The contract-interpretation question in Gulf Engineering Co. v. Dow Chemical Co. was whether, after giving notice of termination, Dow Chemical was obligated to provide work to Gulf Engineering for another 90 days, or whether Dow had the “right but no contracted-for obligation to continue assigning work to Gulf.”

The Fifth Circuit found that the contract unambiguously meant that Dow had the right but not the obligation to give work to Gulf, and that the trial court thus erred in denying Dow’s summary-judgment motion on that point. The Court further found that the district court “compounded the error” by instructing the jury that it had found the relevant contract term to be ambiguous. Nevertheless, the error was harmless because the trial court also gave an instruction about the contract that substantially agreed with Dow’s reading of it. No. 19-30395 (June 9, 2020).

Despite the complexity of a dispute about telecommunication regulations, the parties’ performance mattered: “Sprint and Verizon’s conduct, while certainly not dispositive, is nevertheless informative. Sprint and Verizon are among America’s largest IXCs and are sophisticated market participants. Yet, they waited more than eighteen years to object to the LECs’ access charges for intraMTA wireless-to-wireline calls, paying hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Moreover, over that same timeframe, Sprint’s and Verizon’s LEC affiliates imposed access charges on IXCs, including on each other, for intraMTA wireless-to-wireline calls. We decline to award Sprint and Verizon, who sat on their hands for the better part of two decades, a nine-figure windfall based on an interpretation of § 251(g) that is divorced from both the 1996 Act’s text and industry practice.”  No. 18-10768 (May 27, 2020). (LPCH was one of the counsel for the prevailing side of this case.)

Phoneternet complained that an inaccurate report available on Lexis-Nexis caused the loss of a business opportunity (oddly enough, with the car company Lexus). The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (among other matters) as to their negligent-misrepresentation and promissory-estoppel claims:

“If Phoneternet believed the errors had already been corrected, there would have been no reason for Phoneternet to repeatedly call LexisNexis. In that case, Phoneternet would be asking LexisNexis to correct already accurate information. Moreover, to the extent Phoneternet did rely on LexisNexis’s alleged statement that all fifteen errors in the report had been “modified . . . as requested,” such reliance cannot be considered reasonable and justified. Given the alleged importance of this report—the only remaining obstacle between Phoneternet and a lucrative multimillion-dollar contract with Toyota—Phoneternet should have at least confirmed that the errors had been corrected before blindly relying on LexisNexis’s representation.”

Phoneternet LLC v. Lexis-Nexis, No. 19-11194 (June 3, 2020) (unpublished) (emphasis added).

Hewlett-Packard proved $176 million in antitrust damages at trial (later trebled); the defendant argued that HP had not proved it was a direct purchaser of the optical drives at issue. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. On the two key points, it held:

1. Expert testimony.  Under the proper standard of review, this testimony by HP’s damages expert sufficed: “[W]e did quite a lot of work to understand the data that we received; and it was my understanding, based on that work, that the data was purchases by the plaintiff HP, Inc. formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company. . . . In the data files that I received, the transactions identified the supplier; and in any cases in which the supplier was identified as an HP entity, I excluded those . . . . ” 
2. Fact testimony. Any uncertainty in the following testimony by an HP executive was not enough to unseat the above-quoted expert conclusion:

Q. And so in a procurement event you have an ODD supplier and a purchaser, an entity that purchases. Did HP, Inc. . . . was that the purchaser in all of these procurement events that you have described?

A. It was some form of HP. I don’t know that it was HP, Inc., but it was a legal entity of HP, somewhere in the region that these were purchased, that purchased the drives.

Q. So the purchaser might not have been HP, Inc. at a particular procurement event? It might have been some subsidiary of HP, Inc.?

A. It could well have been, yes. . . . I’m not exactly sure on how that was spread out, but it could very well have been.

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Quanta Storage, No. 19-20799 (June 5, 2020). A longer version of this post appears in the Texas Lawbook.

Here is the PowerPoint for my June 2 presentation to the DBA’s Appellate Law Section about Fifth Court commercial-litigation opinions over the last twelve months.

The Fifth Court rejected Burford abstention in Stratta v. Roe, observing: “Burford ‘does not require abstention whenever there exists [complex state administrative processes], or even in all cases where there is a potential for conflict with state regulatory law or policy.’ Nor would a federal judgment here interfere with the coherence of state policy. [Groundwater Conservation Districts] are designed to be decentralized and fragmentary in order to offer local control over groundwater resources. There are roughly 100 GCDs in Texas, but nearly two-thirds of them oversee territory coextensive with a single county.” No. 18-50994-CV (May 29, 2020) (citation omitted).

Recent orders about conducting trials during the pandemic highlight the different procedural structures of the state and federal courts.

In the state system, the Texas Supreme Court recently released its seventeenth emergency order about when and how jury trials may resume. (An order, incidentally, that I got from the txcourts.gov website, which shows progress in returning that site to normal after the recent hacker attack.)

In the federal system, the recent order in In re Tanner reminds of the considerable district court discretion about such matters: “[T]he district court has given great consideration to the COVID-19 issues addressed by Tanner. . . . [W]hatever each of us as judges might have done in the same circumstance is not the question. Instead, as cited below, the standards are much higher for evaluating the district court’s decision” for purposes of a writ of mandamus or prohibition. No. 20-10510 (May 29, 2020).

On June 2 at 2 PM, as a guest of the DBA’s Appellate Law Section, I’ll review several Dallas Court of Appeals opinions in commercial cases since June of last year, when I made a similar presentation. This one will be online, so please register in advance on the DBA’s website! The PowerPoint will be posted after the presentation.

The original party to an oilfield-services agreement assigned its rights to Motis Energy. Motis sued on the agreement, lost, and sought to avoid the agreement’s attorneys-fee provision. The Fifth Circuit ruled against it: “Motis is a nonparty to the Agreement. But Motis embraced the Agreement by seeking to enforce its terms. Motis’s argument–that it did not embrace the entirety of the Agreement because it was assigned the right to Motis-DI’s claims, not the entire contract–lacks merit. When a plaintiff sues to enforce a contract to which it was not a party, the Supreme Court of Texas has held, as have we, that the plaintiff subjects itself to the entirety of the contract terms.” Motis Energy LLC v. SWN Prod. Co. LLC, No. 19-20495 (April 28, 2020) (unpublished) (emphasis added).

Katherine P. v Humana Health Plan, an ERISA dispute about hospitalization to treat an eating disorder, turned on a specific criterion: whether “[t]reatment at a less intense level of care has been unsuccessful in controlling” the disorder. The Fifth Circuit found a fact issue, noting:

“[T]here is evidence in the administrative record that suggests Katherine P. satisfied that requirement. For example, in her last appeal Humana, Katherine P. provided a declaration describing her history of failed treatment. In it, she listed past failed treatment regimens, including outpatient treatment. Her mother likewise provided a declaration making essentially the same point. Furthermore, Katherine P.’s physicians said she was ‘unable to follow a weight gain meal plan and to abstain from symptoms of purging and restricting while she was at a lower level of care.’”

(citations omitted). The court also noted evidence cutting the other way:

Her same declaration, for example, shows that she participated in an eight-week intensive outpatient program in late 2010 that failed due to external trauma—not because the treatment was ineffective. And Humana noted that the 2010 treatment was her most recent course of treatment prior to her admittance to Oliver-Pyatt about a year and a half later. A factfinder could therefore conclude that Katherine P. failed to show that she met [the criterion].

Katherine P. v Humana Health Plan, No. 19-50276 (May 14, 2020).

The COVID-19 crisis has required the courts to deftly juggle conflicting, and important, interests when asked to review emergency regulation. A good summary of such a balancing exercise appears in First Pentecostal Church of Holly Springs v. City of Holly Springs: “Our sole appellate jurisdiction in this case rests upon denial of an injunction implied from the choice by the district court not to rule in an expedited fashion. After briefing, it remains plain that the court is being requested to enjoin a shifting regulatory regime not yet settled as to its regulation and regulatory effect, such as the apparent acceptance by the Church of the Governor’s regulations. That settlement is best made by the district court in the first instance. Lest we in error step upon treasured values of religious freedom and personal liberties we stay our hand and return this case to the district court for decision footed upon a record reflecting current conditions.” No. 20-60399 (May 22, 2020) (emphasis added).

I spoke today, virtually, to the Texas Bar CLE’s 33rd “Advanced Evidence and Discovery Course,” which would have been in San Antonio. My topic was proving up damages in a commercial case, and I focused on ten specific issues identified in recent Texas and Fifth Circuit cases. I also showed off some smooth hand gestures, as you can see above. Here is a copy of my PowerPoint. The Bar staff did a terrific job with the A/V logistics and I look forward to doing another program with them soon.

In long-running litigation about liability for hotel occupancy taxes, the Fifth Circuit’s prior mandate said that “plaintiff-appellee cross-appellant pay to defendants-appellants cross appellees the  costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.” The Court held that this language did not preclude the trial court clerk from assessing appropriate costs on remand pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(e).

The Court also held: “The fact that the decretal language in the first appeal used the word ‘vacated’ instead of ‘reversed’ does not change this result. . . . While an argument can be made that ‘reversed’ might have been the better choice for the decretal language in the first appeal, what matters for purposes of Rule 39(a) is the substance of the disposition, not merely the form.” San Antonio v. Hotels.com, No. 19-50701 (May 11, 2020) (citations omitted, emphasis in original).

PRACTICE TIP: Fed. R. App. P. 39(e)(3) includes “premiums paid for a bond or other security to preserve rights pending appeal” as a taxable cost–in this litigation, a cost exceeding $2 million.

Despite the May 11 en banc opinion about the “finality trap,” the plaintiff in CBX Resources v. ACE Am. Ins. Co. remained stuck in the trap after dismissing certain of its claims – against the sole defendant – without prejudice: “To be sure, many cases applying the Ryan rule have multiple defendants, one or more of which was dismissed without prejudice while at least one defendant prevailed on the merits. But Ryan itself was an employment dispute with a single plaintiff suing a single defendant, his employer.” No. 18-50740 (May 12, 2020).

The “finality trap” can arise when a plaintiff sues two defendants and then (a) voluntarily dismisses one defendant without prejudice, and then (b) litigates to conclusion against the other and loses. The plaintiff’s ability to appeal the outcome of proceeding (b) is affected by the lack of a final judgment in proceeding (a), because under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), there is not a final decision as to any one defendant until there is a final decision for all defendants

Williams v. Seidenbach found that entry of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) solved the plaintiffs’ problem in that case. (Judge Ho, joined by Chief Judge Owen and Judges Jones, Stewart, Dennis, Elrod, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, and Engelhardt).

A concurrence suggested that future litigants consider “bindingly disclaiming their right to reassert any dismissed-without-prejudice claims” as way to solve the problem. (Judge Willett, joined by Judge Southwick) (Note that all opinions appear in the same PDF document, linked above).

A dissent, focused on the text of Rules 41 and 54, observed that once a “Rule 41(a) dismissal ‘adjudicated’ the plaintiffs’ claims . . . there were no claims pending after that adjudication” which mean that “Rule 54(b) was (and still is) completely irrelevant.” (Judge Oldham, joined by Judges Smith, Duncan and – unexpectedly – Costa).

To be continued . . .

O’Shaughnessy v. Young Living Essential Oils presents the classic contract-law problem of an agreement contained in more than one document; here, it led to the Fifth Circuit rejecting the defendant’s effort to compel arbitration. O’Shaughnessey’s “Member Agreement” with Young Living had three salient features:

1. A “Jurisdiction and Choice of Law” clause – “The Agreement will be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah applicable to contracts to be performed therein. Any legal action concerning the Agreement will be brought in the state and federal courts located in Salt Lake City, Utah.”
2. A merger clause – “The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between you and Young Living and supersedes all prior agreements; and no other promises,
   representations, guarantees, or agreements of any kind will be valid unless in writing and signed by both parties.”
3. And it incorporated by reference a “Policies and Procedures” document.

The Policies and Procedures, in turn, had an arbitration clause with a carve-out for certain kinds of injunctive relief.  The Court held: “The arbitration clause’s exemption of certain litigatory rights from its purview does not cure its inherent conflict with the Jurisdiction and Choice of Law provision. The two provisions irreconcilably conflict and for this reason, we agree that there was no ‘meeting of the minds’ with respect to arbitration in this case.” No. 19-51169 (April 28, 2020). (The above picture, BTW, is Mary Astor playing Brigid O’Shaughnessey in 1941’s The Maltese Falcon.)

With the kids home from school because of the coronavirus, I’ve watched a lot of YouTube videos over their shoulders.  In particular, this one tells the fascinating story about how post-production editing saved Star Wars, which was bloated and impossible to follow in its first rough versions. Among other changes, the start of the film was drastically simplified – from a series of back-and-forths between space and Tatooine, to a focus on the opening space battle and no shots of Tatooine until the droids landed there. This bit of editing is directly relevant to the tendency of legal writers to “define” (introduce) all characters and terms at the beginning of their work, without regard to the flow of the narrative that follows.

In affirming a preliminary injunction in a noncompete case, Realogy Holdings Corp. v. Jongeblood suggested that the district court could “when determining the term of any injunction, to reweigh the equities . . . in light of the time that has passed during the pendency of th[e] appeal.” Interestingly, this suggestion came after the Fifth Circuit had granted a stay during the preliminary-injunction appeal, which it also expedited. Specifically, the relevant covenants last for a year, the injunction was granted on November 15, 2019; the appellate stay was granted on January 24, 2020, and the opinion issued on April 27. No. 19-20864.

A gentle spring breeze can be refreshing, but not when it involves “reversibly … breezy” analysis of class certification. For a putative 90,000-member class action about certain ERISA plans, the Fifth Circuit found the district court’s review lacking as to two parts of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:

• Commonality. “Nor does the court explain why clarifying [Defendant’s] status as a fiduciary will in one stroke resolve an issue that is central to the claims of each one of the class members. Most noticeably, the order neglects to consider asserted differences among class members that could prevent the suit from generating “common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” (footnotes omitted);
• Class Type.  The court notes that, just as in Ortiz [v. Fibreboard Corp.], the
  plaintiffs’ case relates to one of the historical models—namely, an action against a fiduciary seeking an accounting to restore the subject of the trust (in this case, benefits plans). But, parting ways with Ortiz, the court’s analysis begins and ends there. It fails to examine the facts of this specific class to ensure that it qualifies.” (citation omitted).

Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services, No. 19-50904 (April 29, 2020). Cf. Seeligson v. Devon Energy, No. 20-90011 (May 15, 2020) (unpublished) (“In short, the district court complied with this Court’s instructions on remand and reconsidered its findings on both commonality and predominance. Particularly given the fact that we have already addressed this class certification once, we are not inclined to postpone consideration of the merits any further. DEPCO’s petition for permission to file a Rule 23(f) appeal is denied.”).

After recently addressing a party’s rights to oral argument in a dispute about enforcement of an arbitration award, the Fifth Circuit then returned to Sun Coast Resources v. Conrad to review the prevailing party’s motion for sanctions under Fed. R. App. 38 for a frivolous appeal.The Court observed:

    “[T]he case for Rule 38 sanctions is strongest in matters involving malice, not incompetence. And our decision on Sun Coast’s appeal was careful not to assume the former. As to the merits of its appeal—including the company’s
failure to disclose that it cited Opalinski II rather than Opalinski I to the arbitrator—we observed that ‘[t]he best that may be said for Sun Coast is that it badly misreads the record.’ As to its demand for oral argument, we stated that ‘Sun Coast’s motion misunderstands the federal appellate process in more ways than one.’
Perhaps Sun Coast earnestly (if mistakenly) believed it had a valid legal claim to press. Or perhaps it was bad faith—maximizing legal expense to drive a less-resourced adversary to drop the case or settle for less. Or perhaps its decisions were driven by counsel. But we must resolve the pending motion based on facts and evidence—not speculation. We sympathize with Conrad . . . [b]ut we conclude that this is a time for grace, not punishment.”

No. 19-20058 (May 7, 2020) (citations omitted).

While the timing is coincidental, the case is an instructive companion to the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Products LLC, which reversed a sanctions award. That Court noted that “while the absence of authoritative guidance is not a license to act with impunity, bad faith is required to impose sanctions under the court’s inherent authority,” and this held that “the sanctions order in this case cannot stand because evidence of bad faith is lacking.” No. 18-0426 (Tex. April 24, 2020) (footnotes omitted).

Manuel owed $250 to an orthopedics practice, first billed in December 2010 and January 2011. Merchants Professional, a collection agency, sent him “six collection
letters in 2011 and, after six years with seemingly no collection effort, it sent
four more in 2017.” Manuel sued for violation of the FDCPA arguing that it was improper to seek collection of a debt after the limitations period had run.

The Fifth Circuit reviewed and sidestepped earlier precedent which suggested that attempts to collect time-barred debt were per se violations of the Act. It nevertheless affirmed judgment for Manuel based on the specific contents of these letters, holding that “these letters seeking collection of time-barred debt, filled with ambiguous offers and threats with no indication that the debt is old, much less that the limitations period has run, misrepresent the legal enforceability of the underlying debt . . . .” Manuel v. Merchants & Professional Bureau, No. 19-50814 (April 29, 2020) (emphasis added).

On pages 62-63 of the May 2020 issue of “D CEO” magazine, you can read a profile of me as the only Tarot-reading lawyer in Dallas–a skill first acquired on trips to New Orleans for appellate business!

Related to the Fifth Circuit’s recent general reminder in Sun Coast Resources v. Conrad about when oral argument will occur, Chief Judge Owens’s April 20 Covid-19 order makes clear that individual panels may decide when to use “Zoom” or other such conferencing technology. H/T to Louisiana’s Ray Ward for drawing my attention to this order.

Realogy Holdings Corp. v. Jongeblood offers several practical tips about litigating a noncompetition agreement:

• Oral findings of fact at the hearing can satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, when the “oral findings together with [the] written order nonetheless give us ‘a clear understanding of the factual basis for the decision'”;
• Testimony about confidential information given to the employee established the Texas-law requirements about adequate consideration for a noncompete, even when the employer did not make an express promise to do so at the time of contracting; abd
• After an unsuccessful appellate challenge to a preliminary injunction that enforces a noncompete, it can be appropriate to ask the trial court to “when determining the term of any injunction, to reweigh the equities . . . in light of the time that has passed during the pendency of th[e] appeal.”

No. 19-20864 (April 27, 2020).

The Fifth Circuit allowed a “John Doe” summons to proceed, requiring a law firm to disclose certain client entities. After reviewing authority nationwide about such warrants, the Court concluded: “[D]isclosure of the Does’ identities would inform the IRS that the Does participated in at least one of the numerous transactions described in the John Doe summons issued to the Firm, but ‘[i]t is less than clear . . . as to what motive, or other confidential communication of [legal] advice, can be inferred from that information alone.’ Consequently, the Firm’s clients’ identities are not ‘connected inextricably with a privileged communication,’ and, therefore, the ‘narrow exception’ to the general rule that client identities are not protected by the attorney-client privilege is inapplicable.” Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm PLLC v. United States, No. 19-50506 (April 24, 2020).

As reported by The Verge on April 24, Microsoft Word now auto-corrects the use of two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence. The battle, such as it was, should now be considered over. This influential article in Slate explains why the one-spacers – while correct during the era of typewriters, which made every letter and space the same size – have been wrong since the early 1990s and the widespread availability of proportional spacing in modern word processing software.

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

The relator in United States ex rel Porter v. Magnolia Health Plan “allege[d] that her former employer, which contracts with the Mississippi Division of Medicaid, is violating the False Claims Act by using licensed professional nurses for tasks that require the expertise of registered nurses.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal: “Plaintiff-Appellant’s first amended complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the materiality of Magnolia’s alleged fraud. The contracts between Magnolia and MississippiCAN do not require Magnolia to staff care or case manager positions with registered nurses, and they contain only broad, boilerplate language requiring Magnolia to follow all laws.” No. 18-60746 (April 15, 2020) (unpublished).

Sun Coast Resources Inc. v. Conrad, No. 19-20058 (April 16, 2020), involved a challenge to an arbitration award. The challenging party did not agree with the Fifth Circuit’s decision to proceed without oral argument, and filed a motion seeking an oral argument. It was denied and the Court’s explanation is instructive:

• “Sun Coast’s motion misunderstands the federal appellate process in
  more ways than one. To begin, the motion claims that ‘oral argument is the
  norm rather than the exception.’ Not true. ‘More than 80 percent of federal
  appeals are decided solely on the basis of written briefs. Less than a quarter
  of all appeals are decided following oral argument.'”;
• “Sun Coast suggests that deciding this case without oral argument would be ‘akin to . . . cafeteria justice.’ The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure state otherwise. They authorize “a panel of three judges who have examined the briefs and record” to ‘unanimously agree[] that oral argument is unnecessary for any of the following reasons”—such as the fact that “the dispositive issue or issues have been authoritatively decided,” or that “the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument.””; and
• “[A]nother tactic powerful economic interests sometimes use against
  the less resourced is to increase litigation costs in an attempt to bully the
  opposing party into submission by war of attrition—for example, by filing a
  meritless appeal of an arbitration award won by the economically weaker
  party, and then maximizing the expense of litigating that appeal. Dispensing with oral argument where the panel unanimously agrees it is unnecessary, and where the case for affirmance is so clear, is not cafeteria justice—it is simply justice.” (citations omitted and emphasis added in all the above quotes).

The fast-paced litigation about access to abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic produced a strong statement about government power (including the power of the administrative state) during a health crisis: “The bottom line is this: when faced with a society-threatening epidemic, a state may implement emergency measures that curtail constitutional rights so long as the measures have at least some ‘real or substantial relation’ to the public health crisis and are not ‘beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.'” In re Abbott, No. 20-50264 (April 7, 2020) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)). The opinion has gathered national coverage from diverse media outlets such as CNN and Reason.

Third of three posts this week about Illinois Tool Works v. Rust-Oleum; in addition to reversing two damages awards, the Fifth Circuit reversed a finding of Lanham Act liability for a lack of evidence about materiality. Citing prior Circuit precedent, the Court held: “If misleading claims about something as vital to pizza as its ingredients were not necessarily material, a misleading claim about how long a windshield water-repellant treatment lasts was not, either. Moreover, though Illinois Tool Works asserts that consumers want to know how long these products last, it does not substantiate this assertion with evidence. So this argument fails.” No.19-20210 (April 9, 2020).

The Fifth Circuit’s recent opinion in Illinois Tool Works v. Rust-Oleum, also rejected the plaintiff’s award of damages for corrective advertising, holding:

“Illinois Tool Works has never even asserted that it plans to run corrective advertising. It did not say what the advertising might consist of, offer a ballpark figure of what it might cost, or provide even a rough methodology for the jury to estimate the cost. Damages need not be proven with exacting precision, but they cannot be based on pure speculation. . . . Illinois Tool Works . . . argues that it was not required to show that it ‘needs’ the award, and that its 40 years of goodwill and tens of millions of dollars spent on advertising, coupled with RustOleum’s expenditures, support the unremitted amount. . . . [I]t  does not explain how its decades of goodwill and past advertising expenditures show a loss or justify compensation in any amount. These bald facts lack inherent explanatory value. So these arguments fail.”

No. 19-20210 (April 9, 2020).

Illinois Tool Works proved at trial that Rust-Oleum engaged in false advertising about the parties’ competing water-repellent products. The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment as to disgorgement (among other matters), reasoning:

“Illinois Tool Works failed to present sufficient evidence of attribution. It cites nothing that links Rust-Oleum’s false advertising to its profits, that permits a reasonable inference that the false advertising generated profits, or that shows that even a single consumer purchased RainBrella because of the false advertising. 

Illinois Tool Works argues, however, that three things show that RustOleum benefitted from its false advertising: witnesses testified about how important the advertising claims were to Rust-Oleum, tens of thousands of people saw the commercial, and RainBrella was placed on nearby shelves in the same stores as Rain-X. None of this shows attribution.” Illinois Tool Works v. Rust-Oleum, No. 19-20210 (April 9, 2020).

In Golden Spread Electric Co-op v. Emerson Process Management, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of business-tort claims under Texas’s economic loss rule.

Golden Spread, a public utility, contracted with Emerson to provide “a new, customized control system” for a steam turbine generator. During testing of the new system, the software installed by Emerson issued a mistaken command that caused the turbine to overheat and become damaged.

The Fifth Circuit reviewed Golden Spread’s claims in light of two policy considerations identified by Texas cases in the area.  First, “[p]urely economic harms proliferate widely and are not self-limiting in the way that physical damage is ….” Second, “the risk of economic harms are better suited to allocation by contract” because the parties “usually have a full opportunity” to negotiate such risks before finalizing a contract.

The Court’s reasoning may prove relevant to future lawsuits involving business issues arising from the current COVID-19 crisis.

Feeling salty about the handling of a AAA arbitration, Texas Brine (not a Louisiana citizen) sued the AAA (not a Louisiana citizen) and two Louisiana-based arbitrators in New Orleans state court. The AAA was served with process and immediately removed the case, before the two Louisiana citizens were served.

The Fifth Circuit held that such a “snap removal” was permitted by the plain text of the removal statute, noting that the “forum defendant rule” only applied once an in-state defendant was served. (In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) says that a civil action “. . . may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” (emphasis added)).

The Court declined to find that this situation produced an “absurd result,” noting the Second Circuit’s observation that: “Congress may well have adopted the ‘properly joined and served’ requirement in an attempt to both limit gamesmanship and provide a bright-line rule keyed on service, which is clearly more easily administered than a fact-specific inquiry into a plaintiff’s intent or opportunity to actually serve a home-state defendant.”  Texas Brine Co. LLC v. AAA, No. 18-31184 (April 7, 2020).

The arbitration clause in Bowles’s employment contract had a provision delegating to the arbitrator, “any legal dispute . . . arising out of, relating to, or concerning the validity, enforceability or breach of this Agreement, shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration.” Bowles argued that disparity of bargaining power during her contract negotiations amounted to procedural unconscionability. “Bowles’s challenge to the Arbitration Agreement as procedurally unconscionable was a challenge to the Agreement’s enforceability, not to its existence. For that reason, under the delegation clause in the Agreement that sends all enforcement challenges to an arbitrator, the district court correctly referred this challenge to the arbitrator.” Bowles v. OneMain Fin. Group, No. 18-60749 (April 2, 2020).

“For a generation, the State of Texas and a federally recognized Indian tribe, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, have litigated the Pueblo’s attempts to conduct various gaming activities on its reservation near El Paso. This latest case poses familiar questions that yield familiar answers: (1) which federal law governs the legality of the Pueblo’s gaming operations—the Restoration Act (which bars gaming that violates Texas law) or the more permissive Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (which “establish[es] . . . Federal standards for gaming on Indian lands”); and (2) whether the district court correctly enjoined the Pueblo’s gaming operations.” Unfortunately for the tribe, the Fifth Circuit found that a previous opinion conclusively settled these issues in favor of the State of Texas. The opinion also discusses the proper scope of injunctive relief for such a situation. Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, No. 19-50400 (April 2, 2020).

A union protested that an arbitrator, in the guise of correcting a “technical” error with his original award, in fact revised its substance in a way contrary to the applicable arbitration rules. The Fifth Circuit disagreed: “To the contrary, he cited [AAA] Rule 40, classified his error as a “technical” one capable of correction, and held that his correction did not violate Rule 40, notwithstanding the Union’s argument that he was “redetermin[ing] the merits” of CWA’s claim against the Company. Even if the arbitrator made a mistake in reaching his conclusion, “[t]he potential for . . . mistakes is the price of agreeing to arbitration. . . . The arbitrator’s construction holds, however good, bad, or ugly.” Communication Workers of America v. Southwestern Bell, No. 19-50686 (March 27, 2020) (citations omitted).

In Bradley v. Ackal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the sealing of an on-the-record proceeding involving the settlement of a minor’s claim connected to a police shooting. The Court reminded: “’In exercising its discretion to seal judicial records, the court must balance the public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.’ But, ‘[t]he presumption however gauged in favor of public access to judicial records[]’ [is] one of the interests to be weighed on the [public’s] “side of the scales.”‘ No. 18-31052 (March 23, 2020) (citations omitted).

An unsuccessful motion to compel arbitration did not fare better on appeal when:

• The question of who decides arbitrability was not raised in the motion (and was thus forfeited for appeal purposes);
• Equitable estoppel was briefed in the motion with reference to authority about “concerted misconduct estoppel” – theory rejected by the Texas Supreme Court;
• Direct benefits estoppel was unavailable because the plaintiffs sued under federal employment law, not their state-law employment agreements;
• Third party beneficiary status was not available because the movant was not named in the agreement, while the entity that actually had hired the plaintiffs was.

Hiser v. NZone Guidance LLC, No. 19-50353 (March 24, 2020) (unpublished).

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

DISH Network declared an impasse after lengthy negotiations with the Communication Workers of America. The NLRB rejected that declaration; the Fifth Circuit reversed the NLRB’s factual determination: “The Board’s decision rested on its determination that the Union’s November 2014 counterproposal was a ‘white flag’ of surrender. But the ‘white flag’ characterization in turn rested on an unsound factual foundation from the ALJ” about how unionized employees reacted to a particular compensation system as compared to nonunionized ones. DISH Network Corp. v. NLRB (revised March 24, 2020).

A Houston-based engineering firm negotiated a contract with a New Jersey town. The town then sought to avoid paying, arguing that no contract had been formed because it had not obtained proper approvals as required by New Jersey’s statutes about public contracts. The firm countered that the parties’ agreement had a Texas choice-of-law provision, which should also control as to contract formation. Noting that while this dispute seemed to form a “chicken-or-the-egg problem,” the Fifth Circuit ruled for the town as “the choice-of-law provision has force only if the parties validly formed a contract.” It remanded for consideration of potential quantum meruit liability. EHRA Engineering v. Downe Township, No. 19-20176 (March 19, 2020).

Surprising no one, the constitutional challenge to the CFPB’s structure presented by CFPB v. All American Check Cashing will be reviewed en banc by the full Fifth Circuit.

This is a cross-post from 600Commerce, which follows the Dallas Court of Appeals.

One Dallas Court of Appeals case addresses the breach-of-contract defense of impracticability, Hewitt v Biscaro, 353 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). Relevant to the current crisis, it involves a government order that allegedly made performance more difficult. The Court examined whether:

• the performance issue was a basic assumption of the contract;
• the government’s action was an official order or regulation (in that case, the SEC’s contact with the defendant was not); and
• the defendant was acting in good faith.

The Court relied on an earlier Texas Supreme Court case and the relevant Restatement (Second) of Contracts provision. Application of this opinion will be important in upcoming commercial disputes created by the novel coronavirus.

Rogers, a collection agency, wrote Salinas, stating the amount due ($4629.96)
and the interest and fees due ($0.00). The letter also said: “In the event there is interest or other charges accruing on your account, the amount due may be greater than the amount shown above after the date of this notice.”

The Fifth Circuit held that, while its precedent had not squarely addressed “conditional” language such as “in the event,” Rogers’s letter was not deceptive. “Salinas reads it to imply the possibility that interest or other charges may accrue when in fact they cannot,” noted the Court, but “[a]n illustration shows the problem with Salinas’ reading of the letter”:

Suppose a traveler boards a flight from El Paso, TX, to Tucson, AZ—a route traversing only desert—and is shown a safety video describing steps to take “in the event of a water landing.” Even the least sophisticated traveler would not take the video to imply the plane would be flying over water. No passenger would leap out of his seat in panic, concluding he had boarded the wrong flight. Even a traveler “tied to the very last rung on the intelligence or sophistication ladder” would interpret the video as merely acknowledging the reality that some flights, if not this one, fly over water.

Salinas v. R.A. Rogers Inc., No. 19-50618 (March 12, 2020).

Casalicchio received a pre-foreclosure notice that “contained a deadline thirty days from the day the notice was printed, even though the deed of trust called for a deadline thirty days from the day the letter was mailed.” (emphasis in original). Unfortunately for Casalicchio, while the Fifth Circuit acknowledged older Texas cases that refer to an “absolute” right to “strict compliance” with a deed of trust, the Court concluded: “Since the 1980s, the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly moderated its rule that the ‘terms of a deed of trust must be strictly followed,’ clarifying recently that harmless mistakes do not void otherwise-valid foreclosure sales.” The defect in his notice was thus “but a ‘minor defect,’ insufficiently prejudicial to justify setting aside an otherwise valid foreclosure sale.” Casalacchio v. BOKF, N.A., No. 19-20246 (March 6, 2020) (applying, inter alia, Hemyari v. Stephens, 355 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2011)).

What is a “sole, superseding cause”? BP Exploration v. Claimaint ID 100191715 did not resolve the question, but found an argument sufficiently credible to require a remand for further review in the Deepwater Horizon claims process: “BP argues that Claimant passed the V-Shaped Revenue Pattern due solely to a price spike and drop in the price of fertilizer that was unrelated to the oil spill. According to BP, the spike caused Claimant’s revenues to soar and crash back down to normal rates thereafter. And, only because Claimant used months during the price spike as its benchmark period was it able to satisfy the ‘V-Shape Revenue Pattern’ test in Exhibit 4B. In other words, Claimant’s loss was not due to the spill; rather, the price spike in fertilizer was the sole, superseding cause for its loss.”  No. 19-30264 (March 3, 2020).

The ground rules for the administrative state are few, important, and vexingly difficult to apply. The en banc court confronted the structure of Fannie Mae’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, in Collins v. Mnuchin, 938 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2019), and found it wanting constitutionally. In CFPB v. All American Check Cashing, a panel majority confronted the structure of another Great Recession entity, the Consumer Finance Protection Board, and concluded that “neither the text of the Constitution nor the Supreme Court’s previous decisions support the Appellants’ arguments that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured.” No. 18-60302 (March 3, 2020).

A concurrence elaborated: “The President can remove the CFPB Director only for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,’ a broad standard repeatedly approved by the Supreme Court. That alone is enough to decide this case. If there is any threat of undue concentration of power, the Office of President is its beneficiary.” A dissent faulted the majority’s reasoning and the judicial process employed: “Collins winds up in the dustbin because two judges say it should. At one time, those judges thought it beyond the pale ‘to rely on strength in numbers rather than sound legal principles in order to reach their desired result in [a] specific case.’ Now, they suddenly discover that stare decisis is for suckers.” (footnotes omitted).