An unusual Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) proceeding did not create appellate jurisdiction: “This case does not yet involve a final determination of the status of the interpleaded funds. Instead, it involves Rule 60(b)(5) relief from a prior order to disburse funds. The district court was not disbursing funds to the other party, but merely ordering that they be returned to the court’s registry pending the outcome of the state court action on remand. As the district court said, there has been no decision on who is entitled to the money. The final judgment has been set aside. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal.” Reed Migraine Centers of Texas v. Chapman, No. 20-10156 (Jan. 28, 2021).

At issue in Big Binder Express LLC v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. was the meaning of the term “you.” The Fifth Circuit concluded that the term “you” in the key endorsement about a large deductible, when given its “ordinary and generally accepted meaning,” referred only the named insured and not additional insureds. The Court also rejected the insured’s argument that “damages” meant only a court award of damages. No. 20-60188 (Jan. 27, 2021).

Belliveau v. Barco, Inc., discussed yesterday as to its holding about veil-piercing, also found that the plaintiff had not established a fiduciary relationship with the defendants under Texas law. The Court examined:

• The general principle that “one party’s subjective belief” is insufficient to establish an attorney-client relationship;
• The inadequacy of “vague and conclusory” statements about the parties’ dealings to satisfy that standard (especially if later deposition testimony undermines those statements); and
• The long-standing principle that to establish an informal relationship of  “trust and confidence,” that relationship must have existed before the “agreement made
  the basis of the suit.”

No. 19-5017 (Jan. 28, 2021). The dissenting judge agreed with the majority on its analysis of this claim.

In a dispute about various licensing agreements, the Fifth Circuit found that Texas law’s requirements for piercing the corporate veil had not been satisfied:

“The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not raise a fact issue regarding Barco’s dishonest purpose or intent to deceive Belliveau in entering into the Barco Sublicense. Piercing the corporate veil is not a cumulative remedy for creditors of corporate or other legal entities in Texas; that theory does not make owners of such entities codefendants for every breach of contract case. It is a remedy to be used when the actions of the entity’s owner amounting to ‘actual fraud’ have rendered the entity unable to pay its debts. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Belliveau’s claim to pierce the corporate veil.”

Specifically, the court reviewed (and rejected) arguments about the consideration exchanged in the licensing agreement, issues about disclosure, and a “badges of fraud” analysis under Texas’s fraudulent-transfer statute. Belliveau v. Barco, Inc., No. 19-50717 (Jan. 28, 2021). A dissent identified issues for trial on these matters.

“Mindful of the fundamental right to fairness in every proceeding–both in fact, and in appearance,” the Fifth Circuit reversed the outcome in a Title VII dispute, and ordered the reassignment to a new district judge on remand, when:

From the outset of these suits, the district judge’s actions evinced a prejudgment of Miller’s claims. At the beginning of the Initial Case Management Conference, the judge dismissed sua sponte Miller’s claims against TSUS and UHS, countenancing no discussion regarding the dismissal. Later in the same conference, the judge responded to the parties’ opposition to consolidating Miller’s two cases by telling Miller’s counsel, “I will get credit for closing two cases when I crush you. . . . How will that look on your record?”
And things went downhill from there. The court summarily denied Miller’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, denied Miller’s repeated requests for leave to take discovery (including depositions of material witnesses), and eventually granted summary judgment in favor of SHSU and UHD, dismissing all claims.”

Miller v. Sam Houston State, No. 19-20752 (Jan. 29, 2021).

Shah sued about the alleged monopolization of pediatric anesthesiology services in Bexar County. The Fifth Circuit looked to its discussion of market definition in Surgical Care Center of Hammond, L.C. v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1, 309 F.3d 836, 840 (5th Cir. 2002), which looked for “a showing of where people could practicably go” to obtain the services at issue. Here, Shah failed to satisfy that standard: “He did not even specify individual pediatric anesthesiologists from whom patients could practicably obtain health care services. Rather, he provided tallies, by county, of pediatric anesthesiologists in Texas that fit the anesthesiology requirements of the BHS-STAR Agreement. Moreover, as the BHS parties argue, Shah’s proposed relevant market does not encompass all interchangeable substitute products because it does not include the two non-BHS facilities that the BHS parties contend serve as viable alternatives to BHS facilities. Shah has not provided evidence or any persuasive argument to raise a genuine dispute as to either of those facilities.” Shah v. VHS San Antonio Partners LLC, No. 20-50394 (Jan. 13, 2021).

An unusual procedural path, winding through a bankruptcy proceeding, led the Fifth Circuit to review a state-court summary judgment. On the issue of the state court’s evidentiary rulings, the Court applied a federal-court approach to a standard form of Texas practice, reasoning: “The grant of these objections improperly excluded important evidence from consideration. To start, the state trial court offered no explanation as to why it granted the objections. It simply checked boxes on a form saying that the objections were sustained. Since a trial court can abuse its discretion by failing to explain the reasons for excluding evidence, the lack of a reasoned explanation weighs in favor of overturning the objections. Courts also typically consider evidence unless the objecting party can show that it could not be reduced to an admissible form at trial.” Cohen v. Gilmore, No. 19-20152 (Dec. 15, 2020) (citations omitted).

Prantil v. Arkema, No. 19-20723 (Jan. 22, 2021), involved class claims about property damage that resulted from a  chemical explosion caused by Hurricane Harvey. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the trial court’s class-certification order, holding:

• “[T]he Daubert hurdle must be cleared when scientific evidence is relevant to the decision to certify”;
• The trial court’s Rule 23(b)(3) analysis fell short in its “discussion of how proof of Arkema’s conduct will affect trial”–specifically, on plaintiff-specific defensive issues about causation, injury, and damages; and
• As to injunctive relief, the order “leaves us uncertain” as to how the extent of necessary property remediation can be determined, and whether a responsive injunction can be fashioned to account for Arkema’s past remediation efforts”–especially if the injunction will rely on the analysis of the class’s experts.

The panel in Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 19-50691 (Jan. 20, 2021), in the context of an interlocutory appeal certified under 28 USC § 1292, affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss a claim based on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. That law imposes civil liability on on e who “knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person” by certain coercive means. The panel found that the text of the statute unambiguously reached the plaintiffs’ claims against a private company that operated detention facilities for ICE.

A dissent would have found that the plaintiff did not adequately state her claim under Twombly and Iqbal; in response, a concurrence argued that the concept of “party presentation” foreclosed the Court’s review of that matter. North Texas practitioners will recognize echoes of the debate among Justices about supplemental briefing from the Flakes litigation.

Louisiana bar owners contended that a state COVID restriction violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Fifth Circuit disagreed:

“Unlike AG-permitted bars whose primary purpose is to serve alcohol, AR-permitted businesses must serve more food than alcohol to meet their monthly revenue requirements. Even if the Bar Closure Order’s classifications are based solely on the premise that venues whose primary purpose and revenue are driven by alcohol sales rather than food sales are more likely to increase the spread of COVID-19, such a rationale, as described by Dr. Billioux and the Governor and credited by both district courts, is sufficiently ‘plausible’ and not ‘irrational.”’ … [T]he Bar Closure Order’s differential treatment of bars operating with AG permits is at least rationally related to reducing the spread of COVID-19 in higher-risk environments.”

Big Tyme Investments, LLC v. Edwards, No. 20-30526 (Jan. 13, 2021) (citations omitted). The panel majority and a concurrence disputed the exact import of archaic-sounding language from Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), but did not find it to materially impact the outcome under traditional Equal Protection principles.

The appropriate “gatekeeping” procedures for FLSA cases, which involve the question whether claims are “similarly situated” and thus trigger notice obligations, was thoroughly reviewed in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, No. 19-60847 (Jan. 12, 2021): “This case poses an issue that has been under-studied but whose importance cannot be overstated: how stringently, and how soon, district courts should enforce § 216(b)’s ‘similarly situated’ mandate. As explained above, the FLSA’s similarity requirement is something that district courts should rigorously enforce at the outset of the litigation.” In reaching this conclusion, the Fifth Circuit disapproved of the widely-cited analysis of this issue in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1992).

Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co., LLC, No. 20-30038 (Jan.11, 2021), discussed yesterday, also reviewed the admissibility of four pieces of evidence in a personal-injury trial. The issue was the liability of the LLC that owns Harrah’s Casino in New Orleans for hiring a wildlife-removal contractor to work on its exterior landscaping (“AWR”). The Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting them:

• The contractor’s “F” rating with the Better Business Bureau. “[T]he BBB evidence is not very probative of the safety and competency of AWR. Still, as we earlier discussed, it might have been properly used by jurors as evidence of the Casino’s failure to investigate AWR adequately. … The evidence of the BBB rating at least added to the jurors’ understanding that the Casino missed another of the markers that could have led to further inquiry, even if the inquiry would not have led to much of significance.”
• The contractor’s certificate of insurance. “The Casino relies on Federal Rule of Evidence 411, which makes inadmissible the existence or nonexistence of insurance for purposes of proving or disproving a party’s negligence. … Here, AWR’s lack of insurance was not admitted on the issue of AWR’s negligence but to prove the Casino’s negligence in hiring AWR. Rule 411 was not violated.”
• The Casino’s internal policies. “While [an earlier unpublished case] held that internal policies did not establish the applicable standard of care, that panel did not go so far as to say that evidence that a principal violated its internal policies is irrelevant to the question of negligence. We conclude that failure to follow internal policies can be relevant. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence.” (citation omitted).
• Construction-site photos. “The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence of construction sites. [Plainitff] sought to use the evidence of construction sites that had barricades to show that there should have been barricades in place to prevent her injury. The fact that the bird-removal site did not have barricades when similar construction sites did is some evidence
  of a breach of the applicable standard of care, especially when the Casino’s expert made the comparison to construction sites.”

Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co. illustrates a deferential review of a jury’s work in a case about a property owner’s control of construction work that caused injury. Procedurally, the case reminds that federal court does not strictly follow Texas’s Casteel approach to sufficiency review of multiple-theory cases: “This court employs a harmless-error ‘gloss,’ meaning that if we are ‘totally satisfied’ or ‘reasonably certain’ based on the focus of the evidence at trial that the jury’s verdict was not based on the theory with insufficient evidence, a new trial is unnecessary.” Substantively, the Court found sufficient evidence supported the verdict on each of the plaintiff’s three “theories of negligent hiring, operational control, and authorization of unsafe work practices.” No. 20-30038 (Jan. 11, 2021).

Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State Univ. applies the Fifth Circuit’s principles for review of alleged charge error, finding no abuse of discretion on a complicated question of causation in a discrimination case. No. 17-60856 (Jan. 6, 2020).

The complexities of the McDonnell-Douglass framework were not at issue in Lindsley v. TRT Holdings, Inc., No. 10-`10623 (Jan. 7,  2021), in which the Fifth Circuit found that the appellant established a prima facie case of sex discrimination:

It is undisputed that Lindsley was paid less than her three immediate predecessors as food and beverage director of Omni Corpus Christi. As a result, she has established a prima facie case of pay discrimination, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

First, it is undisputed that Lindsley was paid $4,149 less than Walker and $6,149 less than Pollard. It is also undisputed that Lindsley held the same job title at the same Omni hotel as those men. What’s more, Omni agrees that Lindsley established a prima facie case of pay discrimination as to Cornelius, who held the position directly after Pollard and Walker—and there is no evidence that the position has changed since then. This establishes a prima facie case of pay discrimination.

The district court therefore erred in concluding that Lindsley failed to establish a prima facie case because she “provide[d] no evidence that her job as Food and Beverage Director was in any way similar to Pollard and Walker’s jobs, aside from the fact that they shared the same job title.” Far from failing to show that her job was “in any way similar,” Lindsley showed that she held the same position as Walker and Pollard did, at the same hotel, just a few years after they did—and that she was paid lessthan they were. No more is needed to establish a prima facie case.

Did that recent SCOTUS opinion overrule older Circuit authority? “If a
precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on
reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should
follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative
of overruling its own decisions.” Baisley v. Int’l Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, No. 20-50319 (Dec. 22, 2020) (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)).

“When Amazon allows third parties to sell products on its website, is Amazon ‘placing’ products into the stream of commerce or merely ‘facilitating’ the stream? If the former, then Amazon is a ‘seller’ under Texas products-liability law and potentially liable for injuries caused by unsafe products sold on its website. But if Amazon only facilitates the stream when it hosts third-party vendors on its platform, then it is not a seller, meaning injured consumers cannot sue for alleged product defects.” The Fifth Circuit certified this important issue to the Texas Supreme Court in McMillian v. Amazon, No. 20-20108 (Dec. 18, 2020).

Practice tip: In the Court’s review of whether the issue warranted certification, it noted that both parties had agreed that there was “substantial ground for difference of opinion” in order to proceed with an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

The Twelfth Amendment says: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” By statute, that is to occur this year on January 6. That statute also lays out a procedure for handling objections to votes. Judge Jeremy Kernodle of Tyler rejected a challenge to that process, as the process is in detailed in  Section 15 of 1887’s Electoral Count Act, stating: “Plaintiff Louie Gohmert, the United States Representative for Texas’s First Congressional District, alleges at most an institutional injury to the House of Representatives. Under well settled Supreme Court authority, that is insufficient to support standing.”  Gohmert v. Pence, No. 6:20-cv-660-JDK (E.D. Tex. Jan. 1, 2020).

A Fifth Circuit motions panel (Higginbotham, Smith, Oldham) dismissed an effort at immediate appeal:

The plaintiffs in Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enterprises alleged RICO violations based on a scheme to bring them to the US under H2-B visas, but not pay accordingly. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of their claims on causation grounds, observing: “Understating the type of work to be done may have supported obtaining the visas, but it was not the cause of underpayment; indeed, if one accepts the Plaintiffs’ allegations, truthfulness would likely have resulted in a lack of visas, keeping Plaintiffs from being able to come to the United States in the first place. But, critically, Plaintiffs’ reduced wages were several steps in the causal chain away from the transmission of fraudulent forms; nothing about the forms required underpayment. To even have the opportunity to underpay Plaintiffs, the Ramirezes had to submit fraudulent forms, obtain authorization, and bring the Plaintiffs to the United States for work. Only then could the Ramirezes actually underpay Plaintiffs.” No. 19-50638 (Dec. 21, 2020) (emphasis added).

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a business that had been accused of being a “control person” under Louisiana securities laws. “As the district court recognized, the contract between STC and SEI is strong evidence that SEI was unable to control STC’s primary violations. The contract made STC responsible for pricing the SIBL CDs and for providing accurate information to SEI. The contract does not assign any role to SEI in the sale or valuation of SIBL CDs. Further, as the district court noted, the investors’ ‘pleadings contain no evidence demonstrating that the relationship between the companies differed from that contemplated in the
contract.'” The Court then reviewed, and rejected, evidence about the types of work done by the defendant as a service provider. Ahders v. SEI Private Trust Co., No. 20-30186 (Dec. 3, 2020).

When you next want to pose a question in your writing, and really really emphasize it, please consider . . . the Interrobang! Wikipedia suggests the below examples of when the Interrobang may be just the punctuation mark you’re looking for. (H/T to Lucy Forbes of Houston for her knowledge of unconventional punctuation marks)

A Buddhist group sued for alleged infringement of the mark “Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam” and two others. The Fifth Circuit concluded that of the seven relevant factors about secondary meaning, “only the first factor—the length and manner of use of the Unified Church’s asserted marks—has evidence weighing in favor of the marks having developed protectable secondary meaning.”  On the record presented, that evidence alone was insufficient to justify a finding for the plaintiff, and the Court affirmed a defense summary judgment. The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam v. Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam – Giao Hoi Phat Giao Viet Nam Thong Nhat, No. 19-20544 (Dec. 14, 2020, unpublished). (Relatedly, the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction in Future Proof Brands v. Molson Coors, based on a review of the “digits of confusion” as developed on that record, No. No. 20-50323 (Dec. 3, 2020, unpublished). Our firm represented the appellant in that matter.)

An IRS limitations statute runs from the filing of the “return” in question. The issue in Quezada v. IRS was whether the filing of a return–but the wrong type of return–starts the clock running. The Fifth Circuit found that it did, so long as it contained information from which the taxpayer’s claimed error could be identified: “Accordingly, consistent with a plurality of our sister circuits, we think the better reading of [Supreme Court precedent] is that the taxpayer is not required to file the precise return prescribed by treasury regulations in order to start the limitations clock. Instead, ‘the return’ is filed, and the limitations clock begins to tick, when the taxpayer files a return that contains data sufficient (1) to show that the taxpayer is liable for the tax at issue and (2) to calculate the extent of that liability.” No. 19-5100-CV (Dec. 11, 2020).

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Texas v. Pennsylvania (despite support from an amicus brief by two nonexistent states) has sparked an unusual national dialogue about the concept of standing (including the President’s accurate observation: “All they were interested in is ‘standing’, which makes it very difficult for the President to present a case on the merits.” (emphasis added)). The capable Rory Ryan at Baylor Law School has analyzed and critiqued the dissenters’ position; for reference, the entire order appears below:

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

Yes, it’s kind of a pain, but it’s your vote, your voice, and your chance to be heard as to a widely-circulated attorney directory. The link to the Super Lawyers nomination site is here, and the deadline to make your nominations is December 21, 2020.

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

In Williams v. Reeves, 953 F.3d 729 (5th Cir. 2020), “[t]he plaintiffs in this lawsuit are low-income African-American women whose children attend public schools in Mississippi. They filed suit against multiple state officials in 2017, alleging that the current version of the Mississippi Constitution violates the ‘school rights and privileges’ condition of the [1870] Mississippi Readmission Act.”  A Fifth Circuit panel found that ” a portion of the relief plaintiffs seek is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment,” but that “the lawsuit also partially seeks relief that satisfies the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity.” The full court recently denied en banc review by an 8-9 vote; the votes are described below, and they are identical to the split in another recent vote. (Red and blue show the political party of the nominating President, and an * indicates former service as a trial judge.)

“In November 2015, over a year after Richter claims that an implied contract had been formed, the parties exchanged a letter of intent. The letter stated that it was to be construed as securing a “preliminary understanding” between the parties and to serve as “a preliminary basis for negotiating a written agreement that will contain additional material terms, conditions and provisions not yet agreed upon by the parties.” The letter explicitly stated that it did not constitute a binding contract. We agree with the district court that this renders implausible any inference that the prior 2014 e-mail was intended by the parties to represent assent to be bound by contract …”  Richter v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-10480 (Dec. 1, 2020).

In striking down a regulation of casket-making by a Louisiana monastery, the Fifth Circuit assured: “Nor is the ghost of Lochner lurking about.” St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, 712 F. 3d 215, 226-27 (5th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, that fearsome shade surfaced in Hines v. Quillivan, an equal-protection challenge to Texas’s regulation of telemedicine by veterinarians, only to be banished by the panel majority: “It is not irrational for a state to change in stages its licensing laws to adapt to our new, technology-based economy. If the Texas legislature finds the recently enacted changes on telemedicine successful, it may decide to expand those changes to include veterinarians. It is reasonable to have a trial period rather than to make a hasty policy change. Though we could conceive no rational basis for the law challenged in St. Joseph Abbey, we can conceive many rational bases here.”

A dissent saw matters differently, crediting the plaintiff’s argument that “[i]t simply is not rational to allow telemedicine without a physical examination for babies but deny the same form of  telemedicine for puppies on the ground that puppies cannot speak.” No. 19-40605 (revised Dec. 2, 2020).

An error in pleading jurisdiction led to an inconclusive end in Accordant Communications v. Sayer Construction, No. 20-50169 (Dec. 4, 2020):

1. Accordant won a $1.4 million arbitration award against Sayer.
2. Accordant sued to confirm the award in federal court.
3. “As to the citizenship of the parties, Accordant alleged that it ‘is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Georgia with its principal place of business in Seminole County, Florida” and that Sayers ‘is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Texas with its principal place of business in Travis County, Texas.'” 
4. Sayer declined to answer postjudgment discovery, and on appeal argued that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction (as the above allegations are based on the standards for a corporation rather than an LLC).
5. Despite this ‘clearly deficient’ and ‘basic’ pleading problem, the Fifth Circuit did not dismiss the case: “Considering the evidence in the record on appeal … we find that ‘jurisdiction is not clear from the record, but there is some reason to believe that jurisdiction exists.’ Therefore, we exercise our discretion under [28 USC] § 1653 and ‘remand the case to the district court for amendment of the allegations and for the record to be supplemented,’ if necessary.” (citation omitted).

Hon. Thomas Reavley has passed away in Houston, at the age of 99. The Houston Chronicle summarizes his life of extraordinary service to the Texas courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as does the Texas Lawbook. His wisdom and statesmanlike presence will be missed by all.

By an 8-9 vote, the Fifth Circuit abstained from en banc review of McRaney v. North American Mission Board, 966 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2020), in which the panel found that the application of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine was premature given the stage of the parties’ case. A breakdown of the votes is below (the third panel member, Judge Clement, has taken senior status and did not participate in the vote):

“Hard cases make bad law,” says the old adage; whether that holds true for Taylor v. Riojas, will remain to be seen. The Supreme Court reversed a qualified-immunity ruling in a case involving what it saw as “shockingly unsanitary” prison cells, finding that the “extreme circumstances” of the case eliminated any dispute about whether the relevant law was clearly-established. No. 19-1261 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2020) (reversing Taylor v. Stevens, 946 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2019).

Doe, a police officer, sued under Louisiana state law for injuries that he suffered when trying to clear a highway of protesters, who had been organized by McKesson. The district court dismissed the case on First Amendment grounds; a Fifth Circuit panel majority “held that a jury could plausibly find that Mckesson breached his ‘duty not to negligently precipitate the crime of a third party’ because ‘a violent confrontation with a police officer was a foreseeable effect of negligently directing a protest’ onto the highway, and the en banc court divided -8 on whether to further review the case.

The Supreme Court held that the issue should be certified to the Louisiana Supreme Court, noting that “the dispute presents novel issues of state law peculiarly calling for the exercise of judgment by the state courts,” and that “certification would ensure that any conflict in this case between state law and the First Amendment is not purely hypothetical. The novelty of the claim at issue here only underscores that ‘[w]arnings against premature adjudication of constitutional questions bear heightened attention when a federal court is asked to invalidate a State’s law.'” McKesson v. Doe, No.19–1108 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2020) (citation omitted).

The dry-sounding issue before the en banc court in Planned Parenthood v. Kauffman, No. 17-50282 (Nov. 23, 2020), was “whether 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23) gives Medicaid patients a right to challenge, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a State’s determination that a health care provider is not ‘qualified’ within the meaning of § 1396a(a)(23).”  The practical consequence of that issue, however, is significant–who may sue about Texas’s termination of several Planned Parenthood facilities from that state’s Medicaid program.

The majority held that under a 1980 Supreme Court case and the structure of the statute, the patients did not have the right to sue. In so doing, the Fifth Circuit joined the Eighth Circuit and split with five others. A 7-judge concurrence (2 votes shy of a majority, given the configuration of the en banc court for this case) would have reached the merits and rejected them. The opinions are illustrated in the chart below:

The Fifth Circuit recently decided to take three matters en banc:

• Cochran v. SEC, 969 F.3d 507 (2020):  “Judicial review of Securities and Exchange Commission proceedings lies in the courts of appeals after the agency rules. 15 U.S.C. § 78y. This appeal asks whether a party may nonetheless raise a constitutional challenge to an SEC enforcement action in federal district court before the agency proceeding ends.”
• Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators, 970 F.3d 550 (2020), in which all three panel members urged the en banc court to address Circuit precedent about the definition of a seaman; and
• Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton, No. 17-51060 (Oct. 13, 2020), an abortion case in which the panel disagreed about the effect of June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020).

“Sharing liability is not the same as sharing an identity. As our colleagues in the Ninth Circuit explained, ‘Liability and jurisdiction are independent. . . . Regardless of their joint liability, jurisdiction over each defendant must be established individually.’  Lumping defendants together for jurisdictional purposes merely because they are solidary obligors ‘is plainly unconstitutional.'” Libersat v. Sundance Energy, No. 20-30121 (Oct. 26, 2020) (citation omitted, emphasis added).

The novelty of the international-discovery procedure in 28 USC § 1782 intersected with the collateral-order doctrine about interlocutory appeals in Banca Pueyo SA v. Lone Star Fund: “While we readily conclude that this appeal was premature, we recognize that the unusual nature of section 1782 proceedings results in some uncertainty about when to appeal. Indeed, respondents acknowledged that this might not be the right time, but they appealed now in an abundance of caution. They also worry that an appeal may never be ripe due to the possibility of a future dispute over privilege. But appellate jurisdiction is a ‘practical’ determination, not a speculative one. Once the district court fully resolves the second motion to quash, the scope of section 1782 discovery should be definitively resolved. When that conclusive determination comes, an appeal would be appropriate.”  No. 20-10049 (Oct. 27, 2020) (mem. op.).

Richardson v. Flores reviewed the standards for intervention into an ongoing appeal, noting: “There is no appellate rule allowing intervention generally. Instead, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure contemplate intervention only in
proceedings to review agency action. Fed. R. App. P. 15(d). But despite the lack of an on-point rule, we have allowed intervention in cases outside the scope of Rule 15(d). . . .  Perhaps because there is no rule explicitly allowing intervention on appeal, the caselaw explicating the standards for such motions is scarce. In Bursey, when granting a similar motion to intervene, we said ‘a court of appeals may, but only in an exceptional case for imperative reasons, permit intervention where none was sought in the district court.'”  (footnote and citations omitted, emphasis in original). The Court also noted: “Motions to intervene on appeal are different from motions to intervene for purposes of appeal. Motions to intervene for purposes of appeal are used where ‘the existing parties have decided not to pursue [an appeal]’ and are filed in district courts in the first instance under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (citation omitted).

Who knew? The federal bench in Houston just released an inspiring rendition of “We’ll Be Back” from Hamilton, revised to reflect life in the COVID-19 pandemic.  Bravo!

The defendant in Coastal Bridge Co. v. Heatec, No. 19-31030 (revised Nov. 6, 2020) made a spoliation claim about the loss of a heater involved in a fire. The Fifth Circuit reasoned:

• “As a threshold matter, Because Coastal Bridge reasonably should have anticipated litigation over the fire damage, it had a duty to preserve the equipment.”
• But bad faith was not shown: “Adherence to normal operating procedures may counter a contention of bad faith. Here, an outdoor piece of industrial equipment was stored outdoors. The record does not support the finding that Coastal Bridge acted with a culpable state of mind.”
• And as to relevance: “Heatec did not specifically request to examine the pumps at the joint inspection. As such, the pumps are of questionable relevance for the purposes of its underlying claim that poor pump maintenance can be a cause of a heater fire.”

Billy Joel disputed causation about starting the fire. So did the parties in Coastal Bridge Co. v. Heatec, in which the Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment, holding: “Here, genuine disputes of material fact exist as to: (1) the significance of the heating pumps; (2) what equipment was disassembled and disposed of; (3) the origin of the subject fire and whether the inlet pipe moved; and (4) the extent of communication4 that occurred between the parties before the formal notice of the fire. These factual disputes cannot be resolved without weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations, which are matters for the factfinder.” No. 19-31030 (Nov. 6, 2020, revised).

Each of the four factors for a deadline extension was in play in AIG Europe, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 19-40934, where the Fifth Circuit observed:

1. Explanation. “If AIG needed information from Caterpillar’s experts to allow Faherty to complete his expert report, AIG should have moved to compel the depositions of those experts.”
2. Importance. “AIG’s claims do not turn on Faherty’s report. Despite the exclusion, AIG had experts on causation.”
3. Prejudice. “Faherty’s report responded to the analysis of Caterpillar’s experts, it also contained new analyses and conclusions. Defendants were not given the opportunity to challenge these conclusions on the critical issue of causation.”
4. Continuance? “Yet another continuance would have delayed summary judgment and a potential trial even further.”

An “area developer” for Pizza Inn did not timely renew his option contract related to the potential development of new stores. The Fifth Circuit reversed a judgment for the developer, finding that Texas’s doctrine of “equitable intervention” did not apply. The alleged harms from nonrenewal–“a partial forfeiture of a $1,250,000 purchase price, a forfeiture of future profits . . . , and the shuttering of a Pizza Inn franchise store”–were either within the scope of the contractual bargain or simply not unconscionable, as required by the doctrine. Pizza Inn v. Cairday, No. 19-11302 (Nov. 4, 2020).

The issue in 9503 Middlex, Inc. v. Continental Motors, Inc., No. 19-50361 (Nov. 2, 2020) (unpublished), was whether a commercial tenant was “holding over in possession,” and the Fifth Circuit held it was not: “Here, the district court found that the combination of (1) the retention of the keys to the gate, (2) the use of the gate as a shortcut, and (3) the use of the premises as a break area “constituted holding over.” We agree they are relevant evidence, but we do not agree that they are sufficient. Continental did not occupy the premises of Buildings E and F, nor did Continental exercise dominion over the premises. Continental surrendered the properties to the plaintiffs, though it retained a key to an outside gate. We do not see support in the caselaw that a tenant occupies or controls property when something occurs as insignificant as when employees eat lunch at picnic tables on that property.”

The University of Texas’s rules about campus speech did not fare well in Speech First, Inc. v. Fenves, in which the Fifth Circuit found that a preliminary-injunction action could proceed. The Court found that the case was not moot and stated a strong claim on the merits: “Of course, not every utterance is worth protecting under the First Amendment. In our current national condition, however, in which ‘institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishment instead of considered reforms,’ courts must be especially vigilant against assaults on speech in the Constitution’s care. Otherwise, the people may not be free to generate, debate, and discuss both general and specific ideas, hopes, and experiences,’ to ‘transmit their resulting views and conclusions to their elected representatives,’ ‘to influence the public policy enacted by elected representatives,’ and thereby to realize the political and human common good.”  No. 19-50529 (revised Oct. 30, 2020) (footnotes omitted).

Belcher complained about the FDIC’s power to take his deposition. The parties, and the panel majority, agreed that his lawsuit did not become moot even after the challenged deposition occurred: ‘Because the district court on remand can ‘fashion some form of meaningful relief,’ appeal is not moot. Exactly what that relief might entail is beyond the scope of our concern. However, it is undisputed by the parties that the district court could strike Belcher’s deposition testimony before the FDIC.”  The majority also noted that the district court could address the FDIC’s sharing of the transcript. A dissent observed: “I see no reason to override what common sense suggests: the appeal of an order requiring a deposition is moot once the deposition is over.”  FDIC v. Belcher, No. 19-31023 (Oct. 26, 2020).

In one of many recent election-law disputes, the panel majority in Richardson v. Hughs painstakingly reviewed, and rejected, the plaintiffs’ challenge to Texas’s practices about signature verification for mail-in ballots. The procedural posture was a motion to stay; a concurrence cautioned: “[T]he reality is that the ultimate legality of the present system cannot be settled by the federal courts at this juncture when voting is already underway, and any opinion on a motions panel is essentially written in sand with no precedential value ….”  footnote omitted). No. 20-50774 (Oct. 20, 2020).

If the law had an attic, it would hold the subject matter of Pool v. City of Houston, No. 19-20828 (Oct. 23, 2020):

It is often said that courts “strike down” laws when ruling them unconstitutional. That’s not quite right. Courts hold laws unenforceable; they do not erase them. Many laws that are plainly unconstitutional remain on the statute books. Jim Crow-era segregation laws are one example. The City of Houston contends that it’s being sued for one of these so-called “zombie” laws. Its Charter allows only registered voters to circulate petitions for initiatives and referenda, even though the Supreme Court held a similar law unconstitutional twenty years ago. This case thus requires us to decide when the threat of continued enforcement is enough to reanimate a zombie law and bring it from the statutory graveyard into federal court.

(citations omitted). Held: the zombie walked, based both on the City’s history of enforcement of this specific law, and the inadequacy of its effort to disclaim further enforcement: “At least based on the current record, the City’s addition of the ‘Editor’s note’ on its website does not moot this case. Voluntarily stopping an unconstitutional practice renders a case moot only ‘if subsequent events ma[k]e it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior c[an] not reasonably be expected to recur.'” You can hear more about this case on the Coale Mind Halloween Special – “Attack of the Zombie Statute!” 

The dispute in Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., No 19-60938 (Oct. 20, 2020), was whether there was diversity jurisdiction over two business entities with diverse business activities, one of which was named . . . Diversity Vuteq LLC. Despite the abundant diversity in the case, the Fifth Circuit reminded that there is not a diversity of opinion about how to properly plead citizenship:

• “To adequately allege the citizenship of Toyota, a corporation, Smith needed to ‘set out the principal place of business of the corporation as well as the stat e of its incorporation.'” (citations omitted);
• “To adequately allege the citizenship of Diversity, a limited liability corporation, Smith needed to ‘specifically allege the citizenship of every member of every LLC or partnership involved in a litigation.'”