Problems in the construction of the Zapata County courthouse (right) led to litigation between S&P (the general contractor), and its subcontractors, as well as between S&P and its insurer. The insurer and S&P disputed S&P’s allocation of the proceeds from settlements with the subcontractors, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the insurer: “S&P bears the burden to show that the subcontractor settlement proceeds were properly allocated to either covered or noncovered damages. If S&P cannot meet that burden, under the [two controlling cases], then we must assume that all of the settlement proceeds went first to satisfy the covered damages under U.S. Fire’s policy.” Satterfield & Pontikes Constr. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., No. 17-20513 (Aug. 2, 2018).

The district court dismissed fraud claims against an accounting firm for not complying with a Louisiana pre-suit review requirement. The Fifth Circuit affirmed but remanded for clarification as to whether the dismissal was with, or without, prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 generally assumes that silence means “with prejudice,” but the Supreme Court has recognized that that rule’s exception for “jurisdiction” goes so far as “encompassing those dismissals which are based on a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a precondition requisite to the Court’s going forward to determine the merits of his substantive claim.”
Firefighters’ Retirement System v. EisenerAmper LLP, No. 17-30273 (Aug. 2, 2018).

“Aetna’s reliance on any alleged misrepresentation by NCMC was not justifiable. Almost immediately after NCMC notified Aetna of its prompt pay discount, Aetna began investigating. Its investigation revealed NCMC’s billing practices. Yet Aetna continued to pay claims marked with the prompt pay discount moniker.” In support, the Fifth Circuit cited the recent and influential case of JPMorgan Chase v. Orca Assets,  546 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. 2018), and “promoted” the unpublished case of Highland Crusader Offshore Partners v. LifeCare Holdings, 377 F. App’x 422 (5th Cir. 2010), observing: “The panel recognizes that Highland Crusader is unpublished, and therefore not precedential, but we cite it here to show consistency throughout our case law.” North Cypress Medical Center v. Aetna, No. 16-20674 (July 31, 2018).

John Williams was seriously injured in a crane accident; a jury found that the crane manufacturer “failed to warn Model 16000 Series crane operators that, if the crane tips over, large weights stacked on the rear of the crane can slide forward and strike the operator’s cab.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed that multi-million dollar verdict, finding that the jury acted within its authority as to (1) liability for failure to warn, (2) proximate cause and alleged misuse by Williams, (3) proximate cause and an alleged alternative warning (left), (4) a Daubert challenge to the plaintiff’s expert on warnings (applying Roman v. Western Manufacturing, 691 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2012), and Huss v. Gayden, 571 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2009) – two powerful statements by the Court about admissible expert analysis), and (5) admissibility rulings about other accidents and the plaintiff’s prior conduct. The opinion provides a powerful illustration of a well-conducted trial by jury. Williamv v. Manitowoc Cranes LLC, No. 17-60458 (Aug. 3, 2018).

Villareal sought to redeem five certificates of deposit purchased in the early 1980s. His primary legal theory, apparently selected to avoid problems with suing on the instruments themselves, was the quasi-contractual / restitution theory recognized in Texas law for “money had and received.” That theory ordinarily does not apply when an express contract (here, the CDs) addresses the subject. To escape that limitation, Villareal relied on Texas authority under which “an overpayment beyond what a contract provides may sometimes be recovered as unjust enrichment. If an overpayment qualifies as unjust enrichment, reasoned the district court, so should an underpayment.” (citation omitted, emphasis in original). The Fifth Circuit disagreed: “Overpayment typically falls outside a contract’s terms and, in that event, the contract would not ‘cover[] the subject matter of the parties’ dispute.’ By contrast, here the dispute involved the claimed non-payment of a debt evidenced by express contracts (the CDs). Unjust enrichment has no role to play.” (citation omitted, emphasis in original). Villareal v. Presidio Nat’l Bank (revised), No. 17-50765 (July 27, 2018, unpublished). (Picture above of Professor Samuel Williston eyeing some of his extensive work on express contracts).

After trial of a Lanham Act claim involving the right to use the term “Cowboy” in advertising bourbon, the jury found abandonment of the plaintiff’s alleged mark, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. “As the district court observed, the jury fairly rejected the testimony of Allied’s founder, Marci Palatella, and Allied’s price lists as evidence of intent to resume use. . . .  Garrison Brothers presented evidence undermining Palatella’s contention that Allied specializes in old, rare, and expensive whiskeys; disputing Palatella’s reliance on a bourbon shortage as a reason for Allied’s failure to sell ‘COWBOY LITTLE BARREL’ bourbon after 2009; and highlighting Palatella’s inconsistent testimony concerning Allied’s price lists.” Allied Lomar, Inc. v. Lone Star Distillery LLC,  No. 17-50148 (July 17, 2018, unpublished).

In addition to inspiring 600Camp’s most painful pun of 2018, Ditech Financial LLC v. Naumann provides a thorough summary of the requirement – unique to default judgments, among all judgments available under the Federal Rules –  that  the relief awarded “must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” As applied here, “Ditech’s demand for judicial foreclosure gave meaningful notice that, in the event of default, a writ of possession would issue in favor of the foreclosure-sale purchaser. Texas’s process of enforcing a judicial foreclosure—and specifically its mechanism for enforcing the foreclosure sale— entails issuance of the writ. Accordingly, in this case the judgment’s provision for future issuance of the writ did not expand or alter the kind or amount of relief prayed for by Ditech.” No. 17-50616 (July 19, 2018, unpublished).

An element of judicial estoppel is that “a court accepted the prior position” that is inconsistent with a party’s position in the case at hand. In Fornesa v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co., a bankruptcy debtor’s failure to amend his financial schedules satisfied that requirement, as “the bankruptcy court . . . implicitly accepted the representation by operating as though [Debtor’s] financial status were unchanged. ‘Had the court been aware . . . it may well have altered the plan.'” No. 17-20324 (July 27, 2018).

The issue in Kirchner v. Deutsche Bank was whether a spouse’s signature on a deed of trust – but not the loan instrument – satisfied the Texas Constitution’s requirements about home equity loans. The Fifth Circuit found the issue was squarely addressed by a prior unpublished opinion, which it called “persuasive,” and affirmed – this time, in a published opinion. The broader principle is that unpublished opinions can work their way into published “status” when the issues they address are recurring ones. No. 17-50736 (July 11, 2018).

A practical tidbit about whether a notice of appeal is “jurisdictional” appeared during the last SCOTUS term in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services: “Several Courts of Appeals, including the Court of Appeals in Hamer’s case, have tripped over our statement in Bowles [v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 210–213 (2007)], that “the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’ The ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ formulation is a characterization left over from days when we were ‘less than meticulous’ in our use of the term ‘jurisdictional.’ The statement was correct as applied in Bowles because, as the Court there explained, the time prescription at issue in Bowles was imposed by Congress. But ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ is erroneous and confounding terminology where, as here, the relevant time prescription is absent from the U.S. Code. Because Rule 4(a)(5)(C), not § 2107, limits the length of the extension granted here, the time prescription is not jurisdictional.” No. 16-658 (Nov. 18, 2017) (citations and footnote omitted).

Rehearing motions led to a revised panel opinion and an en banc vote in Mance v. Sessions, a Constitutional challenge to restrictions on handgun sales by an authorized federally-licensed firearm dealer, to a purchaser who lives in a different state from the dealer. The revised opinion affirming the restrictions stood, with the Court voting 9-7 against rehearing en banc. Two of the three dissents from the vote were written by recent nominees of President Trump, with all of his nominees joining the vote in favor of review. Notably, this vote reflects two vacancies at the time it was conducted (one of which has since been filled with the confirmation of Judge Oldham, and other to be filled when a nomination is made to replace Judge Jolly of Mississippi). Assuming the two nominees would join the other new judges in their view of this case, their addition would be outcome-determinative as to its en banc review.

The Senate has now confirmed Andrew Oldham of Texas as the newest judge on the Fifth Circuit. Congratulations and every best wish to Judge Oldham.

A difficult question of administrative law produced a divided panel in Collins v. Mnuchin. The panel majority concluded that the Federal Housing Finance Agency (a regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created by Congress in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis) was unconstitutionally structured. After careful review of the Supreme Court’s precedents in the area, the panel excised a “for cause” limitation on the removal of FHFA’s director from the relevant statute, finding  that with this revision “the FHFA survives as a properly supervised executive agency.” One dissent took issue with that holding; another dissent criticized the majority’s conclusion that the specific FHFA action at issue – a “net worth sweep” requiring payment of substantial quarterly dividends to the Treasury by Fannie and Freddie – was within the scope of FHFA’s statutory authority and thus insulated from judicial review. No. 17-20364 (July 16, 2018).

A succinct case study in bankruptcy standing appears in Furlough v. Cage: “Furlough’s primary contention is that, but for NOV’s proof of claim, Technicool’s assets would exceed its debt, and he would be entitled to any estate surplus. Because SBPC represents both NOV and the Trustee, Furlough argues, it might fail to disclose any problems with NOV’s claim, robbing him of the possibility of recovering a surplus. This speculative prospect of harm is far from a direct, adverse, pecuniary hit. Furlough must clear a higher standing hurdle: The order must burden his pocket before he burdens a docket.” No. 17-20603 (July 16, 2018) (emphasis added).

An emotionally-charged lawsuit about the disposal of embryonic and fetal tissue led to an unfortunately-timed subpoena (during Holy Week) to the Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops, which in turn led to emergency appellate proceedings. The Fifth Circuit’s panel majority found the order was appealable as an interlocutory order notwithstanding Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), noting the importance of the First Amendment issues involved and that “Mohawk does not speak to the predicament of third parties, whose claims to reasonable protection from the courts have often been met with respect.” A dissenting opinion would not have accepted the interlocutory appeal, noting that mandamus was also available (although requiring a “clear and indisputable” right rather than simply a substantial question), and observing that the movants’ “failure to object to the in camera inspection [at issue] certainly forfeits an appellate challenge to it, and the affirmative act of producing the documents likely amounts to full-scale waiver.” Whole Woman’s Health v. Smith, No. 18-50484 (revised July 17, 2018).

Fisk Electric, a subcontractor, sued the general contractor and its surety under the Miller Act, a “federal statute that requires general contractors to secure payment to subcontractors on most federal construction projects.” Fisk claimed it was The dispute involved the inducement into of a settlement agreement; the specific issue on appeal was “whether the party alleging fraud must engage in active investigation to satisfy the standard of justifiable reliance.” In something of a counterpoint to recent Texas cases such as JP Morgan Chase v. Orca Assets, No. 15-0712 (Tex. March 23, 2018), the Court concluded that it was not, and Fisk was entitled to rely on the general contractor’s representations in these particular negotiations. Fisk Elec. Co. v. DQSI LLC, No. 17-30091 (June 29, 2018).

In-N-Out attempted to keep its employees from wearing buttons in support of the”Fight for $15″ minimum wage campaign (right, approximately actual size). The NLRB found this was an unfair labor practice and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Presumptively unreasonable under federal labor law, In-N-Out argued that the ban fell within a “special circumstances” exception for reasons of the company’s public image and food safety. Both arguments failed, in large part because the company required the wearing of significantly larger buttons during the Christmas season and a charitable fund drive each April. In-N-Out-Burger v. NLRB, No. 17-60241 (July 6, 2018).

In-N-Out-Burger v. NLRB

The plaintiffs in Firefighters’ Retirement System v. Grant Thornton LLP alleged that Grant Thornton waived its right to insist on presuit review of the claims by a review panel, as ordinarily required by Louisiana law. The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, finding:

• Judicial estoppel did not apply to an allegedly inconsistent litigation position by Grant Thornton when the district court did not accept it (notably, stating the elements of the doctrine in a way that does not require the statement to have been made in a different proceeding), and
• Grant Thornton did not waive this requirement, distinguishing (and criticizing) a Louisiana appellate opinion on the issue, and noting that the litigation had been stayed for a lengthy period such that GT had not yet even filed an answer.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims because of preemption. No. 17-30274 (July 3, 2018).

Applying Singh v. RadioShack Corp., 882 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2018), which in turn relied upon Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), the Fifth Circuit rejected a duty-of-prudence claim against an ERISA fiduciary based on the defendants allowing investments to continue a troubled company’s stock. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants “knew that it was inappropriate to rely on the market price of Idearc stock because their own fraudulent activities had caused the public markets to overvalue Idearc stock.” The Court did not agree: “[T]he alleged fraud is by definition not public information, and [Plaintiff] does not address how this information would affect the reliability of the market price ‘as an unbiased assessment of the security’s value in light of all public information.'” No. 16-11590 (June 27, 2018).

Courtesy of the Huffington Post, here are seven good trivia questions about the Declaration of Independence to enjoy on your July 4 holiday.

The judgment creditor in Century Surety Co. v. Seidel, a case involving sexual assault on an underage restaurant employee, tried valiantly to collect from the restaurant’s insurance carrier. The Fifth Circuit found that the policy’s “criminal acts” exclusion precluded coverage, despite the plaintiff not specifically pleading that the underlying acts were criminal: “Appellants have cited no case law stating that, to trigger a criminal act exclusion, the plaintiff in the underlying suit must, in addition to describing actions that necessarily imply a crime, also specifically label those actions as criminal. Such a rule is incongruous with the plain language of the Policy and would create an artifice in criminal-act exclusions.” No. 17-10026 (June 25, 2018).

A pro se complaint in a mortgage servicing dispute stated a federal claim, and thus allowed removal, when “[I]n the ‘Facts’ section . . . [Plaintiffs’] wrote: ’17. In April, 2009 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION claimed to be the new mortgage servicer and payments were to be made to them. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION was not an “original party” to the “original negotiable instrument” which the “borrowers” negotiated. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION was a 3rd party debt collector, pretending to be the Lender. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION failed to adhere to the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, as all 3rd party debt collectors are required to do.'”  The Fifth Circuit observed: “[P]laintiffs may state a claim for relief by pleading facts that support the claim. The Smiths did just that—and cited the legal theory underlying their claim. The Smiths’ explicit reference to the ‘Fair Debt Collection Practice[s] Act’ (and its position in the U.S. Code), coupled with a description of conduct that could subject the Defendants to liability under the Act, solidifies our conclusion” about federal question jurisdiction. Smith v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel LLP, No. 16-51010  (June 12, 2018, unpublished).

Various ripeness challenges to claims based on the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments were rejected in the face of these remarkably strong facts: “Without prior notice, the City of New Orleans demolished a building along the IH-10 service road that plaintiffs had recently purchased at a tax sale. Yet two days before the demolition, the City actually cancelled the Code Enforcement lien on the property, which it obtained after sending notices only to the owner from 18 years earlier. When the Garretts objected to the demolition, the City added insult to injury by sending them a bill for the costs.”  Archbold-Garrett v. City of New Orleans, No. 17-30692 (June 22, 2018).

I think the server for this blog is located in Texas, but it could just as easily be on the South Pole – I have no control over (or interest in) how HostGator organizes its business. In the same spirit, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a personal jurisdiction dismissal in a trademark dispute between “greatfence.com” and “agreatfence.com“: “We need not decide today whether a web server’s location alone never suffices to establish personal jurisdiction. We simply hold that it cannot do so here, where there is no allegation, argument, or evidence that the defendants played any role in selecting the server’s location—or that its location was selected with the purpose or intent of facilitating the defendants’ business in the forum.” GreatFence.com v. Bailey, No. 17-20487 (June 13, 2018, unpublished) (emphasis in original).

The “equal inference” rule has played an important role in Texas law about sufficiency of the evidence, especially after the memorable hypothetical in City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 814 (Tex. 2005): “Thus, for example, one might infer from cart tracks in spilled macaroni salad that it had been on the floor a long time, but one might also infer the opposite—that a sloppy shopper recently did both.” But that rule did not control in a slip-and-fall case involving the residue from an “autoscrubber” (right). The Fifth Circuit reasoned: “[Plaintiff’s] position is that the [security] video and Wal-Mart policies together suggest that (a) Wal-Mart used the machine to place slippery liquid on the floor, (b) the liquid was likely to collect in low-lying areas, (c) the machine paused over a low-lying area, (d) no Wal-Mart personnel checked for or took the requisite steps to remove it, and (e) [Plaintiff] slipped just where the machine had paused. This plausibly suggests the spill came from the auto-scrubber.” Garcia v. Wal-Mart, No. 17-20429 (June 18, 2018).

The Fifth Circuit issued a rare reversal in favor of an ERISA beneficiary in White v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. The issue was whether an “intoxication” exclusion applied; a doctor consulted by the plan administrator in its decision about benefits opined: “Since the only blood test done was an alcohol [test] that was negative and no blood tested for the presence of drugs, an estimation of Mr. White’s level of impairment cannot be done. The drugs present in his urine only show that he had prior exposure and cannot be used to estimate a level of impairment. Further, the drug screen that was done on Mr. White’s urine specimen only provided qualitative positive results.” The Court concluded that even though the insurer’s denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence, its failure to expressly consider this report in its analysis (or to produce the report to the beneficiary’s estate until litigation) showed that its inherent conflict of interest had predominated and invalidated its denial. No. 17-30367 (revised June 14, 2018).

I am speaking this week at the 28th Annual Conference on State and Federal Appeals sponsored by the University of Texas School of Law; my topic is a “Fifth Circuit Update” and this is my PowerPoint.

Illustrating the sort of highly specific, but highly practical, issues that arise under Twombly, the Fifth Circuit held that “plaintiffs alleging claims under [ERISA] § 1132(a)(1)(B) for plan benefits need not necessarily identify the specific language of every plan provision at issue to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (applying Electrostim Medical Services, Inc. v. Health Care Service Corp., 614 F. App’x 731 (5th Cir. 2015)). It was important to this holding that the plaintiff “was unable to obtain plan documents even after good-faith efforts to do so,” and the insurers “did not produce most of the relevant plan documents until the deadline to re-plead had passed . . . .” Innova Hospital v. Blue Cross, No. 14-11300 (June 12, 2018).

Huckaba signed an arbitration agreement with her employer, Ref-Chem – but Ref-Chem did not sign the agreement. The agreement had signature blocks for both parties, referred to the “signature affixed hereto” and the legal effect of “signing this agreement,” and also said that it “may not be changed, except in writing and signed by all parties.” The Fifth Circuit concluded that the agreement was not enforceable, focusing on the distinction between acceptance of the offer, and the separate requirement of “execution and delivery of the contract with intent that it be mutual and binding.” Huckaba v. Ref-Chem, L.P., No. 17-50341 (June 11, 2018).

The insured’s commercial property insurance policy provided coverage from June 2, 2012 to June 2, 2013. “The summary judgment evidence reveals that several hail storms struck the vicinity of the hotel in the several years preceding [the insured’s] claim. Only one of these storms fell within the coverage period.” The Fifth Circuit found that the insured failed to establish coverage, even with an expert’s opinion that said a date within the period was “most likely,” when that opinion was later disclaimed and “conflicts with the data it purports to rely on.” Certain Underwriters v. Lowen Valley View LLC, No. 17-10914 (June 6, 2018).

A lease dispute turned on the agreement’s effective date. The lease was found ambiguous on that point (and the subsequent trial result based on parol evidence affirmed), when it said:

• On the last page – “IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Lease as of the day and year first written above.”
• And on the first page – “This Ground Lease (“Lease”), dated for reference purposes as ________, 2014, is made and executed by and between Malik and Sons, LLC (“Landlord”), and CIRCLE K STORES INC., a Texas corporation (“Tenant”).”

The Fifth Circuit concluded “Circle K offers a plausible interpretation, but Malik offers an alternative, credible interpretation to Circle K’s proposed interpretation. It seems equally—if not more likely—that the ‘day and year first written above’ is referencing a date the parties should have written on the last page. Therefore, although the last page references an execution date ‘written above,’ there is no date on that page. The only other date in the document is labeled as ‘for reference purposes.’ Even though Circle K is correct that parties ‘are free to specify the date of a contract’s execution,’ the issue here is whether they did.” Malik & Sons v. Circle K Stores, No. 17-30113 (May 15, 2018, unpublished).

“Litigation about litigation,” usually in the form of a federal suit to enjoin or otherwise overcome a state-court case, can involve complicated federalism concepts such as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or Younger abstention. The Fifth Circuit reiterated an even more basic principle in Machetta v. Moren, in which an unhappy party to a state court child custody case sought to assert civil rights claims against the judges: “The district court [correctly] dismissed the case because no case or controversy exists between ‘a judge who adjudicates claims under a statute and a litigant who attacks the constitutionality of the statute.'” No. 17-20533 (June 4, 2018, unpublished).

A useful reminder about contract litigation appears in a recent insurance coverage dispute: “Neither party argues that the Hartford policy is ambiguous. Rather, the parties dispute whether the policy unambiguously provides coverage—Axis’s contention—or unambiguously excludes coverage—Hartford’s contention.” Bennett v. Hartford Ins. Co., No. 17-30311 (May 18, 2018) (emphasis in original).

A vigorously-litigated line of Texas authority, often in the context of employment relationships defined by multiple documents, addresses whether an arbitration agreement is an illusory promise and thus unenforceable. In Arnold v. Homeaway, Inc. the Fifth Circuit addressed whether such a challenge went to “validity” (and could thus be resolved by an arbitrator under a “gateway” arbitration provision), or to “formation,” and could not. Drawing an analogy to Mississippi’s “minutes role” about the required documentation for contracts with public entities, the Court concluded that the challenge went to validity. Nos. 17-50088 and 17-50102 (May 15, 2018).

Flooded landowners in Houston alleged, inter alia, a violation of substantive due process from the effects of a “Reinvestment Zone” on drainage. Among other problems, that claim foundered on its merits under “rational basis” review: “Here, the government objectives were to improve its tax base and the general welfare. As stated by the plaintiffs in the complaint, the government projects enhanced roads and drainage, though in commercial areas in which the plaintiffs did not desire these improvements. The plaintiffs have also acknowledged in the complaint that ‘[t]he tax base has increased far above projections.’ It is ‘at least debatable’ that a rational relationship exists between the government projects and objectives.” Residents Against Flooding v. Reinvestment Zone No. 17, No. 17-20373 (May 22, 2018, unpublished).

“Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor. Under these circumstances, the issue of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition is left to state law.” Accordingly, when (a) the debtor is a Delaware corporation, (b) governed by that state’s General Corporation Law, and (c) nothing in that law would nullify the sole preferred shareholder’s right to vote against the bankruptcy petition, that shareholder has the right to vote against – and thus prevent – the corporation’s filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition. Franchise Services. v. U.S. Trustee, No. 18-60093 (May 22, 2018).

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).