To illustrate a point about the risks of unbounded judicial discretion, the Fifth Circuit quoted a well-known gorilla joke in Rollins v. Home Depot USA, No. 20-50736 (Aug. 9, 2021):

Counsel failed to file a summary-judgment response because his notification of filing went to his email “spam” folder. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e):

“It is not ‘manifest error to deny relief when failure to file was within [Rollins’s] counsel’s ‘reasonable control.’  Notice of Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment was sent to the email address that Rollins’s counsel provided. Rule 5(b)(2)(E) provides for service ‘by filing [the pleading] with the court’s electronic-filing system’ and explains that ‘service is complete upon filing or sending.’ That rule was satisfied here. Rollins’s counsel was plainly in the best position to ensure that his own email was working properly—certainly more so than either the district court or Home Depot. Moreover, Rollins’s counsel could have checked the docket after the agreed deadline for dispositive motions had already passed.”

Rollins v. Home Depot USA, No. 20-50736 (Aug. 9, 2021).

“‘Lost debt’ cases present a unique type of claim. They allege ‘a RICO violation whose central purpose [i]s to prevent the collection of a claim or judgment.’ The substantive RICO violation is the act of preventing collection. And the plaintiff’s injury is the inability to collect the lawful debt. So, when the plaintiff successfully recovers that debt, it is no longer lost. And because that unrecovered debt is the only source of the plaintiff’s injury, there is no RICO claim in its absence.  As a result, a plaintiff cannot rely on its lost debt to animate a RICO suit after it has recovered that debt. The ‘debt is “lost” and thereby
becomes a basis for RICO trebling only if the debt (1) cannot be collected (2)
“by reason of” a RICO violation.’ ‘In other words, to the extent of a successful collection, the RICO claim is abated pro tanto, prior to any application of trebling.'” HCB Fin. Corp. v. McPherson, No. 20-50718 (Aug. 4, 2021) (citations omitted). Put another way: “There must be independent damages to treble; the possibility of treble damages alone cannot confer statutory RICO standing.” 

A recent antitrust case reminds of an important but infrequently-litigated point about the review of pleadings in the context of a motion to dismiss: “If an attached exhibit contradicts a factual allegation in the complaint, ‘then indeed the exhibit and not the allegation controls.'” Quadvest LP v. San Jacinto River Auth., No. 20-20447 (Aug. 3, 2021).

The plaintiffs in Quadvest LP v. San Jacinto River Auth. alleged that a state-created river authority violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by unreasonably restraining the market for wholesale raw water in Montgomery County. Procedurally, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the denial of the authority’s motion to dismiss on immunity grounds was appealable under Circuit precedent (acknowledging that the Fifth Circuit is an outlier on this point). Substantively, the Court affirmed the denial of the authority’s motion “at this stage” of the case, concluding that “the Texas Legislature did not authorize [the authority’s] entry into and enforcement of the challenged [contract] provisions with the intent to displace competition in the market for wholesale raw water in Montgomery County.” No. 20-20447 (August 5, 2021).

Two rulings about the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege were recently reversed, by both the Fifth Circuit and Dallas’s Fifth District, in response to mandamus petitions. (This is a cross-post with 600commerce.com.)

• In the Fifth Circuit: “[A]s Boeing argues, the district court clearly erred in finding that Plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the contested documents were subject to the crime-fraud exception. The district court concluded that the contested documents were reasonably connected to the fraud based on one finding only—that the documents sought ‘f[e]ll within the period Boeing admit to hav[ing] knowingly and intentionally committed “fraud” in the DPA. However, a temporal nexus between the contested documents and the fraudulent activity alone is insufficient to satisfy the second element for a prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applies.” In re The Boeing Co., No. 21-40190 (July 29, 2021, unpublished).
• In the Fifth District, the Court noted: “[A] determination at the TCPA stage as to a prima facie showing does not automatically translate to a prima facie showing for purposes of application of the crime–fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege. The exception UDF attempts to invoke is for crime–fraud, not crime–tort.” From there, it declined to follow a broad view of the exception defined by another Texas intermediate court, “and note that, notwithstanding certain language in the [relevant] opinion, the El Paso court continues to apply the elements of common-law fraud when determining the applicability of the crime fraud exception, rather than requiring proof of a false statement only.” In re Bass, No. 05-21-00102-CV (July 30, 2021) (mem. op.).

A long-running discovery dispute in Texas state court led to a contempt order, which in turn led to a federal-court habeas action. The Fifth Circuit noted that habeas relief was potentially available under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, under which:

… if an adequate state ‘corrective process’ for raising a claim exists that the petitioner could avail him or herself of, a federal court may only consider the claim if the petitioner has exhausted available state remedies. And when the petitioner has done so and the state court has rejected the claim on the merits, federal courts may provide relief only when the state court adjudication was either ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ or ‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.’

(citations omitted). Among other observations, the Court held: “A rule that due process does not permit the use of civil contempt to compel the production of documents that are in the hands of third parties would also overturn longstanding precedents and would likely be unworkable in practice.” Topletz v. Skinner, No. 20-40136 (July 30, 2021).

• “While litigants should, when possible, identify specific contractual provisions alleged to have been breached, Rule 8 does not require that level of granularity. ‘So long as a pleading alleges facts upon which relief can be granted, it states a claim even if it “fails to categorize correctly the legal theory giving rise to the claim.”‘ ” (citations omitted).
• That said — “That the pleading was sufficient in this contract dispute, governed by an agreement neither exceedingly long nor rife with addenda, exhibits, and multiple parts, does not mean that Rule 8 would necessarily be satisfied by general allegations involving more complex contracts.” 

Sanchez Oil & Gas Corp. v. Crescent Drilling & Prod., Inc., No. 20-20304 (July 30, 2021).

The key contract provision in Papalote Creek II LLC v. Lower Colorado River Authority said that “[LCRA]’s damages for failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement shall likewise be limited in the aggregate to sixty million dollars ($60,000,000).” The Fifth Circuit concluded that read in context, this provision referred to damages that LCRA would owe to Papalote (acknowledging authority that, in the abstract, would suggest damages that LCRA would be owed).

The Court went on to conclude that this provision capped damages available under a specific liquidated-damages provision, finding that another clause dealing with those specific remedies did not displace the language of the cap (It said that “for any provision for which an express and exclusive remedy or measure of damages is provided, such express remedy or measure of damages shall be the sole and exclusive remedy, [and] the obligor’s liability shall be limited as set forth in such provision[.]”). No. 19-50850 (July 16, 2021).

The relevant policy language in a data-breach coverage dispute provided insurance for:
In Landry’s, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Penn., the Fifth Circuit found that this language created coverage, observing, inter alia:

• “Publication”: “[C]overage is triggered by a ‘publication, in any manner.’ It follows that the Policy intended to use every definition of the word ‘publication’—even the very broadest ones. And some of the dictionary definitions of ‘publication’ are quite broad.”
• Scope: “[T]he Policy does not simply extend to violations of privacy rights; the Policy instead extends to all injuries that arise out of such violations. … [I]t’s undisputed that a person has a ‘right of privacy’ in his or her credit-card data.” (emphasis in original).
• Injury: “[E]veryone agrees that the facts alleged in the Paymentech complaint constitute an injury arising from the violation of customers’ privacy rights, as those terms are commonly understood. It does not matter that Paymentech’s legal theories sound in contract rather than tort. Nor does it matter that Paymentech (rather than individual customers) sued Landry’s. Paymentech’s alleged injuries arise from the violations of customers’ rights to keep their credit-card data private.”

The Fifth Circuit rejected class claims about the handling of funds in an ERISA plan, identifying a basic standing problem arising from the links in the causal chain of the plaintiffs’ damages theory: “[Plaintiffs’] expert has provided calculations for the returns that they would have earned had they not invested in the FCU Option but  had instead placed their money in a stable value fund. This ‘lost investment income’ is a ‘concrete’ and redressable injury for the purposes of standing.  That said, another question we must ask is whether Plaintiffs would have in fact invested in a stable value fund to earn the higher returns had [Defendants] never offered the FCU Option. In other words, the question is whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated that it is ‘substantially probable that the challenged acts of the defendant, not of some . . . third party[]’ (including themselves) caused the injury.  If anything, the record reveals that Plaintiffs would not have invested in a stable value fund in a counterfactual world since they did not place their money in one when given the opportunity to do so.” (citations omitted, emphasis added). Oritz v. American Airlines, No. 20-10817 (July 19, 2021).

In a will contest, “the district court determined that, because the claims against Craig and Alita were founded on a single deprivation, the loss of the transferred assets, joint and several liability is appropriate.” The Fifth Circuit agreed, quoting the Restatement (First) of Restitution section cited by the district court: “Where a claim against two persons is founded upon a single deprivation as it is where a tort resulting in a single harm has been committed by two persons concurrently or acting in cooperation, the injured person, while having a cause of action against each of the parties for the entire amount of injury, is entitled only to one satisfaction. If he obtains judgment against one and it is satisfied, he thereby loses his claim against the other.” (citation omitted). In other words, “this part of the Restatement ‘effectively imposes joint and several liability on a restitution defendant when the action is founded ‘upon a single deprivation.’” Great American Life v. Tanner, No. 20-60588 (July 16, 2021).

In Spectrum Association Management of Texas v. Lifetime HOA Management LLC, the Fifth Circuit identified an “exceptional case” that justified an award of attorneys’ fees under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.  The Court contrasted Kiva Kitchen & Bath Inc. v. Capital Distributing, Inc., 319 F. App’x 316 (5th Cir. 2009), observing:

“Like the defendants in Kiva, the Lifetime Defendants acted in bad faith by registering and using an infringing internet domain with the intent to divert a direct competitor’s potential customers to Lifetime’s website. Further, the facts of this case are even more egregious than Kiva, because the Lifetime Defendants never offered to transfer the Infringing Domain to Spectrum, whereas the Kiva defendants made such an offer to the plaintiff shortly before trial. Finally, the Lifetime Defendants engaged in post-trial misconduct by blatantly copying text from Spectrum’s website—evidence of willfulness and bad faith that was not present in Kiva.”

No. 20-50604 (July 13, 2021).

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Walker County Hosp. Dist. presented a debtor’s challenge to the terms of a bankruptcy court’s sale order. The Fifth Circuit dismissed: “In this opinion, we have held that § 363(m) forecloses the creditor’s appeal because it failed to seek the required stay of the Sale Order. Established precedent leads us to this conclusion, and the Committee’s argument that it appealed an order not subject to § 363(m) is unpersuasive. In short: no stay, no pay.” No. 20-20572 (July 12, 2021) (emphasis added).

The government moved to dismiss a qui tam case; the Fifth Circuit found that the relators received the statutorily-required opportunity to contest that motion at a hearing:

“Health Choice had a hearing before the magistrate judge. It had a witness available to testify at that hearing, and the witness was not prohibited from testifying. Health Choice declined to call the witness to testify and the magistrate judge did not prevent Health Choice from presenting the witness. Health Choice’s statements at oral argument suggest that it consciously and strategically chose not to offer evidence because it believed it had already won the motion. Even assuming that [42 U.S.C.] § 3730(c)(2)(A) requires the hearing to be an evidentiary hearing, there was no error because Health Choice declined to offer evidence at the hearing.”

(citations omitted). A concurrence emphasized the fact-specific nature of the holding, and one of the three panel members concurred as to the judgment only. United States ex rel. Health Choice Alliance v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 19-40906 (July 7, 2021).

The Fifth Circuit granted a stay during appeal in a challenge to a Texas JP’s practices regarding an invocation at the beginning of court proceedings: “In deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal, we consider four factors: ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’ All four factors favor Judge Mack.” The Court found a “manifestly erroneous” analysis of Ex Parte Young by the district court, which guided the application of the remaining factors in the appellant’s favor. Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mack, No. 21-20279 (July 9, 2021).

Goodrich v. United States certified a complex issue of Louisiana law to that state’s supreme court; confirming the wisdom of that decision, it summarized a relevant principle as stating: “If the things subject to the usufruct are consumables, the usufructuary becomes owner of them. He may consume, alienate, or encumber them as he sees fit. At the termination of the usufruct he is bound to pay to the naked owner either the value that the things had at the commencement of the usufruct or
deliver to him things of the same quantity and quality.” No. 20-30422 (July 6, 2021) (emphasis added). Hopefully the resulting opinion will clothe the case with quality legal reasoning.

A wheelchair-bound potential juror complained about  the inaccessibility of the courthouse to him when he was called for jury duty. The Fifth Circuit reviewed two guideposts about standing for such claims in its earlier opinions, noting:

O’Hair and Herman can be summarized as holding that a plaintiff with a substantial risk of being called for jury duty has standing to seek an injunction against a systemic exclusionary practice but not a one-off, episodic exclusion related to a particular judge’s actions. Thus, the plaintiff in O’Hair had standing for injunctive relief against a state constitutional provision that systemically excluded atheists from jury service, but the plaintiff in Herman lacked standing for injunctive relief against a particular judge’s conduct.

Applied to this case, the Fifth Circuit held: “[Plaintiff] has a substantial risk of being called for jury duty again. He was called twice between 2012 and 2017. Those past incidents, though insufficient to confer standing, are still ‘evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.’ Moreover, Hinds County is not extremely populous, and only a subset of its population is eligible for jury service, so it’s fairly likely that Crawford will again, at some point, be called for jury duty.” Crawford v. Hinds County Board of Supervisors, No. 20-60372 (June 16, 2021) (citations omitted).

The Supreme Court will review Reagan National Advertising v. City of Austin, 972 F.3d 696 (5th Cir. 2020). The court’s summary of the issue presented is below, and here is my discussion of the case on the Coale Mind podcast —

Applying Keller v. State Bar of California, 491 U.S. 1 (1990), the Fifth Circuit concluded that certain activities by the State Bar of Texas were not “germane” to the Bar’s accepted purpose, and thus held that their funding with bar dues violated the First Amendment.

In sum, the Bar is engaged in non-germane activities, so compelling the plaintiffs to join it violates their First Amendment rights. There are multiple other constitutional options: The Bar can cease engaging in nongermane activities; Texas can directly regulate the legal profession and create a voluntary bar association, like New York’s; or Texas can adopt a hybrid system, like California’s. But it may not continue mandating membership in the Bar as currently structured or engaging in its current activities.

The Court acknowledged the “weakened foundations” of Keller after the union-dues case of Janus v. Am. Fed. of State, County, & Municipal Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), but concluded that it still framed the relevant issues in the context of a mandatory bar association. McDonald v. Longley, No. 20-50448 (July 2, 2021). The Texas Lawbook has written on the opinion. (The companion case of Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n, No. 20-30086 (July 2, 2021), reversed a standing-based dismissal to a similar challenge to the activities of Louisiana’s state bar.)

If you are an email subscriber to this blog’s new posts, or subscribe to its RSS feed, please know that Google has discontinued its “Feedburner” service, so 600Camp is converting to a similar (but hopefully much improved) service offered by “Follow.it.” With luck, the transition will be seamless. But if you experience a loss of service – or the opposite problem of multiple deliveries – please notify me at dcoale@lynnllp.com. Many thanks for subscribing!

The plaintiff in Arruda v. Curves Int’l alleged that violations of the Franchise Rule were RICO predicate acts, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed: “Congress’s omission of a private right of action in the [Federal Trade Commission Act] controls. A violation of the Franchise Rule does not itself constitute a predicate act of mail or wire fraud to support a RICO claim.” The Court cited D.C. Circuit opinion about the Service Contract Act that asked the cogent question: “If there is no implied cause of action for damages, how much the less for treble damages?” No. 20-50734 (June 28, 2021) (unpublished).

Huawei Technologies USA v. FCC presents an exhaustive summary of modern-day administrative law, in the context of reviewing an FCC rule that excluded Huawei from federal funds as a security risk. As the Court summarized its several holdings:

Their most troubling challenge is that the rule illegally arrogates to the FCC the power to make judgments about national security that lie outside the agency’s authority and expertise. That claim gives us pause. The FCC deals with national communications, not foreign relations. It is not the Department of Defense, or the National Security Agency, or the President. If we were convinced that the FCC is here acting as “a sort of junior varsity [State Department],” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 427 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting), we would set the rule aside.

 

But no such skullduggery is afoot. Assessing security risks to telecom networks falls in the FCC’s wheelhouse. And the agency’s judgments about national security receive robust input from other expert agencies and officials. We are therefore persuaded that, in crafting the rule, the agency reasonably acted within the broad authority Congress gave it to regulate communications.

No. 19-60896 (June 18, 2021).

The long and winding case of Doe v. McKesson, remanded from the Supreme Court with instruction to certify a threshold state-law question to the Louisiana Supreme Court, added one more state-law issue after remand. Doe v. McKesson, No. 17-30864 (June 25, 2021).

Strong feelings were voiced about the Fifth Circuit’s panel opinion in Ramirez v. Guardarrama, 844 F. App’x 710 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). The vote against en banc review was 13-4, with several opinions:

• Judge Jolly, who had been on the panel that found no Fourth Amendment violation, concurred with denial and observed: “The unanimous panel opinion also explains why we cannot quarterback from our Delphic shrines, three years later, the split-second decision making required of these officers in response to a suicidal man (1) doused in gasoline, (2) reportedly high on methamphetamine, (3) screaming nonsense, (4) holding a lighter, and (5) threatening to set himself on fire and to burn down the home, occupied by six people, which he had earlier covered in gasoline.”
• Judge Ho, joined by Judges Jolly and Jones, concurred and further observed:       “[H]ow can a constitutional violation be ‘obvious,’ ‘egregious,’ and ‘conscience-shocking,’ when the dissent can’t tell the officers what they should have done differently to keep people safe?”
• Judge Oldham (also on the panel), joined by all of the above and Judge Engelhardt, reviewed the Fourth Amendment claim through a Twombly lens and concluded: “[T]he Fourth Amendment is not an antidote to tragedy. It’s a cornerstone of our Bill of Rights, with an august history and profound original meaning. We cheapen it when we treat it like a chapter from Prosser & Keeton. And we transmogrify it beyond recognition when we say officers act ‘unreasonably’ without any effort to say what a reasonable officer would’ve done.”
• Judge Smith dissented, arguing that this case provided an opportunity to revisit another recent en banc opinion.
• Judge Willett dissented, joined by Judges Graves and Higginson, pointing to recent Supreme Court cases that rejected qualified-immunity claims and observing: “The complaint alleges a plausible Fourth Amendment violation, and an obvious one at that. How is it reasonable—more accurately, not plausibly unreasonable—to set someone on fire to prevent him from setting himself on fire?”

The defendant in IMA, Inc. v. Medical City Dallas sought to compel arbitration under a “direct-benefits estoppel” theory. It argued that the plaintiff’s claim, which involved a series of related contracts, necessarily implicated an agreement that contained an arbitration clause. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration, agreeing that the defendant lacked “knowledge of the contract’s ‘basic terms,’ and noting: “IMA neither was shown to have, nor needed, knowledge of the Hospital Agreement in order to fulfill its obligations to the Health Plan and the IMAPPOplus Agreement; rather IMA could process the claims with ‘a copy of the [Health] Plan and the PPO Contract Rates.'” No. 20-20032 (June 17, 2021).

Retana, a Dallas police officer, sued several social-media companies after he was injured in a mass shooting. He alleged that Hamas radicalized the shooter through their platforms, and sought relief under the Anti-Terrorist Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, agreeing that the Dallas shooting was not “primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States” as the Act requires, and also found that the companies did not assist any terrorist group’s actions: “The shooting was committed by a self-radicalized ‘lone wolf’ … not by Hamas.” Retana v. Twitter, Inc., No. 19-11389 (June 16, 2021).

A wrongful-foreclosure case reminds of a basic Twombly principle: “Green’s breach-of contract claim in her complaint alleged that Defendants violated conditions in the deed of trust, but she never explained which part of the deed was violated. It was only in response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion that Green identified the deed’s notice requirement as the specific violation. Her failure to specify her breach-of-contract claim in her complaint warrants dismissal of that claim.” Green v. Windsor Park Asset Holding Trust, No. 20-11226 (June 18, 2021, unpublished) (per curiam).

The Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit panel opinion about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, finding that none of the plaintiffs had standing in light of (1) the repeal of coverage-related penalties and (2) the apparent mismatch between the ACA provisions complained of as unconstitutional, and those that caused the complained–of harms to the states. California v. Texas, No. 19-840 (U.S. Jun 17, 2021) (reversing Texas v. United States, 945 F. 3d 355 (5th Cir. 2019)).

An important question about statutes bearing on the ability of a federal court to hear a matter is whether they are “jurisdictional,” or only speak to issues of “claim-processing.” See, e.g., Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010). In Rivero v. Fidelity Investments, “[e]xamining the text and structure of the [Declaratory Judgment Act]’s federal-tax exception” led to the conclusion that it was jurisdictional: “[T]he statute plainly ‘speak[s] to the power of the court.’ … [T]he juxtaposition of the DJA’s reference to federal courts’ jurisdiction and the federal-tax exception indicates that the latter deprives a court of jurisdiction that might otherwise exist in cases ‘with respect to Federal taxes.'” The court also noted holdings in cases about a similarly-worded provision of the Anti-Injunction Act. No. 20-40371 (June 10, 2021) (citations omitted).

While this is a post about Texas state practice, I am cross-posting it from 600Commerce because it is of broad general interest to civil appellate practitioners. 

With respect to court orders and judgments, the words “signed,” “rendered,” and “entered” are often used interchangeably. But those words have specific, technical meanings, and it is wise to remember those meanings when differences matter.  Accord, Burrell v. Cornelius, 570 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1978) (“Judges render judgment; clerks enter them on the minutes.  …  The entry of a judgment is the clerk’s record in the minutes of the court.  ‘Entered’ is synonymous with neither ‘Signed’ nor ‘Rendered.’”).

Two rules set the background as to when critical countdowns commence:

• Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a: “The date of judgment or order is signed as shown of record shall determine the beginning of the periods prescribed by these rules for the court’s plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct or reform a judgment or order and for filing in the trial court the various documents that these rules authorize a party to file …”
• Similarly, Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 begins: “The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed, except as follows …”

By contrast, “[j]udgment is rendered when the trial court officially announces its decision in open court or by written memorandum filed with the clerk.”  E.g., S&A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam).  And the above-quoted paragraph from Rule 306a concludes: “… but this rule shall not determine what constitutes rendition of a judgment or order for any other purpose.”

By contrast, entry of judgment refers to the recording of a rendered judgment in the court’s official records. See, e.g., Lone Star Cement Corp v. Fair, 467 S.W.2d 402, 405 (Tex. 1971) (“The law is settled in this state that clerical errors in the entry of a judgment, previously rendered, may be corrected after the end of the court’s term by a nunc pro tunc judgment; however, judicial errors in the previously rendered judgment may not be so corrected.” (emphasis added)).

I gratefully acknowledge the excellent insights of Ben Taylor in preparing this post!

The able Rory Ryan of Baylor’s law school has Tweeted in detail about a recent district-court opinion on a thorny, and persistent, removal-jurisdiction issue. The case, which arose under a Texas Insurance Code provision with a specific procedure about claims against insurance agents, presented these facts:

Plaintiffs sued their insurer, Chubb (who is diverse), and agent, Smith (who is non-diverse), in state court. Chubb then elected to accept whatever liability Smith might have, and the state court dismissed Smith. Chubb then removed the case under diversity jurisdiction.

Leading to this issue: “[I]n determining diversity jurisdiction, does the Court consider Smith’s citizenship?”

After an extensive review of the relevant statutes and cases, the Court concluded:

Without binding authority, the Court must rely on the policy and rationale supporting the improper-joinder rule. The improper-joinder rule holds that the non-diverse defendant never should have been a party.  As the Fifth Circuit has said: “If no reasonable basis of recovery exists, a conclusion can be drawn that the plaintiff’s decision to join the local defendant was indeed fraudulent …,” and therefore improper.  As shown above, this rationale explains the improper-joinder rule’s past application.

 

But the rationale does not support an improper-joinder finding when the plaintiff’s claims against the non-diverse defendant were initially valid. In this situation, it is false to say an improper-joinder finding amounts to a determination that the non-diverse defendant was never properly before the court. It was.

(citations omitted, emphasis in original). The case was thus remanded to state court.

If MoneyGram is a “bank” under the applicable Internal Revenue Code provision, it can take a large deduction that it cannot otherwise take. The Fifth Circuit did not agree with its claim to be a bank: “MoneyGram contends that when a customer buys a money order, the customer is placing funds with MoneyGram for safekeeping, at least until such time as the recipient of the money order presents it for payment. The tax court rejected this argument, likening a money order to the purchase of a gift card rather than a deposit in a bank account. We agree.” MoneyGram Int’l v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 20-60146 (June 1, 2021).

The Fifth Circuit harmonized two insurance-policy provisions in Miller v. Reliance Std. Ins. Co.:

“[T]he phrase ‘active, full-time’ employees must be construed in the insured’s favor to include those who, on the relevant date, are current employees even if not actually working. We also agree that the term ‘regular work week’ must be construed to refer to an employee’s job description, or to his typical workload when on duty.

 

To hold otherwise, as Reliance urges, would render the second paragraph of the Transfer Provision virtually redundant with the first. On Reliance’s reading, the paragraph would cover employees who actually maintain a full-time work schedule at the time of transfer. But this is barely different, if at all, from the previous paragraph’s provision for employees who at the time are ‘Actively at Work,’ defined to mean ‘actually performing on a Full-time basis the material duties pertaining to his/her job'[.]

 

Effectively, Reliance’s reading is that the second paragraph covers employees who are not “actually performing” work duties but are ‘otherwise’ actually working. We reject this convoluted construction as the unambiguous meaning of the provision.”

No. 20-30240 (June 2, 2021) (emphasis in original, breaks added).

The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s analysis of appellate costs (often a trivial issue, but here involving over $2 million in supersedeas-bond premiums) in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, stating: “[W]e hold that courts of appeals have the discretion to apportion all the appellate costs covered by Rule 39 and that district courts cannot alter that allocation.” No. 20–334 (U.S. May 27, 2021). (It remains to be seen how the Roberts Court will review other, more politically charged opinions from the Fifth Circuit this term.)

A party in Int’l Energy Ventures Mgmnt, LLC v. United Energy Group, Ltd. “recognize[d] the general proposition that litigation-conduct waiver is an issue that should be decided by the court,” but “contend[ed] that the general rule does not apply here for three reasons.” The Fifth Circuit rejected each one:

• Incorporation of AAA rules. Yes, the parties’ agreement gave the arbitrator “the power to rule on its own jurisdiction,” but it did not “clearly and unmistakably” confer the power to decided litigation-conduct waiver.
• Waiver. Again, the Court found that activity during the arbitration did not “clearly and unmistakably” result in the “submission” of this issue, noting reservations made by the relevant party and the arbitrator’s own actions.
• “Unique facts.” The Court did not find key cases inapplicable because of the party who sought arbitration: “‘Arbitration is a matter of contract,'” reasoned the Court, and “[e]xtra-contractual factors–like where an issue first arises and who initiates arbitration–are not part of the interpretive analysis.”

No. 20-20221 (May 28, 2021).

The “similar birds” case — Alliance for Good Government v. Coalition for Better  Government — returned to the Fifth Circuit to address attorneys’ fees. The panel majority affirmed the final fee award, over a strong dissent that questioned the application of the Lanham Act to what it saw as purely political speech. No. 20-30233 (May 19, 2021).

Canfield v. Lumpkin presented an ineffective-assistance claim arising from voir dire. The record showed the following exchange with the juror in question, followed by general questions to the panel about the ability ot be fair, with no individual followup questioning of this juror:

The panel majority found no error sufficient to justify habeas relief, as well as a lack of sufficient prejudice. A dissent saw matters otherwise: “[T]he trial judge and counsel were acutely aware of the necessary care that must attend jury selection and the challenges of this case. Our question is whether they succeeded in protecting the jury room. Unlike the majority, I conclude that they did not. During voir dire, a prospective juror volunteered that she felt the defendant was guilty and would probably vote to convict him even if the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither counsel nor the judge followed up with her. So, she served on the jury that first convicted Jerry Lee Canfield and, then, free to choose from a menu of sentences from  5 years to life imprisonment, sentenced him to 50 years in prison without the possibility of parole.” No. 18-10431 (May 18, 2021).

Please sign up for my Fifth Circuit update for the Austin Bar Association this Thursday, May 12, at noon – here is the link – and Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone will present a Supreme Court update as well! Here is a draft of my PowerPoint for the presentation.

Removals under the federal-officer statute have drawn increased scrutiny in recent years. In BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the Supreme Court addressed an important issue about appellate review of remand orders involving that statute, concluding: “To remove a case, a defendant must comply with 28 U. S. C. §1446. Essentially, that statute requires the defendant to provide affected parties and
courts with a notice stating its grounds for removal. §§1446(a), (d). The combination of these actions ‘effect[s] the removal.’ §1446(d). To remove a case ‘pursuant to’ §1442 or §1443, then, just means that a defendant’s notice of removal must assert the case is removable ‘in accordance with or by reason of’ one of those provisions. Here, everyone admits the defendants’ notice of removal did just that by citing §1442 as one of its grounds for removal. Once that happened and the district court ordered the case remanded to state court, the whole of its order became reviewable on appeal.” No. 19-1189 (U.S. May 17, 2021) (footnotes omitted).

The appellant in Lillie v. Office of Financial Institutions argued that an adverse summary judgment was based on an unreliable case. The Fifth Circuit disagreed: “The court relied on Friedman only in reasoning that a showing of ‘but-for causation’—namely that SEI might have been able to prevent STC’s violations—is not enough to establish control. Such a rationale … is distinct from Friedman’s independent holding that the plaintiffs there had not alleged culpability. One may cite a case without endorsing everything for which it stands. The district court understood the law.” No. 19-30705 (May 14, 2021).

Roe v. Wade famously named Dallas County DA Henry Wade (right) as its defendant, because he was the official charged with enforcement of the criminal statute at issue. The Texas Legislature has passed a new abortion law — a “heartbeat bill” — that features a novel enforcement procedure involving private litigants. The statute disclaims any public enforcement, relying on a private right of action against abortion providers that features an extremely broad definition of standing. The Texas Tribune correctly notes that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc opinion in Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2001), declined to extend Ex Parte Young (left) to a Louisiana statute that created a somewhat-analogous private cause of action against abortion providers. Assuming that the Governor signs the new Texas law, Okpalobi will likely be cited frequently in federal-court challenges to it. (I recently did a an interview with Fox 4’s “Good Day” about this new law.)

While Olivarez v. T-Mobile involved the high-profile topic of Title VII’s protection for  transgendered individuals, it turned on a basic and common proof problem in such cases: “Olivarez has failed to plead any facts indicating less favorable treatment than others ‘similarly situated’ outside of the asserted protected class.  In fact, the Second Amended Complaint does not contain any facts about any comparators at all. The complaint simply indicates that Olivarez took six months of leave from September 2017 to February 2018—including an extension granted by T-Mobile and Broadspire—and that when Olivarez requested additional leave in March 2018, T-Mobile denied the request and terminated Olivarez’s employment in April 2018. Notably, there is no allegation that any non-transgender employee with a similar job and supervisor and who engaged in the same conduct as Olivarez received more favorable treatment.” No. 20-20463 (May 12, 2021) (emphasis added).

In 2017, the USS Fitzgerald, a U.S. Navy destroyer, collided with the MV ACX Crystal, a commercial container ship, in Japanese territorial waters. The incident caused extensive damage and injury, including the death of seven American sailors. Relatives of the deceased sailors sued the ship owner in federal court under the Death on the High Seas Act. They based personal jurisdiction on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), “alleging that, despite NYK Line’s status as a foreign corporation, its substantial, systematic, and continuous contacts with the United States should make NYK Line amenable to suit in federal court.” I

In Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, the Fifth Circuit noted that that the case raised novel but significant issues about the distinction between 5th and 14th Amendment due process protections, but found itself constrained by the “rule of orderliness” to follow an earlier Circuit case on the topic. A 2-judge dissent urged en banc consideration, noting that “[o]ur decision today … determines that a global corporation with extensive contacts with the United States cannot be haled into federal court for federal claims arising out of a maritime collision that killed seven United States Navy sailors.” No. 20-30379 (April 30, 2021).

The difficult First Amendment case of Wilson v. Harris County Community College System, 955 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2020), produced a panel opinion that allowed an elected member of a community-college board to bring a claim about alleged retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights, followed by an 8-8 tie on the question of en banc review. The Supreme Court has now granted review of this fundamental issue about the relationship between elected officials’ rights and the interests of the institutions they serve: (The first episode of the “Coale Mind” podcast considers this case along with the “Cancel Culture” phenomenon.)

CNN recently reported on a Capitol rioter who was turned in by an unimpressed Bumble match (right). This story illustrates precisely the kind of “red-blue” interaction (admittedly, with less romanticism) that jury service forces when it brings together people of different backgrounds and interactions.  These interactions are increasingly important in our divided times, and have taken on new dimensions after the difficult year of 2020. I discuss this topic (jury selection, not date-getting) with top jury consultant Jason Bloom in the most recent episode of the Coale Mind podcast.

During the course of a long-running contract dispute, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case for further development of the record about diversity jurisdiction. Problems with appellate deadlines for a later appeal ensued; in reviewing the parties’ arguments the Court noted:

• “Full” v. “partial” remand. “It is true that in some cases where this court has remanded with a specific directive to the district court, we have retained jurisdiction over the appeal, obviating the need for the appellant to file a new notice of appeal after the district court’s remand proceedings. However, in those cases, this court specified that we retained jurisdiction over the appeal.”
• Effect of an attorneys-fee appeal. “[W]hen the merits judgment has already become final and unappealable, a mere delay of that judgment is no longer possible, and the court lacks any authority under FRAP 4(a)(4)(A)(iii) and FRCP 58[(e)] to modify the finality or the effect of the merits judgment.” (citation omitted).
• Good cause is not GOOD CAUSE. “Rule 4(a)(5), unlike Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iii) and Rule 58(e), does allow a district court to revive an untimely notice of appeal after the original time to appeal has expired. … Pathway’s motion cannot be construed as a Rule 4(a)(5) motion, however. The extension motion cites Rule 58(e) rather than Rule 4(a)(5), and its arguments are relevant only to the former ….”

Midcap Media Finance LLC v. Pathway Data, Inc., No. 20-50259 (April 20, 2021).

In one corner, there is “Metchup”: “Mr. Dennis Perry makes Metchup, which depending on the batch is a blend of either Walmart-brand mayonnaise and ketchup or Walmart-brand mustard and ketchup. Mr. Perry sells Metchup exclusively from the lobby of a nine-room motel adjacent to his used-car dealership in Lacombe, Louisiana. He has registered Metchup as an incontestable trademark. Though he had big plans for Metchup, sales have been slow. Since 2010, Mr. Perry has produced only 50 to 60 bottles of Metchup, which resulted in sales of around $170 and profits of around $50. He owns www.metchup.com but has never sold Metchup online. For better or worse, the market is not covered in Metchup.”

In the other corner, there is Heinz: “Along comes Heinz. It makes Mayochup, which is solely a blend of mayonnaise and ketchup. To promote Mayochup’s United States launch, Heinz held an online naming contest where fans proposed names. A fan submitted Metchup, and Heinz posted a mock-up bottle bearing the name Metchup on its website alongside mock-up bottles for the other proposed names. Heinz never sold a product labeled Metchup.” 

Sadly for Perry’s trademark-infringement claim, the Fifth Circuit concluded: “It would be a coincidence to ever encounter both Mayochup and Metchup in the market, much less get confused about the affiliation, sponsorship, or origin of the two products. Accordingly, no reasonable jury could conclude that Heinz’s use of Metchup in advertising or the sale of its own product, Mayochup, created a likelihood of confusion.” Perry v. H.J. Heinz, No. 20-30418 (April 12, 2021).

This week on the “Coale Mind” podcast, I had top-flight jury consultant Jason Bloom as a special guest; in the episode we touch on the many pervasive effects that 2020 will have on jurors and jury selection, including:

– A surprising eagerness of people to show up and serve on juries, in part driven by widespread feelings of frustration after months of shutdown;

– Concern about what Jason calls the “massive exercise in confirmation bias” that potential jurors bring to the courthouse with them, depending on how restricted a juror’s information sources may be;

– The once-obscure psychological terms “ultracrepidarian” and “pareidolia” (you have to listen to the podcast to explore those terms’ meaning 🙂;

– Remembering that 2020 changed potential jurors not only because of COVID, but because of Black Lives Matter, the Biden-Trump election and its aftermath, etc.

– And a reminder that jury service—unlike the similar civic-engagement exercise of voting—forces jurors to form a consensus among their different beliefs; and

– Why 1-page written questionnaires for potential jurors may be particularly useful now in light of the above issues.

Confronted with the impossibly tangled Gordian Knot, Alexander the Great famously sliced it in half with his sword (right). Confronted with a “counterintuitive flow of money” in the complex intersection between pharmaceutical patents and the antitrust laws, in the Fifth Circuit affirmed the outcome of an FTC proceeding on the narrowest available ground in Impax Labs v. FTC, No. 19-60394 (April 13, 2021). The case arose from the settlement of a patent case between a brand-drug manufacturer and a generic drug maker, which presented these considerations about competition:

• The legal monopoly created by the brand-drug maker’s patent, and the challenge to it posed by the patent dispute;
• The framework established by the Hatch-Waxman Act for FDA approval of a generic drug, which has the practical effect of shifting all of the generic maker’s products into the first six months of manufacture;
• The settlement of the patent dispute by lengthening the brand-drug maker’s monopoly in exchange for consideration given to the the generic manufacturer (which in turn, potentially worsens the approval “bottleneck” created by the Hatch-Waxman Act);
• The pro-competitive effect of ending a patent monopoly earlier than it might otherwise have ended;
• Whether certain pro-competitive features of the parties’ settlement had a “nexus” to the above payments.

The FTC concluded that these factors made the settlement anticompetitive, and also concluded that the parties had a “less restrictive alternative” available that would have avoided these issues. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the less-restrictive-alternative ground, finding it supported by “[t]hree evidentiary legs–industry practice, credibility determinations about settlement negotiations, and economic analysis ….”