Before a lender may accelerate a debt (and later foreclose), Texas law requires that the lender send (1) notice of intent to accelerate, followed by (2) notice of acceleration. While “Texas courts have not squarely confronted whether a borrower is entitled to a new round of notice when a borrower re-accelerates following an earlier rescission,” the Fifth Circuit concluded “that the Texas Supreme Court would require such notice . . . Abandonment of acceleration ‘restor[es] the contract to its original condition.’ The Texas Supreme Court would likely conclude that Wilmington Trust acted ‘inconsistently’ by rescinding acceleration and then re-accelerating without notice.” Wilmington Trust v. Rob, No. 17-50115 (May 21, 2018).

A Texas restaurateur took steps to open a seafood restaurant called The Krusty Krab. Those plans met choppy seas when Viacom, owner of the “SpongeBob SquarePants” TV show, sued to enforce its trademark rights as to that name (in the show, the undersea restaurant where SpongeBob works). In a textbook example of a Lanham Act claim (Texas common law being identical), the Fifth Circuit held:

• As a threshold matter, specific elements of a TV show can receive trademark protection (citing Conan the Barbarian, the General Lee, and Kryponite, while noting the less-fortunate case law about the Star Trek franchise’s rights to the term “Romulan”)
• As to the first element, the mark is legally protectable, especially given the high profile and longevity of the SpongeBob show
• And as to the second element, despite some uncertainty as to its degree and nature, the likelihood of confusion was still high enough to justify trademark protection.

Viacom Int’l v. IJR Capital Investments, No. 17-20334 (May 22, 2018).

Plaintiff argued, for purposes of a UCC Article 2 damages calculation, that a pollution monitoring system was worthless because it was not practically repairable. The Fifth Circuit disagreed – language in an earlier Mississippi case about whether a good “could not be repaired and was worthless” was not “the same as ‘the goods were worthless because they could not be repaired.’ While it is true that an unrepairable good may also be worthless, it does not follow that such a good is always worthless.” The Court also found, as to a limitation-of-remedy provision: “Here, Altech provided an exclusive repair or replace warranty. The warranty failed of its essential purpose when Altech—over the course of years—was continually unable to repair the [system].” Steel Dynamics v. Alltech Environment, No. 17-60298 (May 17, 2018, unpublished).

Carley and Brown, the plaintiffs in a case about overtime pay, drove a Ford F-350 in their work as “cementers” for oil wells. The threshold question was whether the  truck was a “motor vehicle[] weighing10,000 pounds or less”; if it was, a federal statute would remove them from overtime requirements. While seemingly clear, the  statute left open the important practical matters, requiring the Fifth Circuit to analyze it and conclude:

• What. Applying Skidmore deference to a Labor Department bulleting about the statute, “weight” specifically refers to the manufacturer’s specified “gross vehicle weight rating”;
• Who. So defined, the burden of proof about “weight” fell on Carley, as this statute “is . . . not an exemption . . . [but] rather, it codifies conditions under which” pay is required notwithstanding an exemption; and
• How. Echoing similar disputes about the relevance of property tax filings in valuation disputes, a document about vehicle registration, that stated the truck’s “empty weight” (7600 pounds) and “gross weight” (9600 pounds) did not overcome undisputed evidence that the GVWR was in fact 11,500 pounds.

Carley v. Crest Pumping Technologies, No. 17-50226 (May 16, 2018).

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was decided in 1938. Sierra Equipment v. Lexington Ins. Co., an Erie case from the Fifth Circuit this week, turned on Texas authority that pre-dated Erie – specifically, a court of appeals opinion approved by the 1920s-era Texas Commission on Appeals (a representative picture of which is to the right). The specific question was whether the “equitable lien” doctrine allowed a lessee to sue on a lessor’s insurance policy absent a “loss payable” clause in the policy; consistent with the ruling of the Commission and most other cases on the point, the Court concluded that the lessee could not bring that suit. No. 17-10076 (May 15, 2018).

The triangular relationship between (1) an insurer, (2) an insured, and (3) the counsel chosen by the insurer to defend the insured in litigation can become an uneasy one.  Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cooley illustrates when it can become unstable. The insurer (Grain Dealers) provided the insureds (the Cooleys) a defense, “yet simultaneously disclaimed coverage if the Cooleys were ordered to clean the spill. In doing so, Grain Dealers failed to inform the Cooleys of their right to hire independent counsel. When the [relevant administrative agency] ultimately found the Cooleys liable for the spill, Grain Dealers then refused to defend or indemnify the Cooleys against a resulting claim.” That failure created the prejudice needed to estop Grain Dealers from denying coverage for liability: ” [T]he Cooleys presented evidence that Grain Dealers’ attorney never informed them of their right to challenge the [agency] decision. That right has since lapsed. The loss of the right to challenge the underlying administrative order with the benefit of non-conflicted counsel is clearly prejudicial.” No. 17-60307 (May 14, 2017, unpublished).

Congratulations and every best wish to new Fifth Circuit judge Kurt Engelhardt of New Orleans, formerly the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, who was confirmed yesterday by the Senate. Fifteen of the Court’s seventeen positions for full-time judges are now filled, with the nomination of Texas’s Andrew Oldham pending, and the seat formerly held by Judge Jolly still vacant.

Among other (unsuccessful) challenges to the exclusion of summary judgment evidence, the appellant in Warren v. Fannie Mae invoked Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892), the case that led to the hearsay exception in Fed. R. Evid. 803(3) for “then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.” (The opinion was written by Justice Horace Gray, right). The citation did not succeed, however, as the Fifth Circuit observed: “Hillmon looked at a declarant’s words as evidence they later followed through with a plan. Warren is arguing that her post-conduct statements of intention imply that she actually told Peters about Finch. Therefore, Hillmon is inapposite.” No. 17-10567 (May 3, 2018, unpublished).

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss under the TCPA (the Texas “anti-SLAPP” statute), noting that the appellant’s arguments to the district court limited him to “only . . . the theory that the TCPA applies because the claims are based on, related to, or in response to a communication in or pertaining to a judicial proceeding” within the meaning of that statute. The appellant submitted a Rule 28(j) letter citing a recent Texas Supreme Court opinion that, inter alia, recommended a “holistic review of the pleadings” in the TCPA context. The Fifth Circuit did not agree, characterizing this “point, at its core, [a]s the Texas Supreme Court’s application of that court’s argument waiver principles,” and observing: “Because this court consistently applies its waiver precedent in diversity jurisdiction cases, we will do so here.” Diamond Consortium, Inc. v. Hammervold, No.17-40582 (May 3, 2018).

In Gulf Coast Workforce LLC v. Zurich American Ins. Co., the appellant’s “second point of error alleges that the district court awarded damages that no witness could explain or confirm. Zurich’s sole witness was Smith, who conducted the audit but did not work on billing matters. [Appellant] contends that, because Smith could not testify to the $53,161 premium, Zurich did not prove its damages.” The Fifth Circuit saw otherwise, identifying two trial exhibits that supported that figure and holding: “Therefore, the district court’s damages determination was not clearly erroneous.” No. 17-30379 (May 4, 2018, unpublished).

Another practice point from In re DePuy Orthopaedics involved this portion of the plaintiffs’ closing argument,  allowed over objection and without any accompanying instruction: “If you don’t consider the damages by the day, by the hour, by the minute, then you haven’t considered their damages. . . . “[P]lease, please, please, if they [the defendants] will pay their experts a thousand dollars an hour to come in here, when you do your math back there don’t tell these plaintiffs that a day in their life is worth less than an hour’s time of this fellow, or people they put on the stand.”

The Fifth Circuit observed: “[U]unit-of-time arguments like this one are impermissible because they can lead the jury to ‘believ[e] that the determination of a proper award for . . . pain and suffering is a matter of precise and accurate determination and not, as it really is, a matter to be left to the jury’s determination, uninfluenced by arguments and charts.’ Lanier’s reference to expert fees was meant simultaneously to activate the jury’s passions and to anchor their minds to a salient, inflated, and irrelevant dollar figure. The inflammatory benchmark, bearing no rational relation to plaintiffs’ injuries, easily amplified the risk of ‘an excessive verdict.’  The argument was ‘design[ed] to mislead,’ and tainted the verdict that followed.” Nos. 16-11051 et seq. (April 25, 2018) (citations omitted).

The panel majority in Benson v. Tyson Foods affirmed the denial of a request to speak to jurors after a trial, but observed: “In light of the First Amendment interests at stake here, which [Haeberle v. Texas Int’l Airlines, 739 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1984)] did not appear to fully appreciate, district courts in the future would be wise to consider seriously whether there exists any genuine government interest in preventing attorneys from conversing with consenting jurors—and if so, whether that interest should be specifically articulated, in order to facilitate appellate review and fidelity to the Constitution.” A concurring opinion agreed with the affirmance but would not have relied on the Haeberle opinion, instead preferring an approach that took into account the interests of the movant as a factor – a “step . . . fatal to Benson’s argument,” as “her rights would be unaffected by a decision that the district court abused its discretion in not giving her counsel sufficient justification for denying their request.”  No. 17-40161 (May 1, 2018).

In re DePuy Orthopaedics also warns against driving through much traffic through an “opened door” for the admission of evidence, noting:

The district court admitted several pieces of inflammatory character evidence against defendants—including claims of race discrimination and bribes to Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi “regime”—reasoning the defendants had “opened the door” by repeatedly presenting themselves as “wonderful people doing wonderful things.”

. . .

The district court allowed these repeated references to Hussein and the [Deferred Prosecution Agreement] because defendants had supposedly “opened the door” by eliciting testi-mony on their corporate culture and marketing practices. This justification is strained, given that J&J owns more than 265 companies in 60 countries, and the Iraqi portion of the DPA addresses conduct by non-party subsidiaries. “[T]he Rules of Evidence do not simply evaporate when one party opens the door on an issue.”

Nos. 16-11051 et seq. (April 25, 2018) (citations omitted, emphasis added).

Among other holdings in In re DePuy Orthopaedics, the Fifth Circuit observed: “Suppose we did believe [counsel]’s various and independent explanations for why he could pay his expert before and after trial without ever compromising the witness’s non-retained status. An opinion countenancing his behavior would read like a blueprint on how to evade Rule 26 with impunity. Parties could pay experts ‘for their time’ before trial and later exchange compelling ‘pro bono’ testimony for sizable, post-trial ‘thank you’ checks.” No. 16-11051 et seq. (April 25, 2018) (emphasis in original).

At a recent energy law seminar for the University of Texas, My colleagues Michael Hurst, Jonathan Childers, and Jervonne Newsome presented this excellent paper on the important and recurring topic of maintaining attorney-client privilege in communications involving in-house counsel – a constant challenge given the many hats worn by legal counsel in the modern business environment.

The Senate has confirmed Louisiana’s Kyle Duncan to a New Orleans-based seat on the Fifth Circuit, bringing the Court one step closer to a long-awaited full roster of active-duty judges. Every best wish to Judge Duncan.

A lawyer sought to appeal a sanctions order; the Fifth Circuit found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction:

• The Court did not accept the district court’s certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), as “the claim for relief is the wrongful death and survival cause of action brought by [Plaintiff] . . . [t]he Rule 11 sanctions and referral to the disciplinary committee with findings of . . . misconduct are not claims for relief in this suit”;
• The district court’s Rule 54 order did not contain a certification about “a legal issue that satisfies the substantive requirements of § 1292(b),” and thus could not be treated as an appealable interlocutory order;
• The sanctions ruling was not a “collateral order,” as it is “reviewable after the district court makes its determinations of liability on the merits . . . .”; and
•  A potentially-viable doctrine about the appeal of sanctions orders, combined with an attorney’s withdrawal, did not apply because the relevant counsel remained in the case

Nogess v. Poydras Center LLC, No. 17-30449 (April 3, 2018).

Donald Rumsfeld unforgettably spoke about known unknowns. The Fifth Circuit engaged that general concept in Bartolowits v. Wells Fargo, in which the plaintiff claimed that a lender “misrepresented the amount [plaintiff] owed and its security interest in his property to a state court in seeking a foreclosure order.” But on the issue of  “whether Wells Fargo committed fraud by claiming the right to foreclose on unsecured property,” the Court found that he could not have justifiably relied on this statement “because he knew that Wells Fargo lacked a security interest in some of the property it sought to foreclose upon” (indeed, at the time, the plaintiff denied Wells’s allegations and notified Wells of the error). In sum: “There is no justifiable reliance when the misrepresentations contradict a fact known by the plaintiff.” No. 17-10434 (April 4, 2018, unpublished).

Making a not-so-subtle remark about the requirements for a successful en banc petition, the Fifth Circuit has amended local rule 35.5 to say: “35.5 Length. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(2). The statement required by Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1) is included in the limit and is not a “certificate[ ] of counsel” that is excluded by Fed. R. App P. 32(f).” In other words, the certificate of counsel about the specific cases inconsistent with the panel opinion counts against the length limit.

Nester v. Textron, Inc. affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff in a products liability case, arising from a gruesome accident involving a golf-cart like utility vehicle. In reviewing challenges to the jury charge, theFifth Circuit  discussed in detail two important issues:

1. PJC Power. A state’s approved pattern jury instructions are presumptively correct, especially when the record shows a lack of harm: “Federal judges often face the workaday dilemma of how much state law to consolidate expressly into the jury charge. . . . The list of conceivable additions goes on. But, as our prior cases indiate, a commonly administered PJC is often an entirely sensible place to draw the line. . . . At the end of the day, Textron asks us to hold that the district court erred by refusing to deviate from a standard Texas instruction. That definition permitted Textron to make its arguments about various tradeoffs to the jury (it did so) and gave those jurors a means to find in Textron’s favor (they balked).”
2. Casteel, federal-style. After a thorough (and infrequently-seen) summary of how federal law has developed on the “Casteel problem” of commingled liability theories, the Court concluded: “We will not reverse a verdict simply because the jury might have decided on a ground that was supported by insufficient evidence.” (applying, inter alia, Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991)).

No. 16-5115 (April 18, 2018).

1. Under Louisiana law, while “fugitive minerals” cannot be conveyed, “this principle by no means forbids a landowner or lessee from conveying pre-extraction mineral interests”;
2. An “overriding royalty interest” is a property interest, not “a mere interest in proceeds” from production; and
3. The “safe harbor” provision in the Louisiana Oil Well Lien Act protected a party’s liens on a debtor’s overriding royalty interests – while that statute “may not be a model of clarity,” its reference to “hydrocarbons” includes such interests, when viewed in the complete context of the Louisiana property statutes.

OHA Investment Corp. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., No. 17-20224 (April 17, 2018).

Comcast loaned $100 million to a sports television network, secured by a lien on substantially all the network’s assets. When the network had financial problems, Comcast entities placed it into an involuntary Chapter 11 proceeding. The Fifth Circuit reversed on, inter alia, a subtle but very significant point – at what point in time should unpaid media fees be valued, to credit against the potential value to Comcast of a valuable agreement? The Court concluded that “a court is not required to use either the petition date or the effective date,” but should rather “follow a flexible approach to valuation timing that allows the bankruptcy court to take into account the development of the proceedings, as the value of the collateral may vary dramatically based on its proposed use under any given plan.” Houston SportsNet Finance LLC v. Houston Astros LLC, No. 15-20497 (March 29, 2018).

In Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter remarked: “If I had a world of my own . . . Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?” In that spirit,  under 28 U.S.C. §  1447(d), a remand order is unreviewable on appeal if issued under one of the grounds in § 1447(c) – either a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or the plaintiff moves ” to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . .  within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal.” In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Starr Indemnity, the plaintiff argued that the district court erred by remanding based on subject matter jurisdiction, when the issue before it was properly characterized as a late-raised procedural matter. The Fifth Circuit agreed, but held: “[Defendants],  however, cannot evade the reviewability bar of § 1447(d) by establishing this defect. . . . . Indeed, each passage from the district court’s order to which the Insurers point as a clear and affirmative statement of a non-§ 1447(c) ground in fact expressly invokes that court’s perceived lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This belief, however erroneous, ‘sufficiently cloaks the remand order in the § 1447(c) absolute immunity from review’ and ends the inquiry.” No. 16-20821 (March 26, 2018, unpublished).

A photographer sued a business for using his copyrighted pictures. The defendant assert its licensing rights as a defense; specifically, as a sublicensee of the industry group that obtained a license from the photographer. The Fifth Circuit observed: “The right to bring a copyright infringement action comes from federal copyright law,” which is “a separate question from whether [the defendant] can prove (under state law) that it has a meritorious license defense. Based on that observation, the Court concluded that the district court had incorrectly conflated the plaintiff’s right to sue on the license under state law with its standing to raise copyright claims under federal law, and reversed a summary judgment for the defendant. As to the scope of the sublicense, the Court found a triable fact issue presented by an affiant’s assertion about the duration of that license, which was not completely supported by the dates on the documents submitted with that affidavit. Stross v. Redfin Corp., No. 17-50046 (April 9, 2018) (While issued per curiam, certain turns of phrase in the opinion suggest the handiwork of newly-arrived Judge Willett, who was on the panel.)

Many years, ago, “the Supreme Court viewed the fashioning of statutory remedies as within the property judicial rule [u]nder the now-abandoned maxim that ‘a statutory right implies the existence of all necessary and appropriate remedies.'” But that view has changed, and now, “the judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed.” Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). Proceeding from that starting point, after a review of the text and structure of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, the Court agreed that the Act did not create a private right of action, and it recognized that earlier Circuit authority on the issue had been essentially overruled by the analytical framework in Sandoval. Stokes v. Southwest Airlines, No. 17-10760 (April 5, 2018).

In Stevens v. Belhaven University, the Fifth Circuit described a set of findings that justified a $500 sanctions award on a client and $100 on a lawyer (adding numbers and headings for ease of reference):

(1. Preservation letter) The court explained that counsel had received a letter demanding him to “preserve and sequester” the phone.

 

(2. Failure to preserve) The defendant “was therefore sur-prised to learn . . . that the phone had broken and was no longer in [plaintiff’s] possession [but] had been taken . . . to a local AT&T store [where] she pur-chased a new phone.”

 

(3. Lack of explanation) “In her deposition, [plaintiff] could not explain how some of the text messages were deleted from her phone before they were shared with the EEOC.”

 

(4. Actual relevance of material at issue.) “When [she] did search her iCloud, moreover―. . . she identified new, material, and important evidence.

 

(5. In addition to (3), inconsistent explanation.)  That . . . directly contradicts [her] ear-lier sworn statement that she had produced everything to [the defendant].”

No. 17-60652 (April 2, 2018, unpublished).

In In re Drummond, the Fifth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus to require a trial court ruling on two long-dormant motions. It reasoned: “‘A writ of mandamus may issue only if (1) the petitioner has “no other adequate means” to attain the desired relief; (2) the petitioner has demonstrated a right to the issuance of a writ that is “clear and indisputable;” and (3) the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, is satisfied that the writ is “appropriate under the circumstances.”‘ In this case, all three requirements are easily met. This case has been pending on the district court’s docket for over nine years. Moreover, the two motions identified in the petition have been pending for approximately four years. We recognize that this is a complex matter and district court judges have broad discretion in managing their dockets. ‘However, discretion has its limits.'” No. 17-20618 (March 23, 2018) (citations omitted). (By way of comparison, I was involved in a similar mandamus petition in the El Paso Court of Appeals, In re: Mesa Petroleum Partners, No. 08-17-00095-CV (Nov. 9, 2017)).

In 16 Front Street v. Mississippi Silicon, the Fifth Circuit addressed a fundamental issue about federal question subject matter jurisdiction, with surprisingly little guidance in the current case law. A plaintiff sued in federal court under the Clean Air Act; in response to the trial judge’s concerns  about subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff amended to add a new defendant and invoke another provision of that Act. The Fifth Circuit concluded that while this amendment could be problematic in a removed case under the “time-of-filing” rule, it did not present that problem when the case was initially filed in federal court and did not implicate the removal statute. The Court’s analysis involves two important Supreme Court – Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. 537 (1824), in which Chief Justice Marshall first stated the “time-of-filing” rule (albeit, in a diversity case), and Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (19960, a recent treatment of a “cure” of a problem with subject matter jurisdiction. No. 16-60050 (March 30, 2018).

The Fifth Circuit recently denied en banc rehearing in the high-profile qualified immunity case of Jauch v. Choctaw County, where the panel denied immunity to a sheriff who had been sued over a lengthy period of pretrial detention. From one perspective, a chart of the 9-6 vote (below) shows a vote along “party lines,” with all of the votes for rehearing coming from judges appointed by Republican presidents (including both of President Trump’s recent appointments), and with all active judges appointed by Democratic presidents voting against rehearing. From another perspective, the vote shows that the group of active judges appointed by Republican presidents is hardly a monolithic bloc, as it divided roughly in half on the vote.

Midwest Feeders, a cattle feedlot business, sued The Bank of Franklin under Mississippi law, alleging that the Bank tolerated a customer’s fraudulent activities that resulted in considerable financial harm. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the bank. Among other rulings, the Court addressed whether Mississippi law imposed  a duty to avoid negligence on a bank, as against a non-customer. Finding no guidance from that state’s supreme court, and inconclusive opinions from other Mississipi courts, the Court surveyed authority nationally and noted “the merits of [the] line of cases” that potentially allowed such liability if the bank knoows of a fiduciary relationship between the customer and the non-customer. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, however, the Court held that “we cannot use our Erie guess to impose upon Mississippi a new regime of liability for its banks.” Midwest Feeders, Inc. v. Bank of Franklin, No. 17-60092 (March 27, 2018).

In Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, the Fifth Circuit found no “causal nexus” to support removal jurisdiction under the “federal officer” statute. The plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos fibers brought home on her father’s clothing; he worked in a shipyard in the 1940s building tugs for the U.S. government. Under pre-2011 Fifth Circuit authority, that claim had a problem because the shipyard’s safety practices were not restricted by the government. The statute, however, was amended in 2011 “to allow the removal of a state suit ‘for OR RELATING TO any act under color of such [federa] office.'” Acknowledging that “significant argument,” and noting that other circuits have read the 2011 amendments to eliminate the “causal nexus” requirement, the Court affirmed remand – while plainly inviting a petition for en banc consideration of the issue.No. 17-30371 (March 16, 2018).

An unusual but intriguing coverage dispute arose after the insured’s death as a result of a bite from a mosquito infected with the dangerous West Nile virus. The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the carrier, observing in its analysis of the policy’s coverage for “accidental injury” –

• The importance of defining the specific injury – “Instead of focusing on Melton’s bite from a WNV-infected Culex mosquito, Minnesota Life argues that a mosquito bite generally is not unexpected and unforeseen in Texas. But a bite by a generic mosquito is not the accidental injury Gloria pleaded in her complaint; instead, she says it is the bite by a WNV-infected Culex mosquito that triggers coverage. Without guidance from the policy as to how broadly or narrowly an ;’accidental bodily injury’ is to be defined, we take the facts of the alleged accidental injury as
  Gloria contends.”
• And as to whether an injury as “accidental” – the Court quoted then-Judge Cardozo’s analysis from a 1925 opinion about inhalation of an airborne pathogen: “Germs may indeed be inhaled through the nose or mouth, or absorbed into the system through normal channels of entry. In such cases their inroads will seldom, if ever, be assignable to a determinate or single act, identified in space or time. For this as well as for the reason that the absorption is incidental to a bodily process both natural and normal, their action presents itself to the mind as a disease and not an accident.”
• But the Court distinguished the situation addressed by Judge Cardozo: “Here, however, there was a determinate, single act—the bite—that is not incidental to a bodily process. The mosquito, an external “physical” force, affirmatively acted to cause Melton harm and produce an unforeseen result. We find that inhaling a community-spread pathogen and being bitten by a mosquito can be thinly sliced so as to be distinguishable.”

Wells v. Minnesota Life, No. 16-20831 (March 22, 2018).

The plaintiff won a multi-million dollar lawsuit about the sale of Akaushi cattle (example, to right), a specialty breed from Japan valued for its exceptional flavor, and made difficult to acquire as a result of export restrictions on what Japan regards “as a national treasure.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed in large part, reaching these holdings of broader interest:

• The jury found that the defendant “committed fraud by misrepresenting ‘that it intended to sell to [Plaintiff] 30% of its calves and that it would comply with the restrictions in the 2010’ Full-Blood Contracts” that set a number of specification s about registration, marketing, etc. Because “Texas courts have upheld fraud claims based on representations with less specificity,” the defendant’s sufficiency challenge was rejected.
• Despite testimony about millions of dollars in potential harm, the actual judgment awarded equitable relief. Because “the district court’s equitable remedy protected [Plaintiff] from actual harm[, its] harm is limited to presumed harm, and that is insufficient under Texas law to justify an award of punitive damages” in addition to the equitable relief.
• In affirming a calculation made in connection with the equitable remedies, the Court reminded of “the purpose of the law of disgorgement[,] under which ‘a disgorgement order might be for an amount more or less than that required to make the victims whole.'”

Bear Ranch LLC v. Heartland Beef, Inc., No. 16-41261 (March 20, 2018).

The parties’ licensing agreement referred to “Iced tea, Ready-to-Drink (RTD) Teas, RTD Beverages.” One side argued that the term “Ready-to-Drink Beverages” included “all beverages that are as-is ready for consumption including energy shots and vitamin water”; the other contended that, “as tea (i.e., the main product under the Agreement) is part of a category of beverages that generally require an additional step of preparation prior to consumption, the term may only cover only the beverages within this category.” Drinking deeply from principles of contract interpretation, the Fifth Circuit found the contract ambiguous because both positions were reasonable. Turning then to the testimony of the witnesses involved in drafting the contract, the Court found undisputed testimony in favor of the narrower view, and gave no weight to testimony from witnesses who had opinions but “did not participate in the negotiations.” The Court also avoided a dispute about who drafted the term, noting that “it is not necessary to determine who the drafter was because the term is only construed against the drafter ‘[I]n case of doubt that cannot be otherwise resolved.” Chinook USA v. Duck Commander, Inc., No. 17-30596 (March 15, 2018, unpublished).

By a 2-1 opinion, in Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, the Fifth Circuit struck down the “Fiduclary Rule,” a regulation that significantly expanded regulation of investment advisors. The majority’s analysis focused primarily on the traditional definition of a “fiduciary” (a discussion of broad general interest to all business litigators), and the canon of interpretation that “provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory.” The dissent focused on how, “[o]ver the last forty years, the retirement-investment market has experienced a dramatic shift toward individually controlled retirement plans and accounts.” Notably, footnote 14 of the majority opinion observes that “the Chevron doctrine has been questioned on substantial grounds, including that it represents an abdication of the judiciary’s’ duty under Article III ‘to say what the law is,'” quoting recent opinions my Justice Thomas and then-Judge Gorsuch. No. 17-10238 (March 15, 2018).

Centerboard Securities sued Benefuel for not paying certain “success fees” on two transactions. Benefuel countered that the transactions were not “investments” within the meaning of their contract, as they included debt and equity aspects instead of solely equity. Tthe Fifth Circuit disagreed: “The term ‘investment’ is unambiguous and includes debt and equity. . . . Delaware courts have used the term ‘investment’ to refer to equity and debt.” Similarly, the phrase “current investor” in the contract could not be read to include a party’s subsidiaries or affiliates: “Delaware courts take the corporate form and corporate formalities very seriously. . . . and will disregard the corporate form only in the ‘exceptional case.'” Centerboard Securities LLC v. Benefuel Inc., No. 17-10344 (March 12, 2018) (citations omitted).

The plaintiff in Al Copeland Investments LLC v. First Specialty Ins. Corp. sued on an insurance policy about a claim for property damage to its business. It argued that this forum selection clause in the policy:

“The parties irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of New York and to the extent permitted by law the parties expressly waive all rights to challenge or otherwise limit such jurisdiction.”

was trumped by this Louisiana statute:

“No insurance contract delivered or issued . . . in [Louisiana] . . . shall contain any condition, stipulation, or agreement . . . [d]epriving the courts of [Louisiana] of the jurisdiction of action against the insurer.”

The Fifth Circuit disagreed and affirmed dismissal based on forum non conveniens: “[The statute] prohibits provisions in an insurance contract that would deprive Louisiana courts of jurisdiction. ‘A forum-selection clause is a provision . . . that mandates a particular state, county, parish, or court as the proper venue in which the parties to an action must litigate . . . .’ As the district court recognized, venue and jurisdiction are ‘separate and distinct.'” No. 17-30557 (March 9, 2018) (emphasis in original).

Because the Texas homestead exemption, like the Texas exemption for retirement accounts, applies at the time a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition is filed, the Fifth Circuit rejected a trustee’s attempt to seize the proceeds from a sale of the debtor’s home. The Court concluded that a “snapshot” approach to the exemption, as it had previously used for retirement accounts, did not let the trustee reach the proceeds, concluding: “He is trying to transform the [proceeds rule] from one that extends the homestead exemption to some situations when the home is not owned on the filing date into one that limits the homestead exemption even when the debtor owns the home on the filing date.” Lowe v. DeBerry, No. 17-50315 (March 7, 2018).

A recent opinion in a real estate foreclosure dispute summarizes the current state of the law on some key principles:

• When a national bank is sued as trustee in such a case, its citizenship contrrols the analysis of diversity, not that of the investors in the trust (applying and distinguishing Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, 136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016));
• Because “Texas follows the common-law maxim that the mortage follows the note,” the trustee was “entitled to foreclosre on the property as holder of the note even if the assignment of the Deed of Trust was void.oserves as trustee of a real estate investment trust”; and
• A fraud claim failed when the aggrieved party “did not allege that he initially intended to bid on the property before learning of a potential buyer and changed his position after speaking with U.S. Bank’s representatives.”

SGK Properties LLC v. US Bank, N.A., No. 17-20130 (Feb. 9, 2018).

The Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings in Archer & Daniels Sales v. Henry Schein Inc., a dispute about the arbitrability of a substantial antitrust case about dental equipment. The application and response are an interesting window into this seldom-seen aspect of civil practice.

In a seemingly immortal case about the failure of Enron, Plaintiffs sought to characterize several UBS business entities as one. The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument under the applicable Delaware test for a joint venture: “Plaintiffs fail to explain how the allegations identified in their brief on appeal support finding a joint venture under this test. None of the allegations allude to profit sharing, or loss sharing, right to control the purported joint venture.” (citations omitted). “Plaintiffs’ allegations—principally references to Defendants’ vague corporate platitudes about their integration as a firm—may logically support that Defendants shared a community of interest in their business activities, but this alone is insufficient to support joint venture liability.” Giancarlo v. UBS Fin. Servcs., No. 16-20663 (Feb. 26, 2018).

Castrellon sought to enforce a loan modification agreement; the defendants asserted a mutual mistake about Castrellon’s ability to sign the agreement without also obtaining the agreement of her ex-husband. Noting that she could be left empty-handed otherwise, the Fifth Circuit found a fact issue on that defense: “[T]he mere fact that the agreement may ultimately leave [her] empty-handed does not compel the conclusion that there was a mutual mistake . . . . [N]onetheless, it does support an inference that the parties mistakenly believed they could modify the loan agreement without [him] – an inference that we are required to draw at this juncture.” Castrellon v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, No. 17-40193 (Feb. 21, 2018, unpublished).

While the mortgage debtor was in default, a notice provision in the related deed of trust was an independent obligation, the breach of which could support a stand-alone action against the foreclosing party. “If performance of the terms of a deed of trust governing the parties’ rights and obligations in the event of default can always be excused by pointing to the debtor’s default under the terms off the note, the notice terms have no meaning.” That said, the Court noted that on remand, the claim would have to withstand attacks on thie measure of damage as well as causation. Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 16-20507 (Feb. 26, 2018).

Gotech, a Chinese company, “knowingly chose to ignore” a lawsuit filed against it by Nagravision in the Southern District of Texas, “and even the ensuing $100 million-plus default judgment” in favor of Nagravasion. After Nagravision began enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong, Gotech then sought relief from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). The Fifth Circuit rejected challenges based on standing, federal question jurisdiction, and service of process, finding fundamental problems with each. As for personal jurisdiction based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), which applies “where the defendant has contacts with the United States as a whole sufficient to satisfy due process concerns and the defendnat is not subject to jurisdiction in any particular state,” the Court acknowledged some disagreement about who has the burden of proof, especially in the Rule 60(b)(4) context, but found that Nagravision had met its initial burden and Gotech had not overcome it. Nagravision, S.A. v. GoTech bInt’l Tech. Ltd., No. 16-20817 (Feb. 7, 2018).

“[Kansas City] Southern [Railway] was caught between hundreds of thousands of tons of rock and a hard place.”  Problems with the construction of a new rail line in South Texas resulted in a dispute about payment for 74,260 tons of “rail ballast” – crushed stone that forms the base for the train tracks. The railway won the resulting litigation against its contractor, and the Fifth Circuit rejected several rocks thrown at the damages model, observing:

• Acknowledging that the payments made had to be reasonable, the Court reminded that “magic words” are not needed, and found that on this record: “Reasonableness can thus be demonstrated by the general market prices Southern was paying for these expenses before it had any knowledge that some excess ballast costs would be passed on to Balfour via litigation.
• Evidence of post-breach costs was appropriate, as the substantive damage calculation looks at the difference between “what Southern expected” and “the cost Southern ultimately had to pay (value received)”;
• Southern acted appropriately, and the defenses of waiver and quasi-estoppel did not apply: “It could have refused to ship additional ballast at Balfour’s request, but that would have necessitated stopping the project, finding a new contractor, and
  resuming later, all of which likely would have cost substantially more than the
  damages awarded here. Southern had a duty to mitigate as much as possible.
  It did so by allowing Balfour to finish the project and then determining the
  extent of damages.”

Concluding that the record was rock-solid, the Court affirmed. Balfour Beatty Rail v. Kansas City Southern Railway, No. 16-11645 (Feb. 15, 2018, unpublished).

“Not all errors are correctable on mandamus. This one, however is.” In the case of In re: Itron, the Fifth Circuit granted mandamus relief as to a finding of an extensive waiver of attorney-client privilege, reasoning:

• Itron showed the “inadequacy of relief by other means” as to the erroneous disclosure of privileged documents, especially since it had “exhausted every other opportunity for interlocutory review of the magistrate judge”s order compellig production”;
• Itron established a clear abuse of discretion: “[T]he magistrate judge failed to apply Mississippi”s Jackson Medical test for waiver, and misapplied even the broad, erroneous waiver test Defendants urge instead. . . . [B]oth aspects of this error are obvious and purely legal in nature.”; and
• “[C]orrecting this error is a proper exercise of our discretion,” noting “the issue’s ‘importance beyond the immediate case'” in other disputes about privilege, as “more district courts could mistakenly find waiver whenever attorney-client communications would be relevant.”

A dissent said that a clear abuse of discretion had not been established. This opinion does not reflect any sea change in the Fifth Circuit’s willingness to grant mandamus relief, but it does show that even a court reluctant to grant such relief will do so in a compelling case (indeed, the panel majority opinion is written by Judge Higginson, who dissented from the panel opinion and subsequent denial of en banc review in In re: Radmax, 720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013).

Three tugboats towed a barge; one of the tugboats served as the “lead” while the other two assisted. One of the assisting tugboats had an accident and sank. The question for the Fifth Circuit in Continental Insurance v. L&L Marine Transportation was whether the sunken boat was a “tow” of the lead boat, and thus came within the coverage of the insurance policy for the lead. (As distinct from a TOW missile, right.) Reviewing dictionaries and court precedent, the Court concluded that “tow” describes a situation where “some ship or boat is being provided extra motive power from another ship or boat by being pushed or pulled,” which was not the case here. The Court rejected an argument based on the maritime “dominant mind” doctrine – a concept derived from the duty of a lead boat in a flotilla to navigate resonably – as bearing only on potential tort liability and not the issue of interpreting the terms of this insurance policy. No. 17-30424 (Feb. 15, 2018).

O’Donnell v. Harris County substantially affirmed the district court’s handling of a major civil rights case about Harris County’s pretrial bail system. The key liability holding is of general interest as an important application of equal protection; the key remedy holding is of broader application to any equitable remedy involving a process rather than a substantive result.

As to liability, the Court held: “[T]he essence of the district court’s equal protection analysis can be boiled down to the following: take two misdemeanor arrestees who are identical in every way—same charge, same criminal backgrounds, same circumstances, etc.—except that one is wealthy and one is indigent. Applying the County’s current custom and practice, with their lack of individualized assessment and mechanical application of the secured bail schedule, both arrestees would almost certainly receive identical secured bail amounts. One arrestee is able to post bond, and the other is not. As a result, the wealthy arrestee is less likely to plead guilty, more likely to receive a shorter sentence or be acquitted, and less likely to bear the social costs of incarceration. The poor arrestee, by contrast, must bear the brunt of all of these, simply because he has less money than his wealthy counterpart. The district court held that this state of affairs violates the equal protection clause, and we agree.” 

And as to remedy: “There is a significant mismatch between the district court’s procedure-focused legal analysis and the sweeping injunction it implemented. The fundamental source of constitutional deficiency in the due process and equal protection analyses is the same: the County’s mechanical application of the secured bail schedule without regard for the individual arrestee’s personal circumstances. Thus, the equitable remedy necessary to cure the constitutional infirmities arising under both clauses is the same: the County must implement the constitutionally-necessary procedures to engage in a caseby-case evaluation of a given arrestee’s circumstances, taking into account the various factors required by Texas state law (only one of which is ability to pay). These procedures are: notice, an opportunity to be heard and submit evidence within 48 hours of arrest, and a reasoned decision by an impartial decisionmaker. That is not what the preliminary injunction does, however. Rather, it amounts to the outright elimination of secured bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees.”

No. 17-2033 (Feb. 14, 2018).

The issue in Fort Worth 4th Street Partners LP v. Chesapeake Energy Corp. was whether a payment provision in a “Surface Use Agreement,” signed at the same time as a mineral lease, created an obligation that ran with the land. On the element of whether the covenant “touched and concerned” the property, the Fifth Circuit observed that the benefit of the provision “is not merely the right to receive payment but also how the method of calculating this payment preserves the land’s value to its owner. By basing the payment due on the square footage occupied by the lessee, the terms of the provision operate to incentivize the lessee to use, and consequently, damage, as little of the surface land as possible. Critically, structuring the payment in this way does not merely compensate FWP for any such damage; it impacts how the lessee will
use the land, thereby preserving its value to its owner.” No. 17-10040 (Feb. 15, 2018).

Celebrate with a true New Orleans muffuletta.