, although calling it a “close question,” and found that the district court properly balanced the equities — especially injury to the alleged infringer — in crafting the injunction.  The opinion discusses and distinguishes other cases denying relief in related situations.  Professor Rebecca Tushnet further analyzes the case on her intellectual property blog.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an insurer, reasoning: “We do not consider mere use of the phrase ‘property damage’ and parroted Policy language as sufficient factual allegations.  None of the assertions of ‘property damage’ in the underlying lawsuits are accompanied by facts illustrating specific harm or damage to tangbile property.”  PPI Technology Services v. Liberty Mutual Ins., No. 12-40189 (Nov. 29, 2012).  The closest, an allegation that the insured suffered “property damage throughout the lease where the well was drilled,” was characterized as “simply stating that it owns the property in which the drilling occurred . . . .”  Id. at 10.  The case analyzes the pleadings under the Texas “eight-corner” test rather than Twombly or Iqbal.

In Sosebee v. Steadfast Insurance Co., the Fifth Circuit found that an insurer made an effective reservation of rights, reminding that “Louisiana follows a functional approach to the reservation of rights and we have rejected requirements for technical language . . . .”  No. 11-31134 (Nov. 27, 2012) (citing FDIC v. Duffy, 47 F.3d 146, 151 (5th Cir. 1995)).  The Court then analyzed whether the insurer waived that reservation, in the unusual setting of a direct action suit against the insurer while the insured was in bankruptcy.  Finding no harm or prejudice to the insured from the conduct at issue, the Court held that no waiver occurred, and reversed and rendered summary judgment for the insurer.

In Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior appealed a $530,000 civil contempt award.  No. 11-30936 (Nov. 27, 2012).  After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Interior Department imposed an offshore drilling moratorium, which the district court enjoined on the ground that Interior had not properly followed the Adminstrative Procedure Act.  Interior then imposed a new moratorium supported by more detailed findings.  The Fifth Circuit reversed the contempt award, noting that the district court had not based its ruling on a potential ground about Interior’s authority, and stating: “In essence, the company argues that . . . the Interior Department ignored the purpose of the district court’s injunction.  If the purpose were to assure the resumption of operations until further court order, it was not clearly set out in the injunction.”  Id. at 12.  A dissent criticized the majority for “making unreasonably restrictive fact findings of its own to reach an narrow and unworkably technical result.”  Id. at 22.  The Washington Post covers the case here.

The Fifth Circuit makes a major contribution to the law of international insolvency proceedings in Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro SAB de CV, Nos. 12-10542, 12-10869, 12-10750 (Nov. 28, 2012, rev’d Jan. 7, 2013).  The opinion affirms a series of rulings under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code (which implements the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency): that (1) recognized the legitimacy of the Mexican reorganization proceeding involving Vitro (the largest glassmaker in Mexico with over $1 billion in debt), (2) recognized the validity of the foreign representatives appointed as a result of that proceeding, analogizing their appointment process to the management of a debtor in possession in the U.S., and (3) denied to enforce the plan on the grounds of comity.  The detailed comity analysis turns on the U.S. bankruptcy system’s disfavor for non-consensual, non-debtor releases.  The framework of the opinion is broadly applicable to a wide range of cross-border insolvency situations and addresses issues of first impression about the scope of relief available under Chapter 15.  A representative article about the case in Businessweek appears here.

In re Atlantic Marine Construction denied a mandamus petition about enforcement of a forum selection clause, finding no “clear abuse of discretion.”  No. 12-50826 (Nov. 19, 2012).  The majority and specially concurring opinions exchanged detailed views on whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) controls a forum selection issue when the parties did not select state law to govern enforcement of the clause and venue would otherwise be proper in the district of suit.  The majority opinion reflects a continuing conservatism in recent mandamus cases after 2008’s en banc Volkswagen opinion.

In State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., the Fifth Circuit reversed a remand order, finding that a suit brought to protect consumers by the Mississippi Attorney General was a “mass action” under CAFA. 701 F.3d 796 (2012).  The Court reviewed the pleading, the relevant Mississippi statutes, the general contours of parens patriae law, and its prior case of Louisiana ex rel Caldwell v. Allstate Insurance, 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008), which found that policyholders rather than the Louisiana AG were the real parties in interest in an analogous suit.  Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that the numerical requirements of CAFA for a mass action were satisfied, and the “general public policy” exception in the statute was not.  A concurrence endorsed the outcome but questioned the framework used to analyze the statutory exception.

Overlapping state and federal cases about the rights to settlement proceeds led the district court to abstain under the Colorado River doctrine in Saucier v. Aviva Life & Annuity Co., No. 11-60503 (Nov. 16, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding no “exceptional circumstances” warranting abstention.  In reviewing each of the relevant factors, the Court distinguished “duplicative litigation” — which does not warrant absention — from “piecemeal” litigation in which a state court case has more relevant parties than a federal one.  Id. at 7-8.  The Court also reminded that “how much progress has been made” is more important in comparing the status of parallel cases than their respective filing dates.  Id. at 8.

The bankruptcy trustee in Compton v. Anderson filed several avoidance actions, and the bankruptcy court dismissed for lack of standing because the reservation of those claims to the trustee in the debtors’ reorganization plan was not sufficiently “specific and unequivocal.”  No. 11-20478 at 4 (Nov. 14, 2012) (citing Dynasty Oil & Gas v. Citizens Bank, 540 F.3d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2008)).  The Fifth Circuit reviewed several of its recent cases on this issue and reversed, concluding that “[i]n addition to stating the basis of recovery, the Exhibits referenced in the Reorganization Plan identified each defendant by name.”  Id. at 12. The case was remanded for further review, including the scope of a carve-out in the reservation for released claims.  Id. at 12.  This opinion is an important contribution on a basic issue in bankruptcy litigation.

Smith v. Christus St. Michaels presented a wrongful death claim about an elderly man, who suffered from recurrent cancer, who died from a fall in the hospital while being treated for a blood disorder.  No. 12-40057 (Nov. 13, 2012) (unpublished).  The trial court granted summary judgment under the “lost chance” doctrine, finding a lack of evidence that the man would have been likely to survive his cancer.  The Fifth Circuit reversed because it found his death was caused by a fall unrelated to his cancer or other treatment protocol.  Id. at 8. The Court also reversed a ruling that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony on causation was conclusory, finding that it “sufficiently explained how and why” as to the allegedly inadequate monitoring of the patient’s bedside at night.  Id. at 10.  The opinion provides a general nuts-and-bolts summary of Texas tort causation law.

A series of clerical errors led an insurer to overpay a $710,000 settlement by $510,000.  National Casualty v. Kiva Construction, No. 12-20217 (Nov. 12, 2012).  The insurer sued for breach of contract and “money had and received”; the insured counterclaimed for bad faith in the initial handling of the settlement.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the insurer.  The Court’s straightforward, unpublished opinion offers two cautionary notes — first, while the settlement agreement did not specify a time for payment of the full amount, a Lousiana statute did so specify (although the insurer complied), and second, the Twombly standards are not in play when the district court obviously considered evidence outside of the pleadings and said in its order that the counterclaims failed “based on the undisputed facts.”

In Gibson v. Texas Department of Insurance, a state regulator sought to prohibit an attorney from using the domain: “texasworkerscomplaw.com.”  No. 11-11136 (Oct. 30, 2012). Even assuming the domain name was only commercial speech, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that Texas failed to show that the name was inherently deceptive, and also “made no serious attempt to justify” its regulation as an effort to “prevent misuse of the DWC’s names and symbols.”  Id. at 9-10.  The Court thus reversed and remanded for consideration of the “misuse” issue and to allow Gibson to show that the domain was “ordinary, communicative speech, and not merely . . . commercial speech.”  Its analysis reviewed several cases about trademark issues in the domain name context.  Id. at 8 & n.1.

In Ackal v. Centennial Beauregard Cellular, the Fifth Circuit reversed the certification of a class of Louisiana governmental entities who contracted with the class defendants for cell phone service.  No. 12-30084 (Oct. 26, 2012).  The Court reasoned that because Louisiana law requires many of the entities to follow a specific process before retaining outside legal counsel, the class was essentially “opt in” — a class structure expressly foreclosed by Rule 23(b)(3), which allows only class member “opt out.”  Id. at 6 (citing Kern v. Siemens Corp., 393 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2004)).

An unpublished opinion reversed the vacating of a FINRA arbitration award in Morgan Keegan v. Garrett, No. 11-20736 (Oct. 23, 2012).  The Court reversed a finding of fraudulent testimony “because the grounds for [the alleged] fraud were discoverable by due diligence before or during the . . . arbitration.”  Id. at 8.  The Court also deferred to the panel’s conclusions about the scope of the arbitration as consistent with the authority given by the FINRA rules.  Id. at 10-12.  Throughout, the opinion summarizes Circuit authority about the appropriate level of deference to the panel in a confirmation seting.

The receiver for the Allen Stanford entities sued to recover $1.6 million in contributions to political committees as fraudulent transfers under Texas law.  Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, No. 11-10704 (Oct. 23, 2012).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the receiver, holding: (1) notwithstanding some conflicting language in prior opinions, the receiver had standing to “maintain . . . actions done in fraud of creditors even though the corporation would not be permitted to do so”; (2) limitations ran from the discovery of the fraud, not the public disclosure of the payments under federal election law; and (3) TUFTA was not preempted by that law, noting its limited preemptive effect and the lack of a conflict as to election regulation.

“The thirty-eight monks of St. Joseph Abbey,” unable to earn income from the abbey’s timberland after Hurricane Katrina, began to sell handmade funeral caskets at a price significantly lower than that offered by funeral homes.  The Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors contended that these sales violated state regulations, and the monks sought relief under the 14th Amendment, arguing that the regulations had no rational basis as applied to them.  St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, No. 11-30756 (rev’d Nov. 21, 2012).  After an exceptionally thorough review of due process principles in the context of “rational basis review” of economic regulation (which Judge Haynes declined to join as unnecessary), the Court certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court about the scope of the relevant enabling statute.

Several months ago, the Court held that a stay is not automatic during an appeal about arbitrability, weighing in on an important procedural issue addressed by several other Circuits.  Weingarten Realty v. Miller, 661 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2011).  In an unpublished opinion, the Court has now addressed the merits and affirmed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration under an “equitable estoppel” theory, offering a basic reminder about that concept — arbitration is not proper when the guaranty as to which the plaintiff sought a declaration was distinct from the loan agreement that contained the arbitration clause.  Weingarten Realty v. Miller (2), No. 11-20676 (Oct. 22, 2012).

ACE American Insurance v. Freeport Welding presents a thorough analysis of coverage, in the duty to defend context, under Texas law for a party claiming to be an “additional insured.”  No. 12-20002 (Oct. 19, 2012).  Before analyzing the allegations under Texas’s “eight corners” rule, the Court first reviewed whether the party was within the scope of the policy under general contract principles, and found that it was not.  The key to the Court’s analysis was the clarity of the policy documents about the dates for coverage.  Summary judgment was affirmed for the insurer as to the duty to defend, and the related indemnity issues were remanded for further consideration in light of the parties’ settlement.

In affirming the dismissal of a warranty claim under Louisiana law about the construction of a home, the Fifth Circuit reviewed basic requirements for an “Erie guess” about state law.  Gines v. D.R. Horton Inc., No. 12-30183 (Oct. 17, 2012).  The analysis requires that the federal court “attempt to predict state law, not to create or modify it,” and does not allow it “to fashion new theories of recovery.”  Id. at 4 (quoting American Waste & Pollution Control Co. v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 949 F.2d 1384, 1386 (5th Cir. 1991)).  Intermediate state court decisions receive deference “unless [we are] convinced by other persuasive data that the higher court of the state would decide otherwise.”  Id. (quoting Cerda v. 2004-EQR1 LLC, 612 F.3d 781, 794 (5th Cir. 2010)).

After reviewing the application of judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context as to a debtor’s claim in Love v. Tyson Foods, 677 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2012), the Court applied the doctrine to a creditor’s claim in Wells Fargo v. Oparaji, No. 11-20871 (Oct. 5, 2012).  After carefully reviewing the elements of that doctrine in this circuit, the Court found that Wells did not adopt “plainly inconsistent position[s]” in the debtor’s two bankruptcies, observing that a creditor is not required to include all accrued liability in every revised proof of claim.  The Court also found that the debtor’s failure to follow the plan in his first bankruptcy barred him from now invoking the equitable remedy of judicial estoppel based on those proceedings.

After granting en banc review, and thus vacating the panel opinion in Access Mediquip v. United Healthcare, the en banc court has now reinstated the panel opinion and expressly overruled prior cases that were in tension with the panel’s analysis of ERISA preemption as to misrepresentation claims.  No. 10-20868 (Oct. 5, 2012).

In Highland Capital Management v. Bank of America, the Fifth Circuit reversed a Rule 12 dismissal of a claim for breach of an oral contract.  No. 11-11139 (Oct. 2, 2012).  The Court noted the practical difficulty of applying the legal test for intent to be bound by an oral contract, largely developed on summary judgment records, in the pleading context.  The Court acknowledged that after the phone call in which the plaintiff alleged the contract formed, email called their deal “subject to” further amendment.  The plaintiff, however, alleged sufficient facts about whether all material terms were agreed on in the call, the industry custom for the type of transaction, and the nature of the further discussions to state a plausible contract claim.  The Court affirmed the dismissal of a promissory estoppel claim for failure to adequately plead reliance.

While Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs turned on First Amendment religion clause issues about the legality of a zoning ordinance, it offers some general insights about preliminary injunction practice.  No. 12-60052 (Sept. 27, 2012).  Irreparable injury can potentially be shown from evidence about the likely loss of a lease, or a looming lack of building capacity (although the capacity issue in this case focused on religious practice.)  Id. at 27.  Even if evidence of injury is strong, the party opposing a preliminary injunction should have the opportunity to be heard and present evidence about the potential harm to it of an injunction so that the equities can be balanced.  Id. at 28-29.

In Cambridge Integrated Services Group v. Concentra Integrated Services, after reminding that a district court located in a state does not get deference in making an Erie guess about that state’s law, the Fifth Circuit examined the effect of a release obtained by an indemnitor for potential claims against its indemnitee.  No. 11-31032 (Sept. 26, 2012).  The Court found that the release precisely matched the terms of the indemnitor’s obligations to the indemnitee, and thus extinguished its duty to indemnify against such claims in ongoing litigation.  As to the duty to defend, however, the Court found summary judgment improper as issues about the claims “remained to be clarified through litigation.”  Id. at 10.

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.

Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit largely affirmed a series of rulings about governmental immunity in litigation about flood damage from Hurricane Katrina, allowing some cases to proceed and finding the government immune as to others.  On rehearing, the Court found that the “discretionary-function exemption” to the Federal Tort Claims Act created immunity even if the Flood Control Act did not.  In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation at 25-26 (Sept. 24, 2012) (“Our construction of the FCA leaves undisturbed the district court’s ruling on that issue.  Our application of the DFE, however, completely insulates the government from liability.”).

600camp.com celebrates its first birthday today.  A website can’t serve birthday cake, but it can share the world-famous recipe of the great New Orleans restaurant, Galatoire’s, for bread pudding.  Thanks to Lynn Tillotson and all friends and supporters.

After a 3-day hearing, a bankruptcy court certified a class for injunctive relief about foreclosure-related fees during the debtors’ bankruptcy proceedings.  Rodriguez v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 11-40056 (Sept. 14, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that Countrywide’s acts were “generally applicable” to the “narrowly certified . . . class of approximately 125 individuals.”  Id. at 6 (distinguishing Wilborn v. Wells Fargo, 609 F.3d 748 (5th Cir. 2010)).  The Court also found that the relevant records were readily searched and that Countrywide had a consistent “practice” even though it had no formal company policy as to the fees.  Id. at 9, 10-11 (distinguishing Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011)).

A consumer group sued under the Clayton Act about the market for funeral caskets, and then settled all compensatory damages with one of the defendants.  Funeral Consumers Alliance v. Service Corp. Int’l, No. 10-20719 (Sept. 13, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit held that, even after that settlement, the group had standing to proceed against the remaining defendants for attorneys fees.  Id. at 4-14.  Noting, however, that “[t]he fact that death is inevitable is not sufficient to establish a real and immediate threat of future harm,” the Court found no standing for injunctive relief.  Id. at 15, 18.  The Court also affirmed the denial of class certification, finding that the scope of the putative nationwide class fit poorly with the evidence of localized market activity for funeral services and casket sales.  Id. at 27 (distinguishing United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1996)).

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).

The unpublished case of Gibbs v. Lufkin Industries reviews the basics of anti-suit injunctions.  No. 11-50524 (Sept. 7, 2012).  The district court dismissed some of plaintiffs’ claims (including the federal ones), remanded the remaining state claims, and enjoined pursuit of those claims during appeal of the dismissal ruling.  The Fifth Circuit reversed, noting that the second court ordinarily determines the preclusive effect of a prior court’s judgment, and that simultaneous in personam proceedings do not by themselves require an anti-suit injunction.  Id. at 6.  The Court distinguished Brookshire Bros. v. Dayco Products, 2009 WL 8518382 (5th Cir. Jan. 23, 2009) as arising from the erroneous remand of the same proceeding.

The plaintiff in Coe v. Chesapeake Exploration won a $20 million judgment for breach of a contract to buy rights in the Haynesville Shale formation, against the background of a a “plummet[]” in the price of natural gas.  No. 11-41003 (Sept. 12, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed.  After review of other analogous energy cases, the Court found that  the parties’ writing had a sufficient “nucleus of description” of the property to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, even though some review of public records was required to fully identify the property from that “nucleus.”  Id. at 11-12.  The Court also found that the parties had reached an enforceable agreement and that Plaintiff had tendered performance, finding an “adjustment clause” specifying a per-acre price particularly relevant on the tender issue.  Id. at 16, 17-18.

Texas Keystone v. Prime Natural Resources began as an application for U.S. discovery in support of an English court case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  After review of that statute and its relationship with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 once discovery is ordered, the Court found an abuse of discretion when the trial court granted the respondents’ Motion to Quash without a response from the party requesting discovery.  Id. at 10-13 (citing Sandsend Financial Consultants v. FLHBB, 878 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1989) and Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 392 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 2004)).  The Court’s analysis of section 1782, intended to guide the district court on remand, also provides general background for future discovery requests in the Circuit under that statute.

Baisden v. I’m Ready Productions involved several challenges to a defense verdict in a copyright infringement case.  No. 11-20290 (Aug. 31, 2012).  Among other holdings, the Fifth Circuit reminded that “[c]onsent for an implied [nonexclusive] license may take the form of permission or lack of objection,” making the Copyright Act’s requirement of a writing inapplicable.  Id. at 9-10 (reviewing Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., 128 F.3d 872 (5th Cir. 1997)).  The Court also reviewed a jury instruction that allegedly conflated the question of license with that of infringement — a potential problem since the burdens are different on the two points — but found that while “the question is not a model of clarity” it did not give rise to reversible error.  Id. at 19-21.

The plaintiff in Lozano v. Bosdet did not serve a British defendant within the 120 days of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, or a later extension by the district court.  No. 11-60737 (Aug. 31, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit, noting “that statutory interpretation is a ‘holistic endeavor,'” applied a “flexible due-diligence” standard to find that dismissal was not warranted, especially since a refiled suit would likely be time-barred.  Id. at 7, 9.  The Court aligned itself with the Seventh Circuit and rejected different readings of Rule 4(f) in the international context by the Ninth Circuit (unlimited time) and Second Circuit (120-day limit excused only if service is attempted in the foreign country), noting that it did not wish to require “immediate resort to the Hague Convention or other international methods.”  Id. at 5-6.

In National Union v. American Eurocopter, a contribution suit arising from settlement of claims about a helicopter crash, a Hawaii district court found no personal jurisdiction and transferred venue to Texas.  No. 11-10798 (Aug. 27, 2012).  The appellant challenged that ruling, and the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over that issue.  Id at 4 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1294, defining appellate jurisdiction as reaching “appeals . . . [f]rom a district court of the United States to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district”).  On the merits, the Court affirmed a dispositive choice-of-law ruling for Texas law, noting a Texas choice-of-law provision in a relevant contract, a rough balance between the place of the accident (Hawaii) and the defendants’ headquarters (Texas), and the relatively weak interest of an out-of-state insurer.  Id. at 5-7 (noting Beech Aircraft v. Jinkins,  739 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1987)).

Vanderbilt Mortgage v. Flores, arising from a collection suit about the financing for a mobile home, involved a substantial recovery on counterclaims for wrongful debt collection and filing of a fraudulent lien.  692 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding: (1) the release of the debtors unambiguously reached only the lien and not the underlying debt (thereby mooting some counterclaims); (2) property owners in the position of these debtors did not have an ongoing duty, for limitations purposes, to check deed records; (3) Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem Code chapter 12, about fraudulent liens, does not require actual damages before penalties may be awarded; (4) Chapter 12 does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause; and (5) personal jurisdiction over one defendant was appropriate, particularly given the confusion in its own records about its activities.

In the unpublished case of Blake Box v. Dallas Mexican Consulate General, the Fifth Circuit reversed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign  Sovereign Immunities Act  because discovery was not allowed on whether a Mexican government representative had actual authority.  No. 11-10126 (Aug. 21, 2012).  Acknowledging that the FSIA seeks to reduce litigation involving sovereigns, the Court found that authority “is a discrete issue conducive to limited discovery [and] the relevant documents reside exclusively with the defendant . . . ”  Id. at 7-8.  The analysis and cited cases are of general interest in other jurisdictional discovery situations.  Disclosure: LTPC colleagues Jason Dennis and Sam Hardy represented the successful appellant.

Appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters can become murky (as discussed in this 2009 CLE paper) because finality is not always obvious.  In an appeal from an individual’s  bankruptcy case, the Court reminded that the test is whether a district court order is a “final determination of the rights of the parties to secure the relief they seek” or a “final disposition ‘of a discrete dispute within the larger bankruptcy case.'”  Sikes v. Crager, No. 11-30982 at 3 (Aug. 16, 2012) (quoting Bartee v. Tara Colony Homeowners Ass’n, 212 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2000).   The district court’s finding that the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was not made in good faith “involve[d] a discrete dispute within her case” and created jurisdiction.

The plaintiff in Choice Inc. of Texas v. Greenstein challenged a Louisiana regulation about the licensing of abortion facilities.  No. 11-30296 (Aug. 17, 2012).  The majority found the suit was not ripe because the plaintiff did not show “that hardship will result if court consideration is withheld at this time.”  Id. at 7.  A forceful dissent faulted the majority for a “procrustean ripeness analysis.”  Id. at 32.   While much of the back-and-forth involves matters unique to abortion litigation, the case presents a thorough review of general  principles about ripeness in the Fifth Circuit at present.

Roman v. Western Manufacturing examined a $1mm-plus verdict about severe injuries from a pump malfunction.  No. 10-31271 (Aug. 17, 2012).  After review of the standards, id. at 5 (“It is not our charge to decide which side has the more persuasive case.”), the Court found that two qualified mechanical engineers met Daubert even though they lacked extensive experience with “stucco pumps,” declining to “make expert certification decisions a battle of labels.”  Id. at 7.  The Court also rejected technical challenges to the type of pump reviewed by the experts and the plausibility of their factual assumptions about its operation, id. at 13 (“There was certainly contrary evidence, but that was for jurors to weigh.”), as well as sufficiency challenges about the inferences made by the jury.  Id. at 16-17.  Additional challenges were found waived under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.  This opinion is the latest in a series of thoughtful cases about Daubert after the 2009 decision in Huss v. Gayden.

Globeranger Corp. v. Software AG involved Texas state law claims about the development of a radio frequency identification system.   No. 11-10939 (Aug. 17, 2012).  The defendants removed and obtained dismissal on the grounds of Copyright Act preemption.  The Fifth Circuit agreed that section 301(a) of the Act creates complete preemption, and on the applicable test: “whether [the claim] falls ‘within the subject matter of copyright'” and whether it “protects rights that are ‘equivalent'” to those of a copyright.  Id. at 6 (citing Carson v. Dynegy, 344 F.3d 446, 456 (5th Cir. 2003)).  After through review of prior cases, the Court held that the conversion claim was likely preempted (thereby maintaining federal jurisdiction), but that the general basis for the claims included business practices excluded from copyright protection, making dismissal at the Rule 12 stage inappropriate.  Id. at 10-12.

Finding that the EPA’s action was “[s]ixteen years tardy” and “without basis in the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations,” the Court vacated an EPA rule that would have voided roughly 140 permits for various pollution-emitting businesses in Texas.  State of Texas v. EPA, No. 10-60614 (Aug. 13, 2012).

In Ahmad v. Old Republic National Title Insurance, the Court reversed a grant of class certification in a case about title insurance premiums.  No. 11-10695 (Aug. 13, 2012).  The Court relied on Benavides v. Chicago Title, 636 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 2011), which declined to certify a similar class of title insurance buyers because “[t]he resulting trial would require the factfinder to determine whether each individual qualified for the discount based on the evidence in his or her file.”  Op. at 9.   The Court declined to distinguish Benavides even though a particular discount was mandatory once “the requirements of R-8 [a Texas Insurance Code provision]” were satisfied, because each plaintiff would present unique facts about those requirements.  Id. at 10-11.  Therefore, the class did not meet the commonality requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).

The bankruptcy court in CRG Partners v. Neary awarded a $1 million fee enhancement for  a “rare and exceptional” result in the Pilgrim’s Pride bankruptcy.  No. 11-10774 (Aug. 10, 2012).  The Trustee objected, arguing that Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662 (2010) — a case rejecting a comparable enhancement under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 — impliedly overruled older Fifth Circuit authority that allowed them in bankruptcy.  The Court carefully reviewed Perdue under the “rule of orderliness,” a set of principles that guide a panel’s fidelity to older panel opinions, and found Perdue distinguishable factually and for policy reasons.  Op. at 22-25.  The Court reminded that it had recently reached a similar conclusion as to the effect of Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), on magistrate jurisdiction.

An unpublished opinion affirmed a ruling that an SEC suit about backdating was barred by limitations and the discovery rule did not apply.  SEC v. Microtune, No. 11-10594 (Aug. 7, 2012).  An interesting analysis of the opinion and its potential broader significance appears in the August 11, 2012 Texas LawBook.

Echoing its recent action in Sawyer v. du Pont, the Fifth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion in Ewing Construction v. Amerisure Insurance and certified two questions to the Texas Supreme Court about the scope of the “contractual liability” exclusion in a construction contractor’s CGL policy.  No. 11-40512 (Aug. 8, 2012).

Lowry Development LLC v. Groves & Assocs. Insurance involved a real estate developer who sued its insurer about coverage for wind damage, and alternatively, its insurance agent for negligence.  No. 11-60670 (Aug. 3, 2012).  The district court granted summary judgment for the developer against the insurer (thereby mooting the claim against the agent), which the Fifth Circuit reversed.  Id. at 3.   The developer then sought to reinstate its claim against the agent.  The Court found that the agent’s dismissal was “based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated” and thus came within Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5).  The agent argued that the insurer should have taken a protective appeal at the time of the original dismissal, but the Court, “[a]cknowledging that [plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion looks like the protective appeal it failed to file,” found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to grant the motion.  Id. at 10.

“Does the failure to give notice to an excess carrier until after an adverse jury verdict constitute evidence of prejudice that forfeits coverage?”  Berkley Regional Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2012).  The Court thoroughly reviewed Texas law about untimely claim notice, observing that it can void coverage if the insurer is prejudiced, but “[d]efining the contours of prejudice from the breach of a notice requirement . . . is not easy.”  It applied that general principle to excess carriers, and found that this carrier had raised fact issues about prejudice from untimely notice (here, after an adverse jury verdict), as it was unable to investigate the matter or participate in mediation: “The cows had long since left the barn when [the carrier] was invited to close the barn door.”

The case of Little v. Shell Exploration presented an issue of first impression — whether a federal employee, even one whose job is to investigate fraud, may bring a qui tam action under the False Claims Act.  690 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2012).  After review of the statutory text, the Court sided with a majority of other Circuits that have addressed the issue and concluded that one may.  The Court acknowledged the practical issue of “how to ensure employee fidelity to agency enforcement priorities in the face of personal monetary incentives,” but concluded that the government could address that issue with personnel guidelines and with its power to intervene and dismiss actions.  The Court remanded for consideration of whether the “public disclosure” and “original source” aspects of the Act barred the specific claims raised by these relators — matters that could limit the scope of the first holding.

City of New Orleans v. BellSouth Telecommunications presented a long-simmering dispute, stretching back to an 1879 ordinance, about BellSouth’s use of public rights-of-way in New Orleans.  Nos. 11-30607 and 11-31058 (July 31, 2012).  The district court awarded $1.5 million in unjust enrichment related to BellSouth’s use after 2006.  The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the parties’ complicated relationship gave BellSouth a “‘justification in . . . contract’ for any enrichment it may be enjoying . . . ,” which defeated an unjust enrichment claim under Louisiana law.   Id. at 21, 25 (citing SMP Sales Management v. Fleet Credit Corp., 960 F.2d 557, 560 (5th Cir. 1992)).

Chevron sued Aker Maritime and Oceaneering International in connection with bolt failures on an offshore drilling rig.  Chevron USA v. Aker Maritime Inc., No. 11-30369 (July 31, 2012).  Chevron recovered a significant damage award against both defendants, and Aker sought indemnity from Oceaneering.  Id. at 4.  To recover under the indemnity provision, Aker had to establish that it was an agent of Chevron with respect to Oceaneering’s work.  The Court concluded that Aker was an agent with respect to the specific activity of procurement, which it found “extends beyond Aker’s mere ordering and includes the receipt of the bolts.”  Id. at 8.

In Gonzalez v. Fresnius Medical Care, the Court affirmed a JNOV on claims under the False Claims Act.  Nos. 10-50413, 10-51171 (July 30, 2012).  The Court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had not shown a wrongful patient referral scheme, noting that the number of referred patients stayed the same over time, whether or  not the alleged conspiracy was in place.  Id. at 8.  The Court also agreed that a line of cases about claims “tainted by fraud” was limited to the fraudulent inducement context.  Id. at 9-11.  Finally, the Court affirmed a sanctions award under 28 USC §  1927 based on the plaintiff’s changing testimony on whether she was asked to cover up the alleged scheme, noting differences between the deposition, the errata sheet afterwards, and then trial testimony.  Id. at 13-16.

BP and Exxon disputed the condition of an offshore rig operated by Noble off the coast of Libya; Noble sought payment from either of them.  BP Exploration Libya Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Libya Ltd., No. 11-20547 (July 30, 2012).  The resulting three-party dispute ran into practical problems because the arbitration clause had a procedure for selecting three arbitrators that was only workable in a two-party dispute.  The Fifth Circuit found that a “mechanical breakdown” had occurred that justified federal court intervention under the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 5, but that the district court exceeded its authority by ordering that arbitration proceed with five arbitrators rather than the three specified by the agreement.  The Court remanded with instructions as to the process for the district court to follow in forming a three-arbitrator panel.

The Court vacated its earlier panel opinion in Sawyer v. du Pont, which rejected claims of fraudulent inducement by employees who the Court concluded were “at-will.”  The issue of whether at-will employees can bring such claims (which here, also involves the application of a notice provision in the employees’ CBA with their employer), has now been certified to the Texas Supreme Court.  No. 11-40454 (July 27, 2012).  The Texas Lawyer Blog has some interesting insight on the procedural history of this ruling.

Lawyers in the North Texas area will enjoy the new blog 600commerce.com, which covers the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals that sits at 600 Commerce in downtown Dallas.

“What follows is the tale of competing mineral leases on the Louisiana property of Lee and Patsy Stockman during the Haynesville Shale leasing frenzy.”  Petrohawk Properties v. Chesapeake Louisiana at 1, No. 11-30576 (as rev’d Aug. 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed a finding that one of the dueling leases was procured by fraudulent misrepresentations as to the legal effect of a lease extension, rejecting several challenges to whether such a representation was actionable under Louisiana law, as well as an argument that the fraud had been “confirmed [ratified].”  The Court also rejected a counterclaim for tortious interference with contract, noting that Louisiana has a limited view of that tort and requires a “narrow, individualized duty” between plaintiff and tortfeasor.  Id. at 20-24 (citing 9 to 5 Fashions v. Spurney, 538 So.2d 228 (1989)).

In Westlake Petrochemicals v. United Polychem, the plaintiff obtained judgment for $6.3 million under the UCC for breach of a contract to supply ethylene.  No. 10-20634 (July 24, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed on liability, finding that evidence about the need for credit approval did not disprove contract formation, defeat the Statute of Frauds, or establish a condition precedent.  Id. at 9-13.  The Court reversed and remanded on damages, finding that the plaintiff was analogous to a “jobber” and thus could recover lost profits but not the contract-market price differential.  Id. at 17 (citing Nobs Chemical v. Koppers Co., 616 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1980)).  The Court also reversed as to an individual’s guaranty of the damages, finding a conflict between the termination provision of the guaranty and the plaintiff’s argument about when liability accrued, which created an ambiguity that made the guaranty unenforceable under Texas law.  Id. at 20-21.

An Austin-based software developer sued a German software company for breach of contract and related torts.  Pervasive Software v. Lexware GMBH & Co., No. 11-50097 (July 20, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, revisiting several key jurisdiction points for business relationships.  The Court held that the parties’ contracts alone would not create jurisdiction when the parties had no prior negotiations and did not envision “continuing and wide-reaching contacts” in Texas.  Id. at 15, 19 (citing Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985).  (A lengthy footnote analyzes Texas law about the role of choice-of-law clauses in a jurisdictional analysis.  Id.  at 14-15 n.4.)  The German company’s Internet sales into Texas — 15 programs, costing roughly $66 each, over four years — did not establish “purposeful availment” for specific jurisdiction, or “continuous and systematic contacts” for general jurisdiction.  Id. at 19-24, 28-29.    The alleged acts of conversion occurred in Germany and thus did not create specific jurisdiction either.  Id. at 25-26.

In Dameware Development LLC v. American General Life Ins. Co., the plaintiff complained that the defendant insurance company did not deliver a plan with certain tax benefits.  No. 11-20218 (July 19, 2012).  The plaintiff contended that their contract was entered into based on a mistake about whether such a plan would be delivered (“error,” under the applicable Louisiana law), and the Court disagreed, characterizing the situation as a “mistaken prediction” that would not allow the contract to be voided.  Id. at 9.  As to the contract itself, the Court found particularly persuasive a disclaimer that said the insurance company would “operate[] solely in the capacity of a product provider . . . .”  Id. at 10.

In an insurance coverage case that is also a careful review of basic contract interpretation principles, the Court determined that a decedent was “legally intoxicated” and thus fell within a policy exclusion.  Likens v. Hartford Life, No. 11-20653 (July 19, 2012).  Recognizing that some authority  requires a “legal intoxication” exclusion to involve a criminal act, the Court disagreed with those cases, reviewing comparable terms elsewhere in Texas law, as well as a line of admiralty authority.

In the context of a denial of en banc rehearing, a concurring and dissenting opinion disputed whether an issue of charge error in an employment case had been preserved below.  Nassar v. UT Southwestern Medical Center, No. 11-10338 (July 19, 2012).  The exchange echoes a similar one in the recent en banc case of Jimenez v. Wood County, 660 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011). 

In GuideOne Specialty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Missionary Church, a coverage case arising from a car accident by church workers on a lunch break, the Court reversed on the duty to defend, disagreeing with the district court’s decision to consider evidence about the state tort litigation as inconsistent with Texas’s “eight corners” rule.  No. 11-10894 (July 17, 2012), op. at 9-12.  Under that rule, the pleadings about the driver’s status and activities could potentially trigger coverage, creating a duty  to defend.  Id. at 13.  The Court declined to apply a “very narrow’ exception that could apply if a coverage issue did not “overlap with the merits of or engage the truth” of the facts of the case.  Id. at 14 (citing GuideOne Elite v. Fielder Road Baptist Church,  197 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. 2006)).  The Court ended by reversing an injunction against state proceedings about the accident, citing general cases about the scope of declaratory judgment actions and noting that the “relitigation exception” to the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply.  Id. at 15-16.     

The confirmation of an arbitration award in a construction dispute was affirmed in Petrofac, Inc. v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., No. 11-20141 (July 17, 2012).  The Court found: (1) that the arbitrator had authority, based on the parties’ agreement to AAA rules, to determine whether a particular damages issue was arbitrable; (2) the award was not procured by fraud, rejecting an argument that the claimant’s damage calculation involved a “bait-and-switch” that pretended to abandon one theory; and (3)  the district court properly awarded prejudgment interest, particularly in light of the arbitration panel creating “a thirty-day interest-free window from the date of the award” for payment.  

McMurray v. ProCollect, Inc. involved a claim that a debt collector’s demand letter contained language that was inconsistent with, and that also overshadowed, the required notice required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  No. 11-20141 (July 17, 2012).  As to the claim of inconsistency, the Court found no violation because the letter did not contain a deadline for payment that conflicted with the 30-day contest period in the FDCPA.  Op. at 7.  As to the claim of overshadowing, the Court found that the letter simply encouraged payment and did not make threats, and did not use fonts or spacing to minimize the effect of the statutorily-required notice.  Op. at 8.  On both claims, the Court reviewed the letter through the lens of an “unsophisticated consumer standard.”  Op. at 5.

The plaintiff’s counsel in Mick Haig Productions v. Does 1-670 served subpoenas on Internet service providers (ISPs) about the alleged wrongful download of pornographic material.  No. 11-10977 (July 12, 2012).   The district court found that the subpoenas violated orders that it had made to manage discovery, and imposed significant monetary and other sanctions on the lawyer.  Op. at 4-5.  The Fifth Circuit found that all of the lawyer’s appellate challenges were waived — either because they were not raised below, or were raised only in an untimely motion to stay filed after the notice of appeal, and thus were waived.  Id. at 5.  The Court declined to apply a “miscarriage of justice” exception to the standard waiver rules, stating that the lawyer’s actions were “an attempt to repeat his strategy of . . . shaming or intimidating [the Does] into settling . . . .”  Id. at 6.

In the case of Downhole Navigator LLC v. Nautilus Insurance, an insured retained independent counsel after receiving a reservation of rights letter from its insurer, arguing that the insurer’s chosen counsel had a conflict at that point.    686 F.2d 325 (5th Cir. 2012).  Applying Northern County Mutual v. Davalos, 140 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2004), the Court found no conflict because “‘the facts to be adjudicated’ in the underlying . . . litigation are not the same ‘facts upon which coverage depends.'”  The Court did not see the recent case of Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co., 261 S.W.2d 24 (Tex. 2008), which dealt with the responsibilities of insurers’ staff attorneys who defend a claim for an insured, as changing the basic analysis under Texas law.

While resolving an issue of Mississippi state property law, the Court provides a good example of an “Erie guess” involving canons of statutory interpretation in Marlow LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, No. 11-60394 (June 27, 2012).

In Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., a law firm had inadvertently distributed documents, designated as confidential under a Rule 26(c) protetive order, during a conference of personal injury lawyers.  No. 11-20557 (June 21, 2012).  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), the Court ordered the firm to reimburse Cooper for its fees and expenses incurred in rectifying the situation.  The Court found that the protective order was an “order to provide or permit discovery” as defined by Rule 37(b)(2), that the award was justified with “specific and well-reasoned grounds . . . that any lesser penalty would not have been an adequate future deterrent,” and that the affidavits of counsel were suficient to establish the amount awarded.  The Court noted that the firm had previously been sanctioned for another violation of a protective order involving Coooper.  Op. at 3 n.2 & 10.

The Court reviewed several Daubert rulings in the toxic tort case of Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., No. 11-50193 (June 20, 2012).  Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, it affirmed the exclusion of experts based on weaknesses in reliance upon (1) analysis of whether the materials at issue belonged to a “class of chemicals” known to cause disease; (2) state and federal exposure guidelines; (3) animal studies; and (4) the “temporal connection” between exposure and illness.  Op. at at 8-20.  The Court then affirmed the exclusion of an opinion based on a “differential diagnosis,” concluding that it was based on an unreliable presumption about general causation.  Id. at 22.  The Court concluded by reversing on a causation issue that did not require expert testimony, finding that the temporal connection between exposure and certain chronic injuries was close enough to allow trial — while also finding that the connection was to attenuated as to related chronic injuries.  Id. at 26.  A dissent took issue with the majority’s reasoning as to one well-credentialed toxicology expert.  Id. at 29.

The Court adddressed the contractual liability exclusion in a Texas CGL policy in the case of Ewing Construction v. Amerisure Insurance, No. 11-40512 (June 15, 2012).  The Court applied the “plain language of the exclusion,” guided by Gilbert Texas Construction LP v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010), and concluded that it reached a contractual commitment to complete a construction project.  Op. at 8.  The Court then examined whether an exception applied for liability that would exist even without the contract, and concluded that there was no such liability under Texas’s “con-tort” cases.  Id. at 9 (quoting Southwestern Bell v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991).  The Court concluded by deferring the issue of the duty to indemnify, and acknowledging a point raised by the dissent about overlap between the “contract” and “your work” exclusions in a typical CGL contract.  Id. at 10.

The bankruptcy case of Bandi v. Becnel involved a dispute as to whether a debt was nondischargeable because it arose from fraud, or whether it fell within an exception for statements about “financial condition” in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)).  No. 11-30654 (June 12, 2012).  The Court found that the phrase “financial condition” should be construed “to connote the overall net worth” of the debtor, and thus did not include “[a] representation that one owns a particular residence or a particular commercial property” because the property could be subject to liens or other liabilities.  Op. at 8.  The Court reviewed a substantial body of law from its prior opinions, other Circuits, and the Supreme Court about the intricacies of this statute and other related provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

In Greenwood 950 LLC v. Chesapeake Louisiana LP, the Court found an ambiguity in a Louisiana mineral lease, seeing two reasonable ways to harmonize clauses about obligations to “repair all surface damages” and “pay . . . all damages.”  No. 11-30436 (June 12, 2012) at 5-7 (emphasis added).  On the threshold Erie issue, the Court reminded: “[W]e look first and foremost ‘to the final decisions of Louisiana’s highest court’ rather than this Court’s prior applications of Louisiana law.”  Op. at 4 n.11 (quoting Holt v. State Farm, 627 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 2010)).

Mid-Continent Casualty v. Davis presented an insurance coverage dispute about a wrongful death claim by a construction worker.  No. 11-10142 (June 8, 2012).  Coverage turned on whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor.   Applying the five-factor test from Limestone Products Distribution v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2002), the Court affirmed a finding that the worker was an independent contractor.  Key facts were that the worker provided his own tools and supplies, largely controlled his own schedule and tasks, and was provided a 1099 rather than a W-2.  Op. at 13-14.

The Court briefly revisited personal jurisdiction in an unpublished opinion, ITL International v. Cafe Soluble, S.A., No. 11-60360 (rev’d June 7, 2012).  The case arose from a dispute between Mars, Inc. and a Latin American distributor, closely related to the dispute at issue in the recent case of ITL International v. Costenla, S.A.  The Court followed the same analytical framework, finding that the defendant’s contacts with Mississippi were not sufficiently related to the dispute to create jurisdiction.  It concluded by reminding that a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction should be without prejudice because it is not on the merits.

Environmental groups challenged several plans approved by the Department of the Interior for oil exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon accident.  In a group of consolidated cases, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the challenges on procedural grounds.  See, e.g., Gulf Restoration Network v. Salazar, No. 10-60411 (May 30, 2012).   Among other holdings, the Court found that the groups had standing as organizations to sue, op. at 8-10, and that case law about the effect of an agency’s allegedly “illegal [and] clandestine” internal policies did not excuse the groups’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies here.  Op. at 29.

In Continental Casualty v. North American Capacity Ins. Co., the district court required three primary carriers to split defense costs, while not allowing the excess insurer to recover defense costs from the primaries.  No. 10-20262 (May 30, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the cost-splitting issue, after careful review of the policies’ coverage triggers, scope, and “other insurance” clauses.  Op. at 15-20.  The Court reversed as to the excess carrier, finding it had a right of contractual subrogation, and distinguishing Mid-Continent Insurance v. Liberty Mutual, 236 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007).

In Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Guy, the Court reviewed a jury verdict that two lawyers had improperly induced a railroad into settling asbestos exposure claims.  No. 10-61006 (May 29, 2012).  The Court rejected jurisdictional challenges that were based on the Rooker-Feldman and Burford doctrines, finding sufficient distance between the facts of the case and the underlying state court proceedings.  Op. at 14, 16.  The Court also found sufficient evidence of affirmative acts of concealment, and due diligence by the railroad, to toll limitations, Op. at 20, although a dissent argued otherwise.  Op. at 27  (“I would reverse because doing nothing is not due diligence.”).  The Court rejected a waiver defense, distinguishing the defendants’ cases as arising when a fraud plaintiff accepted a benefit after it knew or should have known of fraudulent inducement.   Op. at 25.

In a significant case applying Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), the Court vacated a class arbitration award as exceeding the arbitrator’s authority.  Reed v. Florida Metropolitan University, No. 11-50509 (May 18, 2012).   The Court found that the “any dispute” and “any remedy” clauses in the parties’ agreement did not authorise class arbitration, acknowledging a different conclusion by the Second Circuit in Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 646 F.3d 113 (2011).  Op. at 19-22.   Before reaching that result, the Court reviewed the applicable AAA rules and concluded that they allowed the threshold matter of class arbitration to be reviewed by the arbitrator.  Id. at 8.

The plaintiff in Patrick v. Wal-Mart alleged: “Defendants have engaged in a continuing pattern of bad faith . . . [and] have among other things, unreasonably delayed and/or denied authorization and/or payment of reasonable, neceessary and worker’s comp related medical treatment, as well as permanent indemnity benefits, as ordered by [the state agency].”  No. 11-60217 at 11-12 (May 17, 2012).  The Court found that this allegation “invokes three potentially cognizable theories of liability,” but was “devoid of facts to make it plausible” under Twombly — the pleading “fails to identify the specific time or nature of such wrongs . . . [and] does not identify by date or amount or type of service, any of the alleged bad-faith denials and delays . . . .”  Id.   It found no abuse of discretion in not allowing further amendment, noting “repeated failure[s] to cure deficiencies . . . .”  Id. at 12-13 (quoting United States v. Humana Health Plan, 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003)).

The plaintiff in Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen alleged a denial of procedural due process and equal protection rights as to the handling of her license to run a snow cone stand in a particular location.  No. 11-60279 (May 14, 2012).   The Court applied Twombly and Iqbal to find that she had not stated an equal protection claim, reminding that a pleading should have “facial plausibility” from its “pleaded factual content” and not offer only “labels and conclusions or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”  Op. at 17 (noting “no allegations regarding the types of businesses . . . the size . . . where they are located, or what laws and regulations they have violated”).   The Court found an actionable due process issue and rejected a challenge to its ripeness, both under a specialized test for constitutional claims and under “general ripeness principles.”  Id. at 14-15 (requiring a claim “fit for judicial decision” as to which delay “would cause . . . further hardship”).

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).

The Court will rehear en banc the case of Access Mediquip v. United Healthcare, decided by the panel earlier this year, which presents a sophisticated question about when ERISA preempts certain misrepresentation claims.

The unpublished case of Stanwood Boom Works LLC v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., in the context of affirming summary judgment for the defendant in a contract case, gives a thorough summary of “black letter” Texas law about contract formation, as well as the related situation of negotiations that are too tentative to create promissory estoppel.  No. 11-20511 (April 25, 2012).

In Grissom v. Liberty Mutual, the trial court awarded $212,000 in damages for negligent misrepresentation, based on the difference between the coverage a homeowner actually had at the time of Hurricane Katrina, and the coverage he could have had under a “preferred risk policy.”  No. 11-60260 (April 23, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit reversed on preemption issues unique to flood insurance as well as the viability of the claim itself, stating: “Because Liberty Mutual was not offering insurance advice, was not a fiduciary of Grissom, and did not offer any statement to Grissom to imply the lack of alternative insurance options, Mississippi law would not recognize negligent misrepresentation as a cause of action against Liberty Mutual . . . .”  Op. at 9-10.

The parties in Ballard v. Devon Energy disputed when a provision in an oil field joint operating agreement, about the effect of “surrendering” certain leases, would apply.  No. 10-20497 (April 19, 2012)  The Court affirmed the denial of leave to amend the plaintiff’s contract claims to add a fiduciary duty count, based on a lengthy delay in raising the issue.  Op. at 6.  The Court then, applying Montana law, concluded that while the parties had both advanced “facially plausible” readings of the provision in isolation, the defendant’s reading was more persuasive in the overall context of the entire development project.  Id. at 12-15.  The Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, although it criticized the trial court for considering “extrinsic evidence” before attempting to construe the document on its face.  Id. at 9-10.

Sawyer v. DuPont presented employee claims of fraudulent inducement to leave jobs with DuPont for new positions at a wholly-owned subsidiary.  No. 11-40454 (April 20, 2012).   The Court began by reminding of the deference for intermediate appellate opinions in making an “Erie guess” about state law — here, the “at will” employment doctrine in Texas and its prohibition of fraudulent inducement claims about employment relationships.  Op. at  5.  Based on intermediate court authority, the Court concluded that a CBA that was terminable on notice did not change the employees’ at-will status, which thus barred their claims.  Op. at 9.  The Court also found that oral representations to another group of employees were not sufficiently definite to change their at-will status, citing Montgomery County Hospital District v. Brown, 965 SW.2d 501 (Tex. 1998).  Op. at 10.  Summary judgment for DuPont was affirmed.

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.

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.

The defendant in Love v. Tyson Foods complained that an employee’s wrongful discharge claim was barred by judicial estoppel because it was not properly disclosed in the employee’s personal bankruptcy, and the Court agreed, rejecting the employee’s contention that the disclosure issues were inadvertent.  No. 10-60106 (April 4, 2012).  The Court provided a thorough summary of how the Fifth Circuit defines the judicial estoppel doctrine, reminding that because the doctrine protects the judicial system rather than litigants, detrimental reliance is not ordinarily an element.   A detailed dissent criticized the majority for how it addressed the burden of proof and for how it applied the doctrine in the context of broader bankruptcy policies, noting earlier Circuit authority in the area.

LRK Architects v. State Farm presented the question whether a “breach of contract” exclusion should be analyzed under a “but for” or an “incidental relationship” test to determine whether an insurance policy covered a claim for copyright infringement.  No. 11-30121 (April 4, 2012).   After reminding that under Erie its job “is to attempt to predict state law, not to create or modify it,” the Court concluded that Louisiana would use a “but for” test.  Op. at 7-8.  Because the copyright claim “would exist even in the absence” of the parties’ contractual relationship, the exclusion did not apply and the insurer had a duty to cover and defend.  Op. at 9, 10.

In Waldron v. Adams & Reese, LLP, the largest creditor of a bankruptcy debtor paid the retainer fee for debtor’s counsel.  No. 11-30462 (March 29, 2012).  That payment was not disclosed for some time, after which the trustee sought to disgorge counsel’s fees on the grounds of a disqualifying conflict of interest.  The Court affirmed the lower court’s rulings, finding no disqualifying conflict on the “specific facts of [the] case.”  Op. at 8 (quoting and distinguishing In re West Delta Oil Co., 432 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2005)).  It reviewed counsel’s conduct during the bankruptcy case as well as prior representations of the debtors.  Then, reminding of the “clear error” standard of review, the Court affirmed a sanction of partial disgorgement (20% of the fee) for the late disclosure.  Op. at 15.  The Court concluded with a thorough review of the standards for allowing pleading amendments and affirmed the denial of leave for the trustee to add new claims.  Op. at 15-16.

In a forcefully-written opinion, the Court vacated the EPA’s disapproval of Texas environmental emission regulations relevant to the power industry.  Luminant Generation Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 10-60891 (March 26, 2012).   The Court found that the EPA erroneously invoked Texas law and applied federal law incorrectly.  See Op. at 21 (“EPA disapproved the PCP Standard Permit . . . based on its purported nonconformity with three extra-statutory standards that the EPA created out of whole cloth”).   The Court concluded: “Because the EPA waited until more than three years after the statutory deadline to act on Texas’s submission, we order the EPA to reconsider it expeditiously [on remand].”  Id. 

A bankruptcy trustee sued to avoid an alleged fraudulent transfer, in the form of payments under a guarantee, in MC Asset Recovery v. Commerzbank AG, No. 11-10070 (March 20, 2012).  The Court found that the trustee had standing, even though the debtor’s creditors had been paid in full, because recovery would benefit the estate.  Op. at 7.  Then, applying the Restatement’s “significant relationship” framework and focusing on policy issues, the Court applied New York fraudulent conveyance law (which reached guarantees) as opposed to Georgia law (which did not).  Op. at 12-13.  The lower court’s dismissal of the case was vacated and reversed.

In a detailed opinion that surveyed differing Circuit opinions on several topics, the Court found that “the purchase or sale of securities (or representations about the purchase or sale of securities) is only tangentially related to the fraudulent scheme alleged” in state class actions about the Allen Stanford scandal.  Roland v. Green (March 19, 2012).  Therefore, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) did not preclude those actions.  The opinion will likely have a significant influence on future cases about the scope of SLUSA in the Fifth Circuit.

Bepco v. Santa Fe Minerals presented the appeal of a remand order, which was based in part on a contractual waiver issue (reviewable) and in part on a timeliness issue (not generally reviewable).  No. 11-30986 (March 15, 2012).   While the timeliness issue was arguably not presented within 30 days of the removal, the Court held: “Whether a removal defect is not raised by a plaintiff in the motion to remand, or is raised more than 30 days after removal, does not matter.  . . . [W]hat does matter is the timing of the remand motion.”  Op. at 8.  Because the motion itself was timely, and thus satisfied the statutory time limit, and because the remand order relied on a permissible statutory ground for remand, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  Id.

The Fifth Circuit has had a  about the application of Daubert, and its effect on the roles of judge and jury.  In Huffman v. Union Pacific Railroad, the Court moved to the other end of the technical spectrum, and analyzed the sufficiency of evidence in a FELA case about a former railway worker’s alleged on-the-job injuries.  No. 09-40736 (March 13, 2012)  After thorough analysis of the worker’s allegations, the Court held that expert testimony on causation was not necessary to support a jury finding for the worker, but found that the worker had not presented enough evidence about the type of injury to satisfy even that standard.  Op. at 21-22.   Judge Southwick wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Owen, and Judge Dennis dissented.  The case analyzes FELA precedent but is of substantially broader interest on general causation issues.  The Court also briefly analyzed and rejected a judicial estoppel argument.  Op. at 7-8.

As a counterpoint to some recent cases that have set limits on arbitrability, the Court rejected two court challenges to a $17 million arbitration award in a dispute about coal pricing.  Rain CII Carbon, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. 11-30669 (March 9, 2012).  The losing party argued that the arbitrator had failed to follow a specified “baseball” procedure, but the Court found that the arbitrator’s treatment of the proposed award was within the scope of his power to correct clerical issues.  Op. at 5.  The Court also found that the award was “reasoned” under prior case law: “The only description of a reasoned award in this circuit was rendered in a footnote: . . . ‘[A] reasoned award is something short of findings and conclusions but more than a simple result.'”  Id. (citing Sarofim v. Trust Co. of the West, 440 F.3d 213, 215 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006)).  The Court suggested that the parties could have contracted for more detailed findings and conclusions.   Op. at 8.

In Technical Automation Services Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. the Court addressed, sua sponte, an issue about the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge after the Supreme Court’s recent opinion limiting bankruptcy court jurisdiction, Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011).  No. 10-20640 (March 5, 2012).  The Court concluded that Stern did not directly overrule the prior Circuit precedent of Puryear v. Ede’s, Ltd., 731 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1984) and held: “[W]e will follow our precedent and continue to hold, until such time as the Supreme Court or our court en banc overrules our precedent, that federal magistrate judges have the constitutional authority to enter final judgments on state-law counterclaims.”  Op. at 12.  On the merits, the Court reversed the lower court’s ruling that an “eight corners” analysis of an insurance coverage issue precluded consideration of a claim of mutual mistake.  Op. at 15.

The Court affirmed almost all of a series of immunity rulings by the district court in the consolidated litigation against the Corps of Engineers arising from Hurricane Katrina.  In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation (March 2, 2012).  While most of the opinion focuses on issues unique to flood control, it provides a crisp summary of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act as to environmental impact statements, and concludes with a brief summary of the standards for mandamus relief in the federal system.  Op. at 27.  The Court declined to grant a writ of mandamus to stay an upcoming trial because its opinion affirmed the immunity rulings that the district court would use for that trial.  (A subsequent opinion mooted the mandamus issue because it changed the disposition of the merits.)

Lofton v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals presented a failure-to-warn claim based on a severe reaction to a common pain medicine.  No. 10-10956 (Feb. 22, 2012).  The Court concluded that the specific claim at issue, based on Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.007, required litigation about whether “fraud on the FDA” had occurred and was thus preempted.  Op. at 13-14.   The Court acknowledged a circuit split on this preemption issue, and also noted that it was not addressing an issue about the severability of the Texas statute because that issue was raised for the first time on appeal.

In McGee v. Arkel Int’l, the Court addressed the thorny choice-of-law issue raised by a conflict between limitations provisions.  No. 10-30393 (Feb. 16, 2012).  It found that Iraqi law was adequately proven under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 through an expert’s affidavit, which included a translation and cited a generally consistent website.  Op. at 13-14 (noting that defendant “did not put forth any alternative translation and has not suggested how the [plaintiff’s] translation might be inaccurate”).  The Court found that the action was time-barred under Louisiana law, was not shown to be time-barred under Iraqi law, and thus fell within a rarely-used Louisiana law allowing the action to proceed as “warranted by compelling considerations of remedial justice.”  Op. at 18 (citing La. Civ. Code art. 3549).

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.

In Shcolnik v. Rapid Settlements, bankruptcy creditors had obtained a $50,000 arbitration award of attorneys fees against the debtor, and appealed a summary judgment that the award was dischargeable.  No. 10-20800 (Feb. 8, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding an issue of fact as to whether the fee award arose from “willful and malicious injury by the debtor” in pursuing meritless claims, and was thus nondischargeable.  Op. at 5-6 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)).  (The debtor’s threats included a “massive series of legal attacks . . . which will likely leave you disbarred, broke, professionally disgraced, and rotting in a prison cell.”  A thoughtful dissent questioned whether the majority’s ruling would deter legitimate litigation demands, and whether the Court was inserting itself into matters resolved by the arbitrator.  Op. at 9.

In the case of In re Dell, Inc., the Court reviewed the settlement of a shareholder class action against the arguments of two objectors.  No. 10-50688 (Feb. 7, 2012).  The Court first held that a class member does not have to file a proof of claim to have standing to object.  Op. at 5.  The Court then reviewed and rejected several objections to the fairnes of the settlement, reminding that a full evidentiary hearing is not necessarily required at a fairness hearing.  Op. at 10.  Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in awarding an 18% fee to the attorneys ($7.2 million) instead of requiring a “lodestar” calculation, rejecting a strict reading of In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prods. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 220, 228 (5th Cir. 2008) (which stated: “This circuit requires district courts to use the ‘lodestar method’ to ‘assess attorneys’ fees in class action suits.”).

In National Casualty Co. v. Western World Insurance, the Court addressed basic coverage issues under Texas law about auto insurance.  No. 10-41012 (Feb. 3, 2012).  It held that loading a patient into an ambulance is “use” of a an auto within the meaning of one policy, op. at 6 (citing Mid-Century Ins. v. Lindsey, 997 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. 1999)), but did not fall within a “use” exclusion to another policy, reminding that the standard for construing a coverage provision is different than for an exclusion from coverage. Op. at 11.  The Court also found that a “professional services” and an “other insurance” exclusion did not apply.

While the Fifth Circuit rarely addresses a “rear-ender” car crash case, it did so deftly in Fair v.Allen, No. 11-30467 (Feb. 3, 2012), in which the appellant sought reversal of a $38,000 judgment.  With no Daubert issue presented, the Court reviewed the conflicting testimony of medical experts and found it sufficient — under both Louisiana state law and the Federal Rules — to support the verdict and judgment.  The specific issues are unlikely to recur soon, but the framework of the opinion is a good illustration of a basic sufficiency review.

The dispute in Preston Exploration v. GSF, LLC was whether a contract to sell certain oil and gas leases satisfied the Texas Statute of Frauds (“SOF”).  (No. 10-20599, Feb. 1, 2012)  Acknowledging that the parties’ documents envisioned future title work, the Court reversed the district court’s conclusion that this remaining work barred the contracts’ enforcement under the SOF, stating: “Such analysis reflects the conflating of two distinct principles — whether parties come to a meeting of the minds as to the subject matter of a contract with whether a writing’s legal description is sufficient to meet the statute of frauds.”  Op. at 7.

Bass v. Stryker Corp. presents a highly technical analysis of whether state law claims about a hip implant are preempted by the federal Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.  No. 11-10076 (Jan. 31, 2012)  The Court found that the manufacturing claims could proceed as “parallel claims that do not impose different or additional requirements than the FDA regulations,” and that certain implied warranty claims survived because they were based on violations of federal requirements.  Op. at 19, 23.  The Court affirmed the dismissal on preemption grounds of other claims, including an alleged failure to warn.   The opinion provides a thorough example of how Twombly applies to a Rule 12 motion based on preemption.

The Supreme Court wrote two major personal jurisdiction opinions in 2011: Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, about general personal jurisdiction based on product sales into a state, and J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780, analyzing specific personal jurisdiction based on a “stream of commerce” theory.  In ITL International v. Constenla, S.A., the Fifth Circuit’s first lengthy personal jurisdiction opinion since then, the Court found that a defendant’s acceptance of 55 shipments of goods in Mississippi was “purposeful contact[],” but went on to find no specific jurisdiction because the parties’ trademark dispute had too weak a link to those contacts.  No. 10-60892 at 11 (Jan. 31, 2012) The Court did not address general jurisdiction and thus did not directly engage the Goodyear case.

In Amco Energy v. Capco Exploration (No. 11-20264, Jan. 30, 2012), the Court addressed two fundamental business tort issues.  The first involved a professional negligence claim about the evaluation of certain oil properties — the majority found that the professional’s contract did not extend to the matters complained of and thus created no professional duty, while the dissent “cannot fathom how one can conclude that there was no contract” for those matters.  Op. at 8, 10, 23.   The second found a contractual disclaimer of reliance that defeated a fraud claim, continuing the recent development of law on that issue in Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 341 S.W.3d 323, 333 (Tex. 2011) and LHC Nashua Partnership Ltd. v. PDNED Sagamore Nashua LLC, 659 F.3d 450, 460 (5th Cir. 2011).  Op. at 17.

The plaintiff in Arena v. Graybar Electric Company (No. 10-31096, Jan. 25, 2012) asserted a federal claim under the Miller Act (the statute for contractors’ claims on government projects) and related state law claims.  The Court found that failure to comply with a bonding requirement was fatal to the Miller Act claim, and thus to supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.  The district court allowed an amendment to assert diversity jurisdiction, but the Court remanded for consideration of evidence submitted in response to that amendment that would defeat diversity if credited.   Echoing its recent decision in Enochs v. Lampasas County, 641 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2011), which voided a judgment on state law claims after dismisal of the federal claim, the Court reminded: “The court’s reasoning of judicial efficiency to resolve [plaintiff’s] state-law claims comes into play only when jurisdiction is proper.”  Op. at 9.

The employee handbook in Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness contained an arbitration provision and a “Change-in-Terms” clause giving the employer “the right to revise, delete, and add to the employee handbook.”  No. 10-20845 (Jan. 25, 2012).  The  Court affirmed a finding that the arbitration provision was illusory, and thus unforceable.  Op. at 4 (citing  Morrison v. Amway Corp., 517 F.3d 248, 257 (5th Cir. 2008)).  The Court contrasted In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566, 569-70 (Tex. 2002), in which a clause was enforced when the employer’s right to amend the arbitration provision was specifically limited as to present disputes,  and favorably cited Weekley Homes v. Rao, 336 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2011, pet. denied), in which a provision requiring notice of a handbook was not sufficient to make an arbitration provision non-illusory.

Bohnsack v. Varco presented a post-judgment appeal of successful claims for fraud and misappropriation of trade secrets about an oil drilling device called the “Pit Bull.”  No. 10-20741 (Jan. 23, 2012).  The Court ruled: (1) the evidence was sufficient to hold the defendant liable for statements of its outside counsel, to show that those statements were a “material factor” to the plaintiff, and to establish injury from lost profits (op. at 13-16); (2) the fraud damages awarded were benefit-of-the-bargain damages, not compensable under common-law fraud (op. at 16-20 (discussing Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2001))); (3) fraudulent inducement failed because the defendant’s statements only induced negotiations, not entry into a contract (op. at 22); and (4) the damages were compensable as misappropriation of a trade secret, under the broad definition of “use” in Texas law, and in light of damages evidence sufficient to show “the value a reasonably prudent investor would pay for the trade secret.”  Op. at 25-26.

Two individuals, involved in a political struggle about a camera system for traffic lights, sought to intervene of right in a lawsuit between the City of Houston and the system’s contractor.  City of Houston v. American Traffic Solutions (No. 11-20068, Jan. 24, 2012).  The Court reviewed the general requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) but observed that “[b]riefing does not reveal any cases directly on point” to this situation.  Op. at 4.  The Court reversed the district court’s denial of intervention, observing that “[a] court must be circumspect about allowing intervention of right by public-spirited citizens,” but finding that these individuals were exceptionally involved in the political background for the system, and that the City was not necessarily an adequate representative for them in light of the specific history of this system and litigation.  Op. at 4-5.

The plaintiff in Kocurek v. CUNA Mutual Insurance sued for fraud about the sale of an insurance policy in 2005 on her husband’s life.  (No. 10-51042, Jan. 24, 2012).  The defendant persuaded the district court to dismiss on the pleadings, arguing that she lacked standing because she was not a beneficiary of the 2005 policy, and that the policy had a “one policy only” clause that barred claims under an earlier policy.  The Court disagreed and reversed, characterizing the plaintiff’s claims as relating to the “practice of selling multiple policies to the same individual,” op. at 4-5, and finding the “one policy only” provision potentially ambiguous and thus not a proper basis for dismissal on the pleadings.  Op. at 5.   The Court affirmed dismissal of a DTPA claim, as the plaintiff was not the “consumer” who brought the policy.  Op. at 5-6.

In a complicated case about jurisdiction over a challenge to administrative action, the Court addressed the general effect of presumptions under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Rule 301 in particular.  City of Arlington v. FCC (No. 10-60039, Jan. 23, 2012).  The Court reminded that under the “bursting-bubble” approach of Rule 301, “the only effect of a presumption is to shift the burden of producing evidence with regard to the presumed fact.”  Op. at 42.  Accordingly, “once a party introduces rebuttal evidence sufficient to support a finding contrary to the presumted fact, the presumption evaporates,” and “[t]he burden of persuasion with respect to the ultimate question at issue remains with the party on whom it originally rested.”  Id. 

The question in Haggard v. Bank of the Ozarks was whether a guarantor’s liability was limited under Texas law to the last $500,000 due on the note of the principal obligor.  (No 11-10154, Jan. 19, 2012).  Comparing language in the guaranty which limited liability “to the last to be repaid $500,000, of the principal balance of the loan,” with other terms that excused the creditor bank from first trying to collect from the principal, the Court found the guaranty ambiguous and reversed a summary judgment for the bank.  Op. at 7, 8.  (citing, as to the limitation language, NH Properties v. Mittleider, 267 F. App’x 375 (5th Cir. 2008)).  The Court reminded that a “guaranty agreement is construed strictly in favor of the guarantor,” so “[i]f the guaranty is ambiguous, then the court must apply the ‘construction which is most favorable to the guarantor.'”  Op. at 8.

The case of Time Warner Cable v. Hudson, (No. 01-5113) Jan. 13, 2012, presented a constitutional challenge to a Texas statute regulating cable TV providers, on the grounds that it unfairly discriminated against a group of them.   The Court discusses the plaintiffs’ standing at some length, holding that “[d]iscriminatory treatment at the hands of government” was a cognizable injury.  Op. at 5-8.

Texas Medical Providers v. Lakey, No. 11-50814 (Jan. 10, 2012), is a high-profile constitutional challenge to Texas laws requiring a physician who performs an abortion to show a sonogram to the woman.  The Fifth Circuit reversed a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on their First Amendment and vagueness challenges.  While most of the thorough opinion reviews the highly specific constitutional principles in this area, its treatment of the “likelihood of success” factor for a preliminary injunction is also of general interest to civil litigators.

In Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Moreno, a company sued two individuals (among others) alleging RICO violations.  (No. 10-20859, Jan. 10, 2012)  The individuals asserted the Fifth Amendment in their answers, and then withdrew those assertions after the plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion.  The Court allowed one of those withdrawals, stating: “[A] party may withdraw its invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, even at a late stage in the process, when circumstances indicate that there is no intent to abuse the process or gain an unfair advantage.”  (Op. at 11)  It affirmed the denial of the other, noting that it was done at the “eleventh-hour” before the close of discovery.   (Op. at 12)  On the merits, the Court reversed a summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding deficiencies with the plaintiff’s allegations and proof of racketeering injury and activity.  (Op. at 13-20)  The Court cautioned against entry of “[a]n order that essentially amounts to a default judgment” in the summary judgment context.  (Op. at 21)   

In Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, the Court affirmed liability for conversion when a bank “reaccepted [a check] into an account other than that of the named payee, without the proper endorsement.”  No. 11-10320 (Jan. 9, 2012).   The opinion provides detailed discussion of basic topics in the law of checks: who has the rights of a “holder” under UCC Article 3 (op. at 4-6), proper safeguards for check endorsements (op. at 8-10), and accountholder responsibilities for review of a bank statement.  (Op. at 11-13)  The opinion concludes with review of the “in pari delicto” defense, a significant issue in some corporate governance cases, and notes how the defense can apply differently to receivers as compared to bankruptcy trustees.  (Op. at 13-18)

In a dispute about termination of a Volvo truck franchise, Volvo sued the dealership under section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration.  Volvo Trucks v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, No. 09-30782 (Jan. 5, 2012).  Both businesses were Delaware corporations.  The district court found federal question jurisdiction because some relief requested involved interpretation of a federal statute.  The Fifth Circuit applied the “look-through” approach of the Supreme Court in Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), under which a court first “assume[s] the absence of the arbitration agreement” to determine if federal jurisdiction would exist without it.  Under Vaden, the Court found that the substantive issues in dispute were governed by state law.  Op. at 6-9.  It also found that the federal issue on which declaratory relief was requested did not create jurisdiction because it “arises only as a defense or in anticipation of a defense.”  Op. at 12.

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.

In Brown v. Oil States (No. 10-31257, revised Dec. 27, 2011), the plaintiff in a wrongful discharge case testified that he left his job because of racial harassment, and while that case was pending, testified in a personal injury case that he left the same job because of a back injury.  Finding that the plaintiff “plainly committed perjury” with this inconsistent testimony, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the sanction of dismissal of his employment suit.  (Op. at 13).

The case of International Fidelity Insurance v. Sweet Little Mexico Corporation (No. 11-40449, Dec. 22, 2011) rejected an argument that the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) had exclusive jurisdiction over a case between an importer and its surety about certain customs liabilities.  Op. at 4-10.  The Court then found no abuse of discretion in proceeding with that case even though there was a first-filed action in the CIT between the importer and U.S. Customs.  Acknowledging some overlap between the basic issue of customs liability and the secondary issue of the surety’s responsibility for that liability, the Court found that on these facts, “the ‘core issues’ in the two forums are not the same.”  Op. at 11.  The Court concluded that, based on the terms of the surety contract, the importer had to reimburse the surety for payments made “regardless of the outcome of the proceedings before the CIT.”  Op. at 13-16.  While the Court’s analysis of the “first-filed” and surety issues turns on the specific facts of the case, the issues addressed and the basic legal principles cited are broadly applicable to those topics.

The Court does not publish many opinions outside of the Daubert area that construe the Federal Rules of Evidence.  New judge Stephen Higginson, in a technical opinion about conditions of prison release for medical treatment, addressed an uncommon hearsay issue in Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, No. 10-11163 (5th Cir. Dec. 19, 2011).  The Court affirmed the admissibility of a probation officer’s letter under the “public records” exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), despite its observation that the letter “does attribute some statements to [Appellant’s] sister.”  Op. at 7 (citing analysis of a similar issue in  Moss v. Ole South Real Estate, 933 F.2d 1300, 1309-10 (5th Cir. 1991)).

Today’s Texas Lawyer features a list of the Fifth Circuit’s “top ten” cases from 2011: http://tinyurl.com/78navn2

The case of Gilbane Building Co. v. Admiral Insurance (No. 10-20817, Dec. 12, 2011) involved an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify an injury claim under Texas law.  The Court first reviewed the basic rules in the Circuit for an “Erie guess” about state law.  Op. at 4-5 & 8 n.2.  The Court found that Texas’s “express negligence” rule was limited to contractual indemnity and did not bear on whether the plaintiff was an “additional insured.”  The Court then applied Texas’s “eight corners” rule and found no duty to defend, reminding that this rule “consider[s] only the facts alleged in the pleadings and . . . not . . . factual assumptions or inferences that were not pleaded.”  Id. at 13.   The Court declined to recognize an exception to the “eight corners” rule for claims involving a plaintiff’s unpleaded contributory negligence.  Id. at 14-17.  The Court concluded by affirming the district court’s summary judgment for the insured on the duty to indemnify, applying a broader standard based on “the facts proven in the underlying suit.”  Id. at 17-18 & n.4 (acknowledging that “this may seem like an unusual result,” but referring to a similar result in D.R. Horton v. Markel Int’l Ins., 300 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex. 2009)).

Thompson v. Zurich American Insurance, No. 10-51013 (Dec. 2, 2011) presented a common law “bad faith” action under Texas law about handling of a workers compensation claim (Insurance Code rights being limited after Texas Mutual v. Ruttiger, No. 08-0751 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011)).  After reminding that Rule 56 asks “whether a rational trier of fact could find for the non-moving party,” op. at 4, the Court reviewed Texas case law on several issues in light of Ruttiger, and found that on the facts presented, none of the following showed bad faith: (1) conflict between expert reports; (2) lack of personal treatment of the plaintiff by the expert; (3) the expert’s record of primarily working for insurance companies; (4) the expert’s analysis of “aggravation”; or (5) the insurer’s conduct after the initial review.  Op. at 5-13.  The footnotes in the opinion summarize the present state of Texas law on several “bad faith” claims-handling issues.

The Fifth Circuit addressed the doctrine of mistake under Louisiana law in Fruge v. Amerisure, 663 F.3d 743 (2011).  After reminding that choice-of-law issues are waived unless presented to the district court, the Court considered reformation of an insurance policy under general contract principles.  The Court began by noting that Louisiana law allows reformation in the case of mutual mistake, and consideration of extrinsic evidence to prove such a mistake, even if the policy language is unambiguous.  It reviewed different post-accident reformation scenarios, noting that a Louisiana statute generally precludes a post-accident reformation to rescind coverage, and concluded that a reformation claim based on mutual mistake was cognizable in the post-accident setting presented in this case.  The Court reversed and remanded, noting that the extrinsic evidence could potentially prove that no mistake occurred.

Buffalo Marine v. United States, an arcane Chevron case about cleanup expenses for an oil spill, reminds in discussion of a specific statutory defense under the Oil Pollution Act that: “While some contractual relationships are themselves contracts, other contractual relationships merely relate to contracts.  The fact that no contract exists between two parties does not preclude the parties from having a ‘contractual’ relationship.”  Op. at 7-8.  This reminder may provide useful insight in litigation about insurance coverage and contract interpretation cases that involve the term “contractual relationship.”

The case of Turner v. Pleasant presented a rare attack on a judgment by an “independent action in equity.”  The underlying dispute involved a personal injury case implicated by the misconduct surrounding disgraced former judge Thomas Porteous.  Op. at 2-5.  After a clearly-written summary of the pleading requirements of Twombly and Iqbal, op. at 6-7, the Court considered whether the action could proceed, even though similar allegations were made and rejected in an earlier request for relief.   The Court reversed the dismissal of the claim and remanded, concluding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged: (1) a prior judgment which ‘in equity and good conscience’ should not be enforced, (2) a meritorious claim in the underlying case, (3) fraud, accident, or mistake which prevented the party from obtaining the benefit of that claim, (4) lack of fault or negligence by the party, and (5) absence of an adequate remedy at law.  Op. at 5-10 (citing and contrasting Addington v. Farmer’s Elevator Mutual, 650 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 1981)).

In Brown v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, the Court affirmed dismissal of a putative RICO class action involving workers on offshore oil and gas projects.  The Court agreed that the alleged violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) occurred outside the United States and were not actionable, op. at 4-12, a conclusion that turned on the specific language of OCSLA rather than the issue of RICO’s extraterritorial reach recently addressed by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australian Bank.  The Court went on to address standing under OCSLA, finding fatal problems with the failure of the remaining plaintiffs to have satisfied statutory notice requirements, or to allege a plan to obtain future employment as required by the statute’s focus on future injuries.  Op. at 12, 14.  On the issue of standing when several plaintiffs are involved, the Court reminded: “Because no plaintiff gave the type of notice required by the OCSLA, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ argument that notice by one plaintiff can serve as notice for all.”  Op. at 12.

The Court wrote at some length in Access Mediquip v. United Healthcare to clarify earlier cases about preemption of state law tort claims by ERISA.  Access claimed that United made representations about payment for certain medical devices for three insureds.  The Court rejected a reading of Transitional Hospitals v. Blue Cross, 164 F.3d 952 (5th Cir. 1999), that would find preemption if an alleged misrepresentation dealt with the extent of coverage.   Op. at 12-13.  “The dispositive issue . . . is therefore whether Access’s state law claims are dependent on, and derived from the rights of [the three insureds] to recover benefits under the terms of their ERISA plans.”  Op. at 13.  Under that framework, the Court found that Access’s claims for misrepresentation were not preempted by Transitional, but its unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims were.  Op. at 18-19.  The opinion synthesizes several prior cases in this complicated, technical area of preemption law.

Stephen Higginson’s nomination to the Fifth Circuit has been confirmed by the Senate.

In a case of considerable practical importance as to litigation about arbitration clauses and appellate procedure generally, the Fifth Circuit addressed a party’s motion for a stay of district court proceedings during an appeal about the arbitrability of the matter in Weingarten Realty v. Miller.  The Court acknowledged a significant circuit split as to whether a notice of appeal automatically stayed district court decisions during an arbitrability appeal, with one school of thought (two circuits) holding that a case’s merit is a distinct matter from whether it is arbitrable, and another school (five circuits) holding that a notice of appeal automatically stays district court proceedings for efficiency reasons.  Op. at 3-4.   Recognizing that this issue turns on the application of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount, 459 U.S. 56 (1982), and its holding that a district court may adjudicate matters not involved in the appeal, the Court concluded that under prior Circuit precedent a notice of appeal did not create an automatic stay.  Op. at 7.  The Court went on to review the motion under the general four-factor test for a discretionary stay during appeal, and again declined to order a stay, primarily because it believed the movant had a low chance of success on the merits under the contract documents and the doctrine of equitable estoppel.  Op. at 7-8.

The case of Texas Pipeline v. FERC involved a challenge to natural gas regulations as beyond FERC’s statutory authority.   The Court found that the regulations were beyond that authority, and accordingly, did not reach any issues where agency deference under Chevron could be appropriate.   See Op. at 5 (“[A]gencies cannot manufacture statutory ambiguity with semantics to enlarge their congressionally mandated border.”)  The Fifth Circuit has taken a conservative view of agency opinions about statutory authority in other thoughtful opinions, see, e.g., Mississippi Poultry v. Madigan, 31 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (construing the term “same” in statute governing regulation of poultry processing).

The case of Garriott v. NCsoft presented a challenge to a $28 million judgment for breach of an employee’s stock option contract.  After resolving a liability issue under South Korean law about the employee’s termination, the Court considered whether the judgment impermissibly considered post-breach stock appreciation.  The Court faulted the defendant for not raising its challenge to the damages calculation in a Daubert motion, evidence objection, or charge objection, and rejected the argument under “plain error” review.  Op. at 7-9 (“Displeased with the jury’s decision, NCSoft now asks for a mulligan.”)  The Court also found sufficient direct evidence, consistent with the expert models, as to when the employee would have sold his shares.  Op. at 9 (reminding that damages “may be too speculative if based on ‘assumptions without basis in the real world,'” but that the plaintiff “need not prove damages with mathematical certainty”).

The case of Weaver v. Texas Capital Bank first presented a jurisdictional question under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  Texas Capital Bank had obtained a state court default judgment against a guarantor, and contended that the guarantor’s later adversary proceeding attacking the basis for that liability was an impermissible federal attack on a final state court judgment.  The Court disagreed, finding that Rooker-Feldman was not implicated.  Op. at 5-7.  The Court went on to reverse, however, finding that the guarantor’s arguments to the bankruptcy court were defenses to the earlier state court action and thus barred by claim preclusion.  Op. at 8-11.  The opinion thoroughly reviews Texas claim preclusion law and its “transactional” approach to the application of the compulsory counterclaim rule.

Countrywide Home Loans sought to recover certain post-petition attorneys fees in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case in Countrywide v. Velazquez.  The Court reviewed the provisions of the relevant Deed of Trust, and concluded that the word “and” in the phrase “do and pay for whatever is reasonable or appropriate to protect Lender’s interest in the Property and rights under this Security Instrument” did not require that a recoverable fee involve both the protection of the lender’s interest and the lien.  (Op. at 6-9 (citing Lanier v. Spring Cypress Investments, 1995 WL 489427 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 17, 1995, no writ)).  The Court “respectfully disagree[d]” with the unpublished affirmance of a different result by another panel earlier this year in Wells Fargo v. Collins.

The Court released a revised opinion in Barber v. Shinseki, in which the appellant sought review of a magistrate’s electronic order dismissing his case.  The Court first observed that the appellant did not appear to have consented to final disposition of his case by a magistrate as opposed to the district judge.  Op. at 3-4.  The Court went on to note that “[t]he electronic order entered by the magistrate judge . . . does not appear on any document–electronic or otherwise–other than as merely a separate entry on the docket sheet,” and thus did not comply with the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 that “every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document.”  Op. at 4.  The Court noted that certain exceptions to Rule 58 were not applicable.  Op. at 4 n.2.  (The opinion was revised to “remove language indicating that all judgments must be set forth on paper documents” and to note that an appropriate document “may be electronic.”  Op. at 1.

The United States removed a case after entry of a default judgment against two doctors associated with the federal government (and after their motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law under Texas rules).  Oviedo v. Hallbauer (revised October 14, 2011)  After reviewing several potentially applicable removal statutes, the Court held: “The weight of authority thus holds that, by the time the government filed its notice of removal in this case, there was no pending case to remove, inasmuch as nothing remained for the state courts to do but execute the judgment.”  (Op. at 7)  Given this conclusion about the timeliness of the removal, the Court also rejected an argument based on the Federal Tort Claims Act that the state court may have lacked jurisdiction over this case.  (Op. at 8-10)

In the case of Jimenez v. Wood County, the en banc Court reviewed the requirements for preserving charge error.  The case presented a civil rights challenge to a county’s strip-search policy as to misdemeanor arrestees.  At trial, the County made the objection, “Just one objection, Your Honor, the — the Court finding that this was a minor offense as a matter of law.  For record purposes, we would object.”  Op. at 2-3.  The Court found that this objection preserved an argument as to whether the plaintiff was arrested for a “minor offense,” but did not preserve an argument as to whether “reasonable suspicion” was required for the search at issue.  The Court thoroughly reviewed the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 51, both as to the substance and timing of a charge objection.  Op. at 4-6 & n.2.  It rejected the County’s argument that statements made at a pre-trial conference were sufficient to preserve error here, and that “any objection would have been futile” because of the state of Circuit precedent at the time.  Judge Smith’s dissent suggests potential exceptions to the majority’s approach to Rule 51.  Op. at 16 n.4.

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Qore, Inc. (originally released in July, revised October 6), Wal-Mart sued several defendants about structural problems with a new store in Starkville, Mississippi.  Wal-Mart won some claims at trial, the share of which for defendant Qore (a geotechnical services firm) was $48,600.  Pursuant to an indenmity provision that reached “any claim, demand, loss, damage or injury (including Attorney’s fees) caused by any negligent act or omission,” the trial court awarded $810,000 in fees against Qore – the substantial majority of Wal-Mart’s fees for the whole case.  The Fifth Circuit agreed that this provision justified a fee award, but found the award excessive because Wal-Mart’s fees could have been segregated, and remanded for further proceedings.  Op. at 6.  The Court noted that Cobb v. Miller, 818 F.2d 1227 (5th Cir. 1987), an attorneys fee dispute in a civil rights case, raised policy issues about “private attorney[s] general” that did not apply to this Mississippi state law matter.  Op. at 13.

The case of LHC Nashua Partnership Ltd. v. PDNED Sagamore Nashua LLC presented several liability and damages issues in a contract case arising from a real estate development project.  While nominally applying New Hampshire law, the Court addressed Texas law because it did not materially differ on the key points.  Op. at 8.  The Court’s holdings included these: a promissory estoppel claim was not actionable given the scope of the parties’ written contract, op. at 9-10; the plaintiff offered sufficient evidence of justifiable reliance on alleged misrepresentations, op. at 11-13; and a merger clause in the parties’ agreement did not foreclose the misrepresentation claim, op. at 13-14.  The Court’s analysis of the merger clause focused on the recent Texas Supreme Court case of Italian Cowboy Partners v. Prudential, which substantially clarified Texas law in that area.  The Court affirmed an award of reliance damages but reversed an award of $25 million in lost profits, stating that the contract induced by fraud “contemplated a future closing transaction”; therefore, “[Plaintiff] cannot recover lost profits flowing from an agreement to purchase property that never closed due to the failure of that agrement’s express conditions.”  Op. at 21-23.

In an antitrust suit about fees for a golf voucher program, the defendant successfully moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff had not alleged an effect on interstate commerce.  Substantively, the Court acknowledged that while it has “limited the reach of the Commerce Clause with respect to non-economic activity,” (Op. at 7, citing U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)), “the conduct alleged here . . . bringing out-of-state tourists to play golf–falls squarely within the Supreme Court’s commerce clause jurisprudence.  Procedurally, the Court reviewed the plaintiff’s allegations about the effect of the fees on “out-of-state residents” in light of Twombly and Iqbal and concluded that, while “sparse,” those allegations sufficed to allege an effect on interstate commerce.  The Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction.  Gulf Coast Hotel-Motel Association v. Mississippi Gulf Coast Golf Course Association

The case of Klier v. Elf Atochem presented this challenge: “When modern, large-scale class actions are resolved via settlement, money often remains in the settlement fund even after initial distributions to class members have been made because some class members either cannot be located or decline to file a claim.”  Op. at 6.  The Court reviewed the district court’s decision to make a cy pres distribution of unclaimed funds from a tort settlement to various charities.  The Court began its analysis by reminding that the Rules Enabling Act and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 “define the first –and often the last–arena of analysis,” Op. at 8, limiting cy pres distributions “only to rescue the objectives of the settlement when the agreement fails to do so.”  Op. at 10.  Noting that the parties’ settlement did not provide for a cy pres distribution, and that it had a clause allowing the district court to change the distribution protocol “for the benefit of the Settlement Class Members,” Op. at 11-12, the Court concluded that the unused funds were to be used for the benefit of another settlement subclass rather than as the district court had ordered.  The Court went on to review several features of the parties’ agreement, reminding that the cases in this area “have necessarily taken case-specific approaches . . . .”  Op. at 14.  Chief Judge Jones wrote a concurrence that focused on situations when it would be appropriate to return unused funds to the settling defendant.