A long-litigated dispute about arbitrability reached its latest stage in Archer & White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., on remand from the Supreme Court, in which the Fifth Circuit held: “The most natural reading of the arbitration clause at issue here states that any dispute, except actions seeking injunctive relief, shall be resolved in arbitration in accordance with the AAA rules. The plain language incorporates the AAA rules—and therefore delegates arbitrability—for all disputes except those under the carve-out. Given that carve-out, we cannot say that the Dealer Agreement evinces a ‘clear and unmistakable’ intent to delegate arbitrability.”

As for the Supreme Court’s opinion, the panel said: “We are mindful of the Court’s reminder that ‘[w]hen the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties’ decision as embodied in the contract.’ But we must also heed its warning that ‘courts “should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that they did so.’”‘ The parties could have unambiguously delegated this question, but they did not, and we are not empowered to re-write their agreement.” No. 16-41674 (Aug. 16, 2019).

DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, S.A. presents, at first blush, an epic dispute in which “[t]he facts of this case are littered across the pages of the Federal Reporter.” A failed oil-development project in Morocco led to a $130 million judgment from the Moroccan courts. But after years of legal wrangling about the enforceability of that judgment in Texas, “despite the seeming complexity of this case—royal intrigue, a foreign proceeding, almost a billion dirhams at stake—it ends up being resolved on one of the most basic principles of appellate law: deference to the factfinder.” After confirming the correct legal framework, the Fifth Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s fact-findings. No. 18-50348 (Aug. 16, 2019).

The viability of a tort claim against T-Mobile, arising from delays in obtaining medical treatment, turned on whether this recent statement by the Texas Supreme Court was “obiter dictum” or “judicial dictum”:

Proximate cause requires both cause in fact and foreseeability. For a condition of property to be a cause in fact, the condition must serve as a substantial factor in causing the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred. When a condition or use of property merely furnishes a circumstance that makes the injury possible, the condition or use is not a substantial factor in causing the injury. To be a substantial factor, the condition or use of the property must actually have caused the injury. Thus, the use of property that simply hinders or delays treatment does not actually cause the injury and does not constitute a proximate cause of an injury.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the statement was judicial dictum entitled to deference in an Erie analysis, and rendered summary judgment for T-Mobile. Alex v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 18-10555 (June 6, 2019, unpublished) (applying City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. 2016)). (My Pepperdine Law Review article with the University of Idaho’s Wendy Couture remains a strong summary of the underlying theory.)

The complexity of the modern administrative state produces ornate procedural problems – specifically, in Wynnewood Refining Co. v. OSHRC, the challenge of two parties appealing an administrative-agency ruling to two different federal circuit courts.  The solution, however, is simple, in the form of a strict “first-to-file” rule established by Congress for this problem: “Th[is] first-to-file rule governs even for petitions filed on the same day; indeed, we have applied it even when petitions were filed within a minute of each other.” The Fifth Circuit rebuffed an attempt by the agency to assert its discretion over which petition was filed first, concluding that Congress had drafted this statute to foreclose precisely such discretion. No. 19-60357 (Aug. 2, 2019).

In Brackeen v. Bernhardt, an opinion of enormous significance to Indian law, the Fifth Circuit found the Indian Child Welfare Act to be constitutional, reversing a district-court opinion that held otherwise. The Court also affirmed various Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations under the Chevron doctrine, noting, inter alia: “The mere fact that an agency interpretation contradicts a prior agency position is not fatal. Sudden and unexplained change, or change that does not take account of legitimate reliance on prior interpretation, may be arbitrary, capricious [or] an abuse of discretion. But if these pitfalls are avoided, change is not invalidating, since the whole point of Chevron is to leave the discretion provided by the ambiguities of a statute with the implementing agency.” No. 18-11479 (Aug. 9, 2019) (citation omitted). (My colleague Paulette Miniter and I assisted Professor Seth Davis of UC-Berkeley with an amicus brief in this case, in support of the result ultimately reached by the Court.)

After a five-week trial, three days of deliberation, and an Allen charge, the district court excused Juror No. 7. “[T]he district court found that Juror No. 7 had failed to follow instructions, exhibited a lack of candor during questioning, and had engaged in threatening behavior towards other jurors. Though defendants argue that this juror was removed for reasons that involve the deliberative process, there were sufficient independent reasons for his removal, namely, his lack of candor and his threatening behavior.” The Fifth Circuit followed Circuit precedent that “previously declined to apply the rule used by some circuits that prohibits dismissing a juror unless there is ‘no possibility’ that the failure to deliberate arises from their view of the evidence,” and instead reasons that “when the dismissal is due to a failure to be candid or a refusal to follow instructions, those are grounds that ‘do not implicate the deliberative process.’” United States v. Hodge, No. 17-20720 (Aug. 9, 2019) (applying United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105 (2012)).

Warren claimed that an internal investigation report for her employer, Fannie Mae, was defamatory. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defense, holding, inter alia, that the report was shielded from liability by a qualified privilege. As to Warren’s argument that the report was made with actual malice, her evidence of “things that the investigator left out of the report” did not meet the demanding standard of showing “that the report was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.”  And as to her argument about excessive distribution of the report, she “offer[ed] no evidence, other than her own speculation, that any person without a valid interest received the report or was made aware of its findings.” Warren v. Fannie Mae, No. 18-11211 (Aug. 2, 2019).

In a remarkable letter last month, some months after an en banc argument, the federal agency at issue in the high-profile case of Collins v. Mnuchin has decided that it is in fact constitutional. The plaintiffs responded that this position shift proved their point.

Longoria, a truck driver in Laredo, prevailed in a 3-day jury trial about his injuries arising from an accident, and won judgment for $2.8 million in total, based on the jury’s awards as to nine types of damages. The Fifth Circuit noted these points, among others, in reviewing the defendant’s appeal of that judgment:

• Sufficiency v. Excessiveness. “The sufficiency challenge asks only whether there is any evidence for a jury’s award; if there is, the judge’s job is at an end. An excessiveness challenge requires more extensive scrutiny, including—as will be seen—consideration of verdicts in similar cases. And we review the district court’s decision on remittitur only for an abuse of discretion. We cannot assess whether such discretion was abused if the district court was not asked to exercise it in the first instance.”
• Federal v. State. In a review for excessiveness: “The state/federal issue is presented because Texas does not use the maximum recovery rule. It instead conducts a more holistic assessment at both stages of the inquiry.”
• Pain. “This pain is significant. But an award of $1 million is ‘contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence,’ given that Longoria can mostly manage the pain by stretching and taking over-the-counter medicine.”
• Anguish. “Longoria points to his fear that he may be unable to keep working as a truck driver. He testified that this occupation is his ‘childhood dream’ and that without it, he could not support his family. But Longoria is cleared to work, and no doctor indicated his ability to work may change in the future. His understandable concern for the future is not the high degree of distress or frequent disruption Texas law requires.”

Longoria v. Hunter Express, No. 17-41042 (Aug. 1, 2019).

Appellants argued that it a securities-registration exemption plainly applied to a transaction; the Fifth Circuit observed: “While the Gleasons now argue that section 4(a)(1)’s applicability is so obvious that the district court committed a clear error of law or manifest injustice, their able lawyers went in a different direction when opposing summary judgment,” and affirmed. Gleason v. Markel Am. Ins. Co, No. 18-40850 (July 30, 2019, unpublished).

Two oft-addressed topics in 2019–the wreckage of Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme, and the appropriate deference to district court discretion in complex litigation– intersected in Zacarias v. Stanford Int’l Bank, No. 17-11703-CV (July 22, 2019).

The panel majority affirmed the “bar orders” entered by the district court in connection with a complicated settlement, observing: “The receiver initiated suit, negotiated, and settled with the Willis Defendants and BMB while empowered to offer global peace, that is, to deal with potential investor holdouts like the Plaintiffs-Objectors. These holdouts have been content for the receiver to pursue litigation for their benefit, then to participate as receivership claimants, collecting pro rata. Now, however, they ask to jump the queue, come what may to their fellow claimants who remain within the receivership distribution process.”

The dissent countered: “I share the majority’s appreciation for this settlement’s practical value. But in my view, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the bar orders. The Receiver only had standing to assert the Stanford entities’ claims. It could not release other  parties’ claims, or have the court do so, in exchange for a payment to the Stanford estate. For better or worse, the objecting plaintiffs’ claims were beyond the district court’s power.”

“Ordinarily, courts must refrain from interfering with arbitration proceedings. But as our sister circuits have held, and as we now hold today, class arbitration is a ‘gateway’ issue that must be decided by courts, not arbitrators—absent clear and unmistakable language in the arbitration clause to the contrary.” 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Crawford, No. 1810260 (July 22, 2019).

An insurance company drew the Fifth Circuit’s ire (“Only an insurance company could come up with the policy interpretation advanced here”) in a dispute about coverage for a collision caused by drunk driving. The insurer argued “that drunk driving collisions are not ‘accidents,’ because the decision to drink (and then later drive) was intentional—even though there was admittedly no intent to collide with another vehicle. As Cincinnati points out, a jury found that Sanchez intentionally decided to drive while intoxicated, with ‘actual, subjective awareness’ of the ‘extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others.'” The Court found this argument inconsistent with the common meaning of the term “accident,” and further noted that under this reading of the policy: “[A] collision caused by texting while driving would also not be an accident. A collision caused by eating while driving would not be an accident. And a collision caused by doing makeup while driving would not be an accident.” Frederking v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 18-50536 (July 2, 2019).

The Fifth Circuit denied en banc review of Inclusive Communities v. Lincoln Property Co., 920 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 2019), which affirmed (over a dissent) the Rule 12 dismissal of Fair Housing Act claims against Dallas-area apartment businesses that declined to participate in the Section 8 program. The votes were as follows:

“Respect for the state system and the strictly circumscribed nature of federal jurisdiction requires our unflagging attention to these limits. We expect the same unflagging attention from litigants who invoke our jurisdiction.” Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case of Midcap Media Finance LLC v. Pathway Data, Inc. for  further review of diversity jurisdiction. “The parties in this case failed to properly allege diversity of ciizenship. First, the alleged only that Coulter was a California resident, not that he was a California citizen. Second, because MidCap is an LLC, the pleadings needed to identify MidCap’s members and allege their citizenship.” No. 18-50650 (July 9, 2019) (citations omitted).

A concise case study in when a jury may evaluate contractual intent appears in Apache Corp. v. W&T Offshore, No. 7-20599 (July 16, 2019), in which the parties disputed how their Joint Operating Agreement about an offshore drilling project dealt with a $40 million charge associated with using a particular drilling rig.

On the one hand, section 6.2 said that the operator “shall not make any single expenditure . . . costing $200,000 or more” unless an Authorization for Expenditure (“AFE”) is approved. A related provision, about accounting, says that an “acceptable reason[] for non-payment or short payment” includes the situation “when an AFE is not approved.” The defendant cited these provisions in declining to pay, arguing that it had not an AFE on the subject of the rig.

But the operator cited section 18.4, which addresses government-mandated plugging & abandonment operations, and said that the operator “[s]hall conduct” such activity as “required by a governmental authority,” with “the Costs, risks and net proceeds . . . shared by the Participating Parties in such well . . . .” It argued that the rig was necessary to carry out such activity.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that “[a]pplying Section 6.2’s expenditure provision to a government-mandated P&A undertaken pursuant to Section 18.4 would lead to an absurd consequence: namely a situation is empowered to hold an operator hostage, preventing the operator from completing a legally required P&A, in order to extract a better bargain or avoid cost-sharing altogether.” Accordingly, whether section 6.2 applied to a section 18.4 undertaking “is ambiguous and was properly put to the jury.”

Tow v. Organo Gold Int’l presented a challenge, in a trade-secrets case, to a damages model based on “avoided costs” rather than “lost profits.” Specifically: “Weingust [Plaintiff’s expert] concluded that the distributor network was worth approximately $3.451 million based on the following two methodologies: the cost approach showed AmeriSciences had incurred about $6.2 million over five years to develop the distributor network, attract new distributors, and retain existing ones. The income approach considers how long income is expected from the asset and the amount of income each year. Weingust concluded the income approach dictated the network would generate $700,327 over ten years. Weingust testified that neither valuation method was better than the other, so he averaged the two to conclude the value of the distributor network was $3.451 million.” This model was consistent with – indeed, expressly allowed by –  GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG, 836 F.3d 477, 499 (5th Cir. 2016). No. 18-20394 (July 11, 2019).

After a recent en banc vote, the full Fifth Circuit will engage an important limit on the power of the administrative state. The majority and dissenting opinons in Sierra Club v. Luminant Energy grappled with the “concurrent-remedies doctrine” and whether it created a limitations bar to an action for equitable relief under the Clean Air Act. No. No. 17-10235 (order issued June 10, 2019).

Hard-fought litigation about reform to Texas’s foster-care system led to an injunction, an appeal, a limited remand to revise the injunction, and a renewed appeal. The panel majority affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding, inter alia: (i) the revised injunction exceeded the mandate of the limited remand; (ii) that a requirement affirmed in the appeal was, upon further review, in fact unnecessary; and (iii) that a provision about data use required additional confidentiality safeguards.

A strong dissent protested the overall lack of deference to the district court’s discretion, focusing in particular on a provision about “an integrated computer system to rationalize record keeping.” It argued that by vacating that provision, “the majority completes its walk away from the district court’s interlaced remedial scheme, taking away provisions essential to its success . . . a decision flawed by the evidence and controlling legal principles.”  The dissent further observed: “[The State’s] reflexive resistance to the federal district court’s remedial orders–both direct confrontation and a refusal to cooperate or otherwise participate in the crafting of a response–bespeaks a view of our federalism inverted to look past the unchallenged finding of this court of the State’s deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of PMC children . . . .”  M.D. v. Abbott, No. 18-40057 (July 8, 2019).

“The complaint alleges that during the April and October 2016 phone calls, the defendants negligently misrepresented to Mr. Dick that ‘reinstatement was not an option’ and that ‘there was nothing [the] Plaintiff could do to stop a foreclosure.’ The plaintiff’s claim that these misrepresentations prevented her from reinstating the loan merely repackages her claim for breach of contract based on the duty to cooperate. It is therefore barred by the economic loss rule.” Dick v. Colorado Housing Enterprises LLC, No. 18-10900 (July 5, 2019) (unpublished).

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Lake Eugenie Land & Devel. v. BP, the latest in the “body of federal common law in this Circuit” about the Deepwater Horizon settlement, presents both a crisp summary of the mandate rule and a dramatic tale of piracy on the high seas.

Mandate rule. As to the mandate rule, the opinion succinctly summarizes its theoretical basis –

“The mandate rule is a subspecies of the law-of-the-case doctrine: When a court decides a question, it usually decides it once and for all ‘subsequent stages in the same case.’ This doctrine operates on a horizonal plane—constricting a later panel vis-à-vis an earlier panel of the same court.  It also operates on a vertical plane—constricting a lower court vis-à-vis a higher court. The vertical variant is what we call the ‘mandate rule,’ and it’s the kind at issue here.”

(citations omitted), as well as the way to implement it: “The first step is figuring out what our mandate said. . . . The next question is whether the district court deviated from that mandate.” (citations omitted).

Piracy on the high seas. The opinion cites some 19th-Century authority about the foundations of the mandate rule; among them, Himley v. Rose, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 313 (1809), which involved a “decree . . . formerly rendered” about the restoration of cargo from the merchant ship Sarah. The earlier opinion, Rose v. Himley, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 241 (1808), presents an amazing tale of a load of coffee, sent from the port of Santo Domingo by “brigands” during a slave revolt against the French government, which was then intercepted and seized by a French privateer and sold in Cuba.

Texas Capital Bank sued Zeidman for the alleged breach of a guaranty obligation. The Bank moved for summary judgment; in response, one of Zeidman’s arguments was that the Bank’s claim was barred by quasi-estoppel. He testified that “the Bank orally agreed to accept a $500,000 payment in satisfaction of the Guaranty, Zeidman wired that amount to the Bank, the Bank accepted the payment, and it later demanded additional payment under the Guaranty.” The Bank countered that this defense was barred by the statute of frauds, and the Fifth Circuit agreed that “oral modification of the Guaranty appears to be prohibited by the text of the Guaranty and the statute of frauds . . . .” But the Court found the Bank’s position about the statute of frauds to be inapplicable “because it improperly recharacterizes Zeidman’s affirmative defense as a claim that the underlying Guaranty was modified.” Texas Capital Bank N.A. v. Zeidman, No. 18-1114 (June 27, 2019) (unpubl.)

The Fifth Circuit revised its original opinion in SEC v. Arcturus Corp., reaching the same result (reversal of a summary judgment for the SEC about whether certain investment contracts were securities), while adding significant factual and legal detail about the sophistication of the relevant investors – the issue on which the Court found summary judgment to have been inappropriate. SEC v. Arcturus Corp. (revised), No. 17-10503.

The Fifth Circuit’s unfortunate Erie guess in Priester v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 708 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2013), about limitations for an action to quiet title on a home-equity lien, was later rejected by the Texas Supreme Court in Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, 505 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2016). Meanwhile, the Priesters’ problems with their lender continued. The Fifth Circuit declined to consider their motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), noting a lengthy delay by the Priesters in bringing the motion, and observing: “If a ‘change in law’ automatically allowed the reopening of federal cases, then anytime the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, the courts that had taken the view that did not prevail would have to reopen cases no matter how long ago the judgments issued. . . . [The Priesters] are worried that the earlier federal judgment against them may pose a res judicata problem. But res judicata is the ordinary result of a final judgment, not an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from one.” Priester v. JP Morgan Chase, No. 18-40127 (re-released as published on July 1, 2019).

The federal system’s more-forgiving approach, to what Texas state practice calls “the Casteel problem,” was on display in Young v. Board of Supervisors of Humphreys County, Mississippi. After a jury trial, Young won a judgment under § 1983 for depriving him of the use of several properties. Among other appeal points, “The Board takes issue with Jury Instruction 4, which told the jury that it could find the Board liable if it found, by a preponderance of the evidence, one of three things: (1) ‘The Board of Supervisors authorized a violation of Mr. Young’s property rights,’ (2) ‘Dickie Stevens had been given the authority by the Board to take the action he took with respect to Mr. Young’s property,’ or (3) ‘The Board ratified Dickie Stevens’ actions after the fact.'” The Fifth Circuit held that as to the second theory, “[e]ven assuming that the court erred in allowing the jury to determine whether Stevens was a policymaker, there was legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to hold the Board liable on a ratification [the third] theory . . . Thus, ‘any injury resulting from the erroneous instruction is
harmless.’“ No. 18-60618 (June 21, 2019).

Here is my PowerPoint from the recent appellate course sponsored by University of Texas CLE. I also discussed this month’s opinion in In re: City of Houston, granting mandamus relief in a privilege dispute.

In In re City of Houston, the Fifth Circuit succinctly held: “Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the documents in dispute, which are contained in Exhibit A to the City’s motion to seal documents, and pertinent jurisprudence, we conclude that the electronic communications identified by the City in Tabs 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of Exhibit A fall within the attorney-client privilege and that mandamus relief is warranted with respect to such items. See In re: Itron, Inc.,883 F.3d 553, 567–69 (5th Cir. 2018); EEOC v. BDO USA L.L.P., 876 F.3d 690, 695-97 (5th Cir. 2017); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Hill, 751 F.3d 379, 382–83 (5th Cir. 2014); In re: Avantel, S.A., 343 F.3d 311, 316–17 (5th Cir. 2003).” No. 19-20377 (June 18, 2019, unpublished).

In SEC v. Stanford Int’l Bank, Ltd., the Fifth Circuit reviewed an intricate, court-supervised settlement between the receiver for Stanford International Bank and several D&O carriers, and “conclude[d] the district court lacked authority to approve the Receiver’s settlement to the extent it (a) nullified the coinsureds’ claims to the policy proceeds without an alternative compensation scheme; (b) released claims the Estate did not possess; and (c) barred suits that could not result in judgments against proceeds of the Underwriters’ policies or other receivership assets.”

The Court observed: “By ignoring the distinction between Appellants’ contractual and extracontractual claims against Underwriters, the district court erred legally and abused its discretion in approving the bar orders. These claims . . . lie directly against the Underwriters and do not involve proceeds from the insurance policies or other receivership assets. . . . [R]eceivership courts have no authority to dismiss claims that are unrelated to the receivership estate. That the district court was ‘looking only to the fairness of the settlement as between the debtor and the settling claimant [and ignoring third-party rights] contravenes a basic notion of fairness.'” No. 17-10663 (June 17, 2019).

The Northern District of Texas sent this message today: “The Earle Cabell Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse located at 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX, will be closed to the public tomorrow [June 18]. Initial criminal proceedings that are scheduled tomorrow before a magistrate judge will be held at the Fort Worth division located at 501 W. 10th Street, Fort Worth, TX. Other proceedings scheduled for tomorrow in Dallas will be rescheduled unless you have been specifically informed of alternative arrangements by a courtroom deputy or other court personnel. Updates to this information will be provided on our website at www.txnd.uscourts.gov.”

After a 2011 amendment, the removal statute allowed a motion to remand based on diversity after a year if the “district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1).  One of the removal-jurisdiction issues in Hoyt v. Lane Construction  was the applicable legal standard to determine bad faith. The district court focused on the plaintiffs’ affidavits, which explained “why the Hoyts were reluctant to go to trial against Storm or accept Storm’s (apparently low) settlement offer,” but “do not explain why the Hoyts waited until just two days after the one-year deadline to dismiss Storm. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued for a standard based on equitable estoppel that had been developed in prior Fifth Circuit precedent, but the Court rejected those authorities as having been mooted by the 2011 amendment. No. 18-10289 (June 10, 2019).

Several parties entered an “Area of Mutual Interest” (AMI) agreement, a common feature of oil-and-gas development projects. The AMI included various interests “which were or are acquired after” the agreement’s effective date, “by a Party” to the agreement. But it excluded “all interests, leases or agreements owned by a Party prior to the Effective Date.” Thus, when a party bought interests from another party after the effective date, that sale was not within the scope of the AMI. The Fifth Circuit observed: “If Appellees sought to prohibit the type of activity in which EnerQuest engaged, they could have easily done so through the contract.” Glassell Non-Operated Interests, Ltd. v. EnerQuest Oil & Gas, LLC, No. 18-20125 (June 12, 2019).

Here is a copy of my PowerPoint from today’s presentation about business cases in the Dallas Court of Appeals during 2019. Thanks to all who came out, and to the DBA Appellate Section for the invitation!

With yesterday’s nomination of Hon. Sul Ozerden (right), who presently serves as a District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit is on the cusp of having a full roster of active judges.

Today’s post on 600Commerce hearkens back to a case covered by this blog several years ago when, literally, the ship had sailed.  (The 600Commerce post goes on to note that a similar principle applies in a dispute about the right of possession (in Texas practice, a forcible detainer action), which becomes moot when “a writ of possession had been served on appellant” and thus “appellant is no longer in possession of [the] premises.” Jones v. Willems, No. 05-18-01191-CV (June 7, 2019). Longtime 600Camp readers will be interested to know that the ship in question, since reflagged as the M/V CALHOUN, is in Singapore as of the date of this post, still well away from Fifth Circuit jurisdiction.

AccentCare sent an arbitration agreement to Trammell’s home; “[t]he district court applied the ‘mailbox rule’ to presume that Trammell received the company’s proffered arbitration agreement even though she testified that she never received the contract and indicated to her employer that she was experiencing difficulties in receiving and sending mail.” This showing, especially given that AccentCare could not produce a signed agreement or otherwise rebut her claims about problems with mail, the Fifth Circuit reversed: “Because Trammell created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether an arbitration agreement was formed, she is entitled to a jury trial under Section 4 of the FAA.” Trammell v. AccentCare, Inc., No 18-50872 (June 7, 2019, unpublished).

(The specific FAA provision, often referred to but rarely used, says: “. . . the party alleged to be in default may, except in cases of admiralty, on or before the return day of the notice of application, demand a jury trial of such issue, and upon such demand the court shall make an order referring the issue or issues to a jury in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or may specially call a jury for that purpose”).

Rural electric cooperatives, created pursuant to the New Deal’s Rural Electrification Act, and that “‘act under’  and the [Rural Utilities Service]’s direction
based on a close and detailed lending relationship and shared goal of furthering
affordable rural electricity,” sought to remove litigation about governance issues under the “federal officer” statute. The district court remanded but the Fifth Circuit reversed: “[I]t was error to conclude that the cooperatives have not presented a colorable federal defense, as required for federal officer removal jurisdiction. Again, this is not to say that the cooperatives will inevitably be successful in their preemption defense. Rather, our conclusion is a natural byproduct of the
fact that ‘one of the most important reasons for [federal officer] removal is to have the validity of the [federal defense] tried in a federal court.'” Butler v. Coast Elec. Power Assoc., No. 18-60365 (June 7, 2019).

Ekhlassi sued National Lloyds in Texas state court for a flood-insurance claim, arising out of a “Write Your Own” insurance policy issued in the carrier’s name but underwritten by the federal government. His filing may have satisfied the one-year statute of limitations for such a claim – the parties disputed the trigger event – but his choice of a state forum proved fatal. The panel majority, applying Circuit precedent and authority from other Circuits, found that the grant of “original exclusive jurisdiction” in federal court by 28 U.S.C. § 4072 applied to his suit. A dissent argued that this statute, by its terms, applied only to a suit against FEMA’s Administrator and not a “WYO” carrier. Ekhlassi v. National Lloyds Ins. Co., No. 18-20228 (June 4, 2019).

District courts frequently “administratively close” an inactive matter, but that housekeeping measure does not create an appealable order: ‘”A ‘final decision’ generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” In contrast, “a district court order staying and administratively closing a case lacks the finality of an outright dismissal or closure.” By administratively closing the case, the district court retains jurisdiction, meaning it can “reopen the case—either on its own or at the request of a party—at any time.” “[R]eservation of jurisdiction for the purpose of hearing substantive claims . . . precludes appellate jurisdiction because an order framed this way is not a final judgment.”’ Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, No. 18-50605 (May 23, 2019) (unpubl.)

Life Partners’ Creditors’ Trust v. Cowley, No. 17-11477 (May 31, 2019), reviewed the dismissal of several highly-technical claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee about the sale of “viaticals” (investments in life insurance policies sold to third parties by the insureds). For each claim, the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether FRCP 9(b) or 8(a) applied, and then assessed the pleaded allegations, reaching these conclusions:

Sometimes, simply stating the issue gives a strong indication as to the answer. Such was the case in McGlothlin v. State Farm, which examined whether two Mississippi statutes were “repugnant” to one another (synonyms for “repugnant,” according to one online reference, include “abhorrent, revolting, repulsive, repellent, disgusting, offensive, objectionable, vile, foul, nasty, [and] loathsome . . . .” Specifically, Mississippi’s uninsured-motorist statute (1) required State Farm to pay the damages that an insured is “legally entitled to recover” from an uninsured driver, and (2) treats a fireman driving a fire truck as “uninsured,” as a result of the statute’s governmental-immunity statute. A driver who was rear-ended by a fire truck argued that these two statutes were “repugnant” and had to be read in favor of coverage; the Fifth Circuit disagreed: “The two sections’ being ‘confusing’ does not equate to repugnancy.” No. 18-60338 (May 31, 2019).

A recurring question in commercial arbitration is the amount of detail required for a “reasoned award’ – described generally as “something short of findings and conclusions but more than a simple result.”  The Fifth Court provides a helpful example in YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., which quotes the relevant part of the arbitrator’s award and holds: “KPMG noted that it based its analysis on the parties’ statements and accounting records, pointed to its finding on the accrual of liabilities, and explained what documentation it found relevant in evaluating the proper refund amount.” No. 17-20802 (May 24, 2019).

The Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act provides a potential defense to a party who receives an otherwise-fraudulent transfer in “good faith.” That said, the exact contours of that defense are not completely clear, leading the Fifth Circuit to vacate an  earlier panel opinion on the issue, to now certify this question to the Texas Supreme Court:

“Is the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s ‘good faith’ defense against fraudulent transfer clawbacks, as codified at Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.009(a), available to a transferee who had inquiry notice of the fraudulent behavior, did not conduct a diligent inquiry, but who would not have been reasonably able to discover that fraudulent activity through diligent inquiry”

Janvey v. GMAG, LLC, No. 17-11526 (May 24, 2019).

A remarkably long-lived case about the collapse of Enron came to an end in Lampkin v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.: “[Plaintiffs[‘] Securities Act claims fail because their participation in the Employee Stock Option Plan was compulsory and employees furnished no value, or tangible and definable consideration in exchange for the option grants. The Court in [Int’ Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551 (1979)] rejected the idea that the exchange of labor was sufficient consideration in the context of a compulsory, non-contributory pension plan—the same logic applies to the option plan at issue here. Plaintiffs made no investment decision in the grant of the options, the Enron plans were compulsory and non-contributory. The fact that plaintiffs would eventually make an affirmative investment decision—whether to exercise the option or let it expire—at some point in the future is of no consequence. Plaintiffs’ claims are based explicitly on the grant of the option, not the exercise of that option.” No. 17-20608 (May 24, 2019) (emphasis added).

Valderas, the plaintiff in an excessive-force case, opposed the defendant’s motion to strike with a single argument – that the defendant had failed to satisfy the conference requirement of N.D. Tex. Local Rule 7.1. The district court disagreed, as did the Fifth Circuit: “Valderas cites to only one decision explicating the meaning of the local rule in question and implies that the decision establishes that a telephone conversation is necessary to satisfy the conference requirement. The decision explicitly notes, however, that the conference requirement can be met through a written conferral.” Valderas v. City of Lubbock , No. 18-11023 (May 21, 2019) (unpublished) (emphasis added) (applying Dondi Props. Corp. v. Commerce Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 121 F.R.D. 284, 290 (N.D. Tex. 1988) (en banc) (per curiam)).

Yesterday’s District of the District of Columbia opinion about the Congressional subpoena to Mazars (President Trump’s accounting firm), offers a fascinating summary of the history of legislative-executive friction about similar subpoenas, including the complaints of the rarely-quoted President Buchanan. In an echo of McCulloch v. Maryland about the broad scope of Congress’s power to legislate, this opinion describes a similarly-broad scope of the power to investigate before legislating.

Cohen argued, inter alia, that a letter from Allstate “merely denied ‘coverage for various items'” and thus lacked adequate specificity to effectively deny his flood-insurance claim (and thus start a 1-year federal statute of limitations). The Fifth Circuit disagreed, observing that “not even the temptations of a hard case will provide a basis for ordering recovery contrary to the terms of [a] regulation, for to do so would disregard the duty of all courts to observe the conditions defined by Congress for charging the public treasury.” Cohen v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 18-20330 (May 17, 2019) (citation omitted).

Lopez v. Pompeo addressed an infrequent but fundamental issue of res judicata: “When this court affirms a judgment of the district court, but on different grounds than those adopted by the district court, it is the decision of this court, not the district court, that has preclusive effect . . . ‘[O]nce an appellate court has affirmed on one ground and passed over another, preclusion does not attach to the ground omitted from its decision.'” No. 18-40175 (May 14, 2019).

On the topic of personal jurisdiction, recent Supreme Court cases emphasize that “[i]t is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State..” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014).  An interesting test of that principle arose in Carmona v. Leo Ship Management, No. 18-20248 (May 10, 2019), in which a stevedore sued for injuries incurred in Houston while unloading pipe from a globe-circling freighter. He sued LSM, the company that by contract operated the M/V Komatsushima Star (right) (since, renamed the M/V Kacey, and moored in the Yellow Sea as of this post). LSM did not own the ship “and could not direct where it traveled, what it carried, or for whom it worked,” and thus tried to invoke Walden and related cases about jurisdiction arising from a “mere fortuity.”

The Fifth Circuit observed:

• “[A] defendant’s contacts with a forum and the purposefulness of those contacts are distinct–though often overlapping –inquiries. Although tortious conduct within a forum ensures the existence of contacts it does not always guarantee that such contacts were deliberate.” (citation omitted);
• “Especially considering that the contract was freely  terminable with two months’ notice, LSM was hardly compelled to travel to Texas against its will. Rather, it made a deliberate choice to keep its employees aboard a ship bound for Texas” and thus “purposely availed itself” of the Texas forum;
• But as to one of Carmona’s claims: “LSM presented undisputed evidence that a third party had stowed the pipes aboard the ship while it was outside the United States,” thus establishing that “the claim that the pipes were improperly stowed does not stem from LSM’s activities in Texas.”

On May 16 at the Belo Mansion, the DBA Appellate Section presents a panel discussion among the eight newly-elected Justices of the Fifth Court of Appeals (a/k/a, the “Slate of Eight“), moderated by Justice Lana Myers, a 20-year veteran of the Fifth Court.. The Section’s announcement of the program goes on to say: “If you have a question you would like the panel to answer, please send it to DBAAppellateChair@gmail.com. The panel will try to answer pre-submitted questions during the presentation as time permits.”