Plaintiffs sued under ERISA about the handling of company stock in RadioShack employees’ 401K plans. The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal. As to the claims based on ERISA’s duty of prudence, the Court reminded: “Dudenoeffer establishes that for publicly-traded stocks, ‘allegations that a fiduciary should have recognized from publicly available information alone that the market was over- or undervaluing the stock are implausible as a general rule, at least in the absence of special circumstances.'” Here: “Plaintiffs argue that Dudenhoeffer addressses only allegations that public information showed that a stock was overvalued, not claims that the stock was excessively risky. This distinction between claims that stock is overvalued and claims that stock is excessively risky is ‘illusory.’ In an efficient market, market price accounts for risk. Plan fiduciaries cannot be expected to outperform the market or predict future stock performance using publicly available information.” Singh v. RadioShack Corp., 882 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2018) (applying Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014)).

Sangha, the “master in command” of a merchant vessel, sued Navi8 Shipmanagement, his former employer, in Texas. To support personal jurisdiction, he cited a number of communications with him in Texas. Citing Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014), the Fifth Circuit found those contacts inadequate: “Even though Navig8’s email communications happened to affect Cpt. Sangha while he was at the Port of Houston, this single effect is not enough to confer specific jurisdiction over Navig8.” And the Court found that “Cpt. Sangha’s reliance on the ‘effects’ test of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), is unavailing” — “The proper question is not whether Cpt. Sangha experienced an innjury of effect in a particular location, but whether Navig8’s conduct connects it to the forum in a meaningful way.” Sangha v. Navig8 Shipmanagement, No. 17-20093 (Feb. 5, 2018).

Trois owned a gun collection and contracted with Apple Tree, an auction center based in Ohio. The auction did not go as well as Trois hoped, and he sued in Texas for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. The Fifth Circuit found no personal jurisdiction over the contract claim: “The only alleged Texas contacts related to contract formation or breach are Schnaidt [Apple Tree’s principal]’s . . . conference calls negotiating the agreement while Trois was in Texas.” But as to fraud: “Although Schnaidt did not initiate the conference call to Trois in Texas, Schnaidt was not a passive participant on the call. Instead, he was the key negotiating party who made representations regarding his business in a call to Texas.” Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Center, Inc., No. 16-51414 (Feb. 5, 2018). The Court went on to find venue was also proper in Texas over the tort claim.

Deutsch, who relies upon a wheelchair for mobility, contended that the parking lot of a local business did not comply with the ADA, and sought injunctive relief against the business. The trial court dismissed for lack of Article III standing and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. “Deutsch hoas not provided a description of any concrete plans to return to Travis County Shoe, and he also has not shown how the alleged ADA violations negatively affect his day-to-day life. Deutsch . . . had not been to Travis County Shoe before the day he alleges he encountered the ADA violations . . . [and] that he had not returned to the business since that day.” Deutsch v. Travis County Shoe Hospital, No. 16-51431 (Feb. 2, 2018, unpublished).

The uncommon animal of an “absurd result” was not only sighted, but used as the basis for reversing summary judgment, in Star Financial Services v. Cardtronics USA, a dispute about the obligation to update account information associated with an ATM network. The Court reasoned: “R]eading the Contract to not impose an obligation upon Cardtronics to use correct account information after receiving updated Terminal Set-Up Forms leads to the absurd consequence that Star Financial can never make effective changes to a Terminal Set-Up Form despite an explicit provision to the contrary. Cardtronic’s obligation to deploy account information in an updated Terminal Set-Up Form is implicit in the contractual process for updating a Terminal Set-Up Form.” No. 17-30258 (Feb. 2, 2018).

In United States v. Ganji, the Fifth Circuit reversed criminal convictions for conspiracy to commit health care fraud, noting (among other problems) these weaknesses in the government’s proof – weaknesses that could also appear in suits alleging civil conspiracies:

• Witness perspective. “The Government’s dependence on these witnesses is almost as peculiar as the scheme’s discovery. Notably, these individuals worked in the Hammond area, while Dr. Ganji and Davis worked sixty miles away in the New Orleans area. . . . Unlike other salient cases involving conspiracy to commit health care fraud, here the Government presented eighteen witnesses, none of whom could provide direct evidence of their alleged co-conspirator’s actions because the witnesses never acted with the defendants to commit the specific charged conduct.”
• Inference from job responsibilities. “The Government’s attempt to ascribe Davis with knowledge and agreement because of her position in the company falls far short of the necessary requirement for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. One cannot negligently enter into a conspiracy.”
• Plausible alternative explanations. “Finally, the Government points to the nefarious Ponchatoula meeting. It argues that Davis would not have otherwise asked Dr. Murray to meet her to sign documents that included certification forms had she not agreed to participate in a conspiracy to defraud Medicare. Again, here the direct evidence is not on the Government’s side. . . . [T]he record illustrates a different, reasonable explanation for the meeting.”

No. 16-31119-CR (Jan. 30, 2018).

The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources complained that it was not able to call live witnesses at an arbitration with FEMA, conducted under federal regulations by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. Agreeing that the regulations allowed oral presentation of evidence, but also noting the fulsome written submission received without objection, the Fifth Circuit observed: “Vacatur . . . is warranted when the panel refuses to hear material, not just any, evidence; similarly, there is no indication oral presentation ‘might have altered the outcome of the arbitration.'” Louisiana Dep’t of Natural Resources v. FEMA, No. 17-30140 (Jan. 29, 2018, unpublished) (emphasis added).

The problem in LeJeune v. JFK Capital Holdings LLC was the following: “Two approaches for determining the appropriate ‘commission’ for Chapter 7 trustees have emerged in recent years. Under the first approach, some courts hold that Section 326(a) is not simply a maximum but also a presumptively reasonable fixed commission rate to be reduced only in rare instances.Other courts hold that the presumptively reasonable approach is nonetheless subject to adjustment in ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ Some courts similarly presume that the Section 326(a) percentages are reasonable, but perform a more in-depth review of the trustee’s services to ensure the presumption is justified.'” (citations omitted). After reviewing the applicable statutes, the Fifth Circuit aligned itself with the first approach and the analysis of Mohns, Inc. v. Lanser, 522 B.R. 594, 601 (E.D. Wis.), aff’d sub nom. In re Wilson, 796 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2015). No. 16-31151-CV (Jan. 26, 2018).

Plan your next New Orleans trip with the 2018 Mardi Gras parade schedule!

A textbook example of a deposition admission appears in Peters v. Jazz Casino Co.:

Peters also asserts that the hose was obstructing the walkway, which constituted an unreasonable defect. However, his testimony at the deposition does not support the assertion that the hose obstructed the walkway. In fact, when asked if he had any recollection of the red hose obstructing someone walking on the sidewalk, he responded: “I don’t recall that.” Thus, there is insufficient evidence to create a fact issue as to whether the hose obstructed the walkway.

No. 17-20625 (Jan. 22, 2018, unpublished).

A threshold issue in Hacienda Records LP v. Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc. was whether a ruling about appellants’ standing, in another related action, was entitled to collateral estoppel effect. At the time of the district court’s decision, the other court’s ruling was not final for appeallate purposes. Finding that all elements but one were clearly established, and that the policies behind preclusion doctrines would be well-served by applying collateral estoppel here, the Fifth Circuit noted that with one notable exception, “our court has consistently followed the strict approach to finality, linking the availability of appeal for the prior decision with finality for collateral-estoppel purposes.” The Court then declined to address that issue, accepting and agreeing wiht the district court’s conclusion that “although . . . ‘the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply here,’ ‘the court nonetheless agree[s] with the reasoning and conclusions reached” by the other court. No. 16-41180 (Jan. 4, 2018).

Calderone alleged that he was terminated, in retaliation for reporting a car dealership’s alleged refusal to finance cars for racial minorities, in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.  Unfortunately for Calderone, no matter how reasonable his belief may have been, car dealers are exempt from the CFPA by its plain terms, as other agencies have regulatory authority in that sector of the economy. “Under the CFPA, a plainitff may have a reasonable, but mistaken, belief of fact or law that a statute has been violated. But the CFPA does not permit a plaintiff’s reasonable beliefs to expand the CFPB’s jurisdiction.” Calderon v. Sonic Houston JLR, L.P., No. 17-20029 (Jan. 9, 2018).

“[A]lthough a loan provides money to the borrower that can be used for temporary economic gain, it is offset by a future obligation to repay. As there is no overall
improvement in the borrower’s economic situation, there is no gain to be taxed. This contrasts with the taxable treatment of embezzled or misappropriated
funds. A leading tax treatise calls this the ‘theft-loan dichotomy’ that James [v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961)]s] ‘no consensual recognition of an obligation to repay’ requirement seeks to enforce.” (other citations omitted). Accordingly: “‘A mutual understanding that Sun would ‘return some money to Mr. Cheung at some point’ is thus not enough to constitute the bona fide loan that would allow Sun to avoid reporting as income the millions he used to gamble, to bolster the financial condition of his
company, and to produce investment returns that he retained and commingled
with his other funds.” Sun v. Commissioner, No. 16-60270 (Jan. 18, 2018).

The White House has announced President Trump’s intent to nominate Judge Edward Prado as Ambassador to Argentina, after thirty-five years of dedicated service in the federal judiciary. This appointment means that President Trump will name six judges to the Fifth Circuit – Judges Willett and Ho have taken office, two nominations are currently pending, and Judge Prado’s departure will mean two open seats.

Ramos contended that the trial court should not have excluded some of his testimony under the “sham-affidavit rule,” observing that his declaration was given before his deposition. The Fifth Circuit disagreed: “It is the competency, rather than timing, of evidence with which the sham-affidavit rule is concerned.” And it agreed with the district court that the testimony was in fact inconsistent, noting as an example that “Ramos the declarant stated Hacienda ‘never paid him any monies or royalties,’ but Ramos the deponent admitted he couldn’t remember whether he had been paid. Memories, of course, may fade over time; but, that is a far cry from Ramos,at his deposition, being unable to recall many of the events he had stated as fact in his declaration, just four days prior.” Hacienda Records LP v. Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc., No. 16-41190 (Jan. 4, 2018).

Plaintiffs, represented by the same counsel, sought to consolidate two actions in state court; the defendant removed under CAFA’s “mass action” provision. A Fifth Circuit panel majority affirmed the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to remand, rejecting arguments about timeliness, retroactivity, and CAFA’s text. The majority reasoned that “it is the mass action, not claims against particular defendants, that is removable,” and that the plaintiff’s motion satisfied the CAFA requirement of “100 or more persons . . . proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact.” A dissent would remand based on CAFA’s “not-retroactivity” language, as one of the state cases was filed before CAFA took effect. Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 14-31383 (Jan. 9, 2018).

U.S. Energy Devel. Corp. v. CL III Funding Holding Co. applied the attorneys’ fees provision of the form Joint Operating Agreement in Texas, which says: “Costs and Attorneys’ Fees: In the event any party is required to bring legal proceedings to enforce any financial obligation of a party hereunder, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover all court costs, costs of collection, and a reasonable attorney’s fee, which the lien provided for herein shall also secure.” The Fifth Circuit concluded that none of the four legal actions involved in the fee request involved a “financial obligation” within the meaning of the provision. No. 17-50217 (Jan. 10, 2018, unpublished).

While both sides made cogent policy arguments, plain meaning triumphed in Morgan v. Huntington Ingalls, and the Fifth Circuit held that the thirty-day removal deadline begins to run from receipt of a deposition transcript that may create a basis for removal, rather than the oral testimony itself.  “[P]aper” is defined as “[a] written or printed document or instrument.” “[R]eceipt” is defined as the “[a]ct of receiving; also, the fact of receiving or being received; that which is received.” “Copy” is defined as “[t]he transcript or double of an original writing.” “‘Ascertain’ means ‘to make certain, exact, or precise’ or ‘to find out or learn with certainty.’” No. 17-30523 (Jan. 11, 2018).

As a further reminder that “standing,” in all of the forms that idea takes, is a complicated set of doctrines, the Fifth Circuit held in Nevarez Law Firm v. Dona Ana Title Co.: “The district court relief on Rule 12(b)(1) when it dismissed Nevarez’s [RICO and state tort] claims with prejudice after concluding that there was no standing. That was error. ‘A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits.’ We agree with an earlier opinion of this court that ‘to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1) is to disclaim jurisdiction and then exercise it.'” No. 17-50053 (Jan. 3, 2018, unpublished) (citations omitted).

A unanimous en banc opinion simplified the Fifth Circuit’s test for “whether a contract for performance of specialty services to facilitate the drilling or production of oil or gas on navigable waters is maritime.” The Court now asks: “First, is the contract one to provide services to facilitate the drilling or production of oil and gas on navigable waters? . . . Second, if the answer to the above question is ‘yes,’ does the contract provide or do the parties expect that a vessel will play a substantial role in the completion of the contract?” Larry Doiron, Inc. v. Jackson , No. 16-30217 (revised Jan. 11, 2018).

The question in Peake v. Ayobami was whether a bankruptcy debtor, who asserts a 100% exemption as to a particular estate asset, is asserting that exemption as to the asset itself or its value. The practical consequence is whether “claiming a 100% interest in an asset as exempt allows the debtor to ‘walk away’ with the asset itself and potentially benefit from any post-petition appreciation of it.” The Fifth Circuit gave a limited answer, noting that the statute allows the debtor to claim “a 100% interest in an asset,” and also noting Supreme Court precedent that expressed skepticism about whether a debtor could use this ability to get clear title to a valuable asset, but not providing an ultimate answer to the question. Ni. 16-20589 (Jan. 3, 2018).

Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations by distributors of dental equipment; seeking damages and injunctive relief. The defendants sought to compel arbitration, based on this arbitration clause in a relevant contract:

Disputes. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property of Pelton & Crane), shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association [(AAA)]. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The issue was whether arbitrability was for the courts to decide or the arbitrator. The Fifth Circuit applied “the two-step inquiry adoped in Douglas v. Regions Bank[, 757 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2014),] under which the first question is whether the parties “clearly and unmistakably” intended to delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Finding that “the interaction between the AAA Rules and the [injunctive relief] carve-out is at best ambiguous,” the Court chose not to resolve that issue, concluding that the second Douglas question was dispositive. That question asks whether the “assertion of arbitrability is wholly groundless,” which the Court found to be the case:

The arbitration clause creates a carve-out for ‘actions seeking injunctive relief.’ It does not limit the exclusion to ‘actions seeking only injunctive relief,’ nor ‘actions for injunction in aid of an arbitrator’s award.’ Nor does it limit itself to only claims for injunctive relief. . . . The mere fact that the arbitration clause allows Archer to avoid arbitration by adding a claim for injunctive relief does not change the clause’s plain meaning.

Archer & White Sales v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 16-41674  (Dec. 21, 2017) (emphasis added).

A Chapter 7 debtor was denied a discharge for fraud claims arising from statements about a business’s financial condition, based on secion 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting his argument that the statements were not sufficiently detailed: “As we noted in In re: Bandi[, 863 F.3d 671, 674 (5th Cir. 2012))], a statement respecting financial condition ‘need not carry the formality of a balance sheet, income statement, statement of changes in financial position, or income and debt statement.’ The information regarding ‘overall net worth or overall income flow’ contained within such a statement – not the formality of the statement – is what is important.”  Haler v. Boyington Capital Group, LLC, No. 17-40229 (Dec. 29, 2017, unpublished).

Cox v. Provident Life involved a dispute about the cause of the plaintiff’s knee problems: “Under the policies, Cox is entitled to receive disability benefits for life if, and only if, his disability resulted from injury rather sickness.” The record showed that:

Shelton, the treating physician, gave deposition testimony that, ‘to a reasonable degree of medical probability,’ ‘the trauma to [Cox’s] left knee when he fell in the hole on December 26, 2010, caused or contributed to the cause of his disability.’ In the same deposition, Shelton reaffirmed that ‘[e]ven though [Cox] may have had some pre-existing arthritis or chondromalacia,’ the injury ‘contributed to and caused part of [Cox’s] disability.’ The district court never grappled with these unequivocal
statements, instead embracing contrary evidence presented by Provident suggesting Cox’s injury did not accelerate his arthritis. That was error. This is a classic ‘battle of the experts,’ the winner of which must be decided by a jury.

No. 16-60831 (revised Jan. 2, 2018).

Sidestepping the question whether International Shoe overruled the century-old case of Penn. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining, 243 U.S. 93 (1917), the Fifth Circuit held that registering to do business in Louisiana did not automatically consent to personal jurisdiction there:

Nowhere in Pennsylvania Fire did the Court hold that registering to do business in a state or appointing an agent for service of process acts as consent to any suit of any kind in that state. Instead, it merely concluded that defendants had consented to service of process in Missouri, resting largely on the fact that the state court had construed the Missouri statute to require such consent to suit for the service at issue. This case lacks what Pennsylvania Fire had: a clear statement from the state court construing the statute to require consent. Gulf Coast does not identify any statute or agreement that requires foreign entities to expressly consent to any suit in Louisiana.

Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Co v. Designed Conveyor Systems LLC, No. 17-30062 (Dec. 22, 2017, unpublished) (citations omitted).

Solomon brought a False Claims Act case allleging improper billing on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Project. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his claim under the “public disclosure bar,” examining three disclosures under this test: “We are not concerned . . . with the overall probability of someone inferring fraudulent activity from the public disclosures. The focus is on whether they could have made the inference.” Solomon v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 17-10046 (Dec. 19, 2017).

A longshoreman died after stepping through a hole on an oil platform. The district court granted summary judgment, finding no fact issue about the “open and obvious” nature of the hole – a necessary element for recovery under the LHWCA. The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding conflicting testimony on the issue, and commenting on pictures of the scene (right): “True, the pictures taken directly over the hole, as one might expect, depict a visible opening. But the pictures taken from an angle–similar to the point of view of a person approaching the hole–depict the way in which the platform’s grating, in [a witness’s] words, can ‘play tricks on your eyes’ and make the opening difficult to see.”  The Court reminded that even though the case would be tried to the bench: “Judicial efficiency is a noble goal, to be sure. But when an evidentiary record contains a material factual dispute (as this one does), we simply cannot bypass the role of the fact-finder, whoever that may be.” Manson Gulf LLC v. Modern American Recycling Service, Inc., No. 17-30007 (Dec. 18, 2017).

In Howard v. Maxum Indemnity Co., “Howard’s appeal raises as a central, threshold question whether he waived application of Oklahoma law” in an insurance dispute. Unfortunately, “[a]lthough Howard did raise the choice of law issue in his Rule 59(e) motion, ‘this court will typically not consider an issue or a new arugment raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration in the district court.’ . . . ‘Parties generally are bound by the theory of law they argue in the district court, absent some manifest injustice.'” No. 16-11746 (Dec. 13, 2017).

In this not-unusual situation, the Fifth Circuit found that a removal based on diversity was timely: In response to special exceptions, [the Strongs] filed an amended petition stating the maximum amount of damages in controversy by specifying that the Strongs sought “monetary relief of $100,000 or less.” Cf. Tex.  R. Civ. P. 169 (requiring the “$100,000 or less” language to allow for expedited actions). The Strongs also sought injunctive relief ordering both a loan modification to prevent further TDCA violation and “the arrearage . . . to be deleted and/or capitalized . . . so that the loan is brought current.” Green Tree did not remove to federal district court until after it received a response to its request for disclosure in which the Strongs explicitly indicated that they were seeking damages in excess of $75,000.” The Court rejected the Strong’s argument that the petition implictly placed the entire property value at issue. Strong v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, No. 16-11346 (Dec. 11, 2017) (unpublished).

The Senate has now also confirmed Jim Ho to the Fifth Circuit.

The Senate has confirmed Justice Don Willett‘s nomination to the Fifth Circuit.

“Upset that a coworker had been fired, Thomas[, a network adminstrator,] embarked on a weekend campaign of electronic sabotage.” He was successfully prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which criminalizes conduct that “knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer.” Thomas, citing his network administration responsibilities, argued that “because he was authorized to damage the computer when engaging in [certain] routine tasks, any damage he caused while an employee was not ‘without authorization.’” The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, noting – in addition to obvious practical issues – that the case law Thomas relied on about “authorization” involved liability under other CFAA provisions about computer access, rather than this provision about causing damage. This case is of general interest to civil litigation, both because CFAA violations can create civil liability, and because unfortunate admissions can have significant consequences:

Just a couple weeks after the damage spree, and before the FBI had contacted Thomas, he told the friend whose firing had set this in motion that “he thought he might have broken the law.” Which law, the friend inquired? Thomas’s response: “the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.”

United States v. Thomas, No. 16-41264 (Dec. 11, 2017).

Griffith sued his former employer under state law, referring in the pleading to a charge he filed with the EEOC and its issuance of a right-to-sue notice. Alcon removed based on federal question jurisdiction; the district court accepted the removal and granted summary judgment to the employer. The Fifth Circuit reversed: “Although Griffith indeed referenced his dealings with the EEOC in his complaint, he did not mention Title VII or any similar federal statute. As such, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiciton and was not entitled to render judgment in Alcon’s favor.” Griffith v. Alcon Research, No. 17-20290 (Dec. 6, 2017, unpublished).

DRI’s 2018 Appellate Advocacy Seminar will be held at the Planet Hollywood Resort in Las Vegas from March 14-15, 2018.  This year’s seminar will include valuable insights into effective advocacy (including tips from Bryan Garner), and joint sessions with trial court practitioners.  The seminar promises great networking opportunities with judges, appellate practitioners and trial advocates from across the country. This year’s seminar will be held in conjunction with the Trial Tactics Seminar, and anyone attending the appellate seminar can attend the final day of the Trial Tactics Seminar for no cost. The seminar also coincides with the beginning of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, a great time to enjoy the excitement of Las Vegas. You can register for the Appellate Seminar here.  Save $100 and get the best hotel rates when you register and book by February 13, 2018.

Johnson v. Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc. reminds of a technical but important point about the review of remand orders under CAFA in the Fifth Circuit: “Facing our CAFA deadline, we continue to apply [prior preceden’s] suggestion that our jurisdiction to review a CAFA remand order stops at the edge of the CAFA portion of the order,” and does not extend to “every issue decided in the remand order, including federal question jurisdiction.” No. 17-30768 (Nov. 30, 2017).

A premature notice of appeal is certainly better than nothing, but may not be enough, as the Fifth Circuit noted in Johnson v. Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc.: “Before we address Johnson’s contentions on appeal, we note that Johnson’s notice of appeal from the summary judgment dismissing the claims against some, but not all, of the defendants, was premature. Nevertheless, because the district court could have certified that the summary judgment was appealable, and it subsequently entered a final judgment, the notice of appeal gives us appellate jurisdiction over the summary judgment.  However, because Johnson did not file a notice of appeal from the final judgment, which dismissed his remaining claims against REMNI/Homebridge, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the dismissal of his claims against REMNI/Homebridge.” No. 17-20347 (Dec. 1, 2017, unpublished).

In City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, the Fifth Circuit reversed an $84 million judgment for several cities, against online hotel reservation services, relating to the collection of local occupancy taxes. The holding turned entirely on the force of an intermediate Texas appellate opinon under the Erie doctrine. In its reasoning, the Fifth Circuit rejected a number of arguments against following that opinion, including: (1) the scope of the record before the courts; (2) the analytical framework used by the Texas court; and (3) the precise language of the relevant ordinance. The Court was satisfied with the general principles relied upon by the Texas opinion, as well as its resolution of “absurd result” arguments made in both cases. No. 16-50479 (Nov. 29, 2017). The Dallas Morning News has a good summary of the issues and history of this long-running litigation.

It’s that time of year again. The polls are open until the end of November to vote for next year’s listings of Texas SuperLawyers; online voting can be done at the SuperLawyers website, here.

Melton v. Phillips, No. 15-10604 (Nov. 13, 2017), a difficult qualified immunity case that required en banc review to resolve, features a concurrence with the unusual verb “cross-pollinated” to describe a confluence of two lines of authority. That perspective on the development of common law recalls the concept of “vegetation” in early scientific thought, used to describe vigorous and lively growth not just in plant life, but throughout nature. Indeed, no less than Isaac Newton wrote a paper about “Chymystry” titled “On Nature’s Obvious Laws and Processes in Vegetation”:

In an insurance coverage dispute, the district court granted both sides’ motions for summary judgment as to the meaning of various policy terms. The net result was final judgment for the insurance company. The insured appealed; the insurer cross-appealed, and on that procedural point, the Fifth Circuit held that the cross-appeal was unnecessary, noting:

• “National Union is conflating the district court’s opinion (i.e., the order) with its judgment. Appellate courts review judgments, not opinions. . . . To the extent that the district court rejected the arguments in National Union’s cross-appeal, ‘an appellee may urge any ground available in support of a judgment even if that ground was . . . rejected by the trial court.'” (citations omitted);
• The recent case of ART Midwest v. Atlantic Limited Partnership XII,742 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2014), in which a party was not allowed to raise certain issues after not taking a cross-appeal, was distinguishable because judgment had actually been entered against that party on those issues. “Here,there is no adverse judgment against National Union, such that it might need to protect its rights—just some adverse reasoning”; and
• “This is not just formalism. ‘A cross-appeal filed for the sole purpose of advancing additional arguments in support of a judgment is “worse than unnecessary”, because it disrupts the briefing schedule, increases the number (and usually the length) of briefs, and tends to confuse the issues.’ . . . In this case, National Union’s improper cross-appeal resulted in an over-length opposition brief and an additional reply (giving National Union over four thousand words of additional briefing).” (citations omitted)

Cooper Indus. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 16-20539 (revised Dec. 11, 2017).

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a JNOV motion on damages, under Texas law, when the plaintiff proved gross profits rather than net profits. “Its expert witness testified that he used ThermoTek’s gross profit margin—gross sales, less the cost of those goods sold, divided by gross sales—to calculate lost profits. He then stated that he reached his lost-profit totals for the VascuTherm units and wraps by (1) multiplying the average sales ThermoTek made to Wilford each month by the unit sales price and relevant time period, and (2) deducting the cost of the goods sold. But that is the very definition of gross profits. See Black’s Law Dictionary, supra (defining gross profits as “[t]otal sales revenue less the cost of the goods sold, no adjustment being made for additional expenses and taxes”). Motion Medical Technologies v. Thermotek, No. 16-11381 (Nov. 14, 2017).

“We have twice held that Texas’s unfair competition-by-misappropriation tort does not afford protection qualitatively different from federal copyright law. We do so again here.” Motion Medical Technologies v. Thermotek, No. 16-11381 (Nov. 14, 2017) (citing Ultraflo Corp. v. Pelican Tank Parts, Inc., 945 F.3d 652, 657-59 (5th Cir. 2017) and Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 166 F.3d 772, 787-89 (5th Cir. 1999)).

The Fifth Circuit recently “walked back” its May opinion in EEOC v. BDO USA, which identified three problems with a privilege log. A revised opinion removed that discussion, in favor of a shorter, more general observation about there being “no presumption that a company’s communications with counsel are privileged.” The new opinion observed: “Given the ‘broad’ and ‘considerable discretion’ district courts have in discovery matters, we will not analyze the privilege logs in the first instance.” EEOC v. BDO USA, No. 16-20314 (revised Nov. 16, 2017).

Yes, according to Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services LLC:

Although many style guides, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, and news sources, such as the Associated Press, no longer instruct writers to capitalize “Internet,” we decline to follow this trend. For many, such as the New York Times, the reason for the change to “internet” is simple: others were doing it, so they thought they should, too.  “Internet,” however, was originally capitalized to distinguish the global network from other internets—short for “inter networks”—which are collections of smaller networks that communicate using the same protocols.  In our view, this still makes the word a proper noun, regardless of how often people refer to other internets. Furthermore, to the extent “decapitalizing [I]nternet is part of a universal linguistic tendency to reduce the amount of effort required to produce and process commonly-used words,” we reject the tasks of striking an additional key or reading over a capital “I” as persuasive reasons to alter a word.

No. 16-31227 n.12 (Nov. 13, 2017) (citations omitted).

Two basic reminders about evidence appear in Eaton-Stephens v. Grapevine Colleyville ISD, an employment dispute involving a school counselor:

1. “Eaton-Stephens also argues she should have received a spoliation inference because her computer’s contents were erased, and that, because the School District’s policy and rules required retention of the contents for several years, the only conclusion was that the action was taken in bad faith. Our cases indicate a violation of a rule or regulation pertaining to document retention is not per se bad faith and Eaton-Stephens cites no authority in support of such a per se bad faith rule.”
2. “We agree that the district court unduly discredited some of Eaton-Stephens’s deposition testimony as conclusory. ‘A party’s own testimony is often “self-serving,” but we do not exclude it as incompetent for that reason alone.’ Even if self-serving, a party’s own affidavit containing factual assertions based on firsthand knowledge is competent summary judgment evidence sufficient to create a fact issue.”

No. 16-11611 (Nov. 13, 2017, unpublished).

It’s that time of year again. The polls are open until the end of November to vote for next year’s listings of Texas SuperLawyers; online voting can be done at the SuperLawyers website, here.

PlainsCapital asserted federal jurisdiction over a collection action on two large notes, contending that it would have to establish holder in due course status under federal law to recover (the notes came to PlainsCapital via assignment from the FDIC after a bank failure). The Fifth Circuit disagreed, reversing the district court’s summary judgment for the bank. As to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Court observed: “PlainsCapital conflates the terms ‘holder’ and ‘holder in due course.’ A ‘holder is ‘the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession. By contrast, a party’s status as a holder ‘in due course’ merely ‘determines the applicable defenses which a defendant . . . ‘ may assert.” PlainsCapital Bank v. Rogers, No. 16-41654 (Oct. 25, 2017).

The statutory interpretation question in United States v. American Commercial Lines was the meaning of the phrase “in connection with.” The Fifth Circuit began with the plain meaning of the word “connection,” which it called “a capacious term, encompassing things that are logically or causally related or simply ‘bound up’ with one another.” Going on to review precedent and the purpose of the statute at hand, the Coourt concluded that “[i]t is, however, not so capacious as to be rendered meaningless. Conduct does not automatically occur ‘in connection with’ a contractual relationship by the mere fact that such a relationship exists.  No. 16-31550 (Nov. 7, 2017) (citation omitted).

A rare Robert Heinlein citation appeared this week in United States v. Gibson: “The trouble with conspiracies is that they rot internally.” The Moon is a Harsh Mistress 76 (1966).

Griffin v. Hess Corp. involved a summary judgment for the defense on the statute of limitations, based on deposition admissions about the plaintiffs’ knowledge of relevant facts. Their testimony differed in response to the summary judgment motion, and the Fifth Circuit agreed that the different testimony did not raise a sufficient issue of fact: “Appellants’ explanation—that the deposition testimony was only meant to speak of what they knew in the present tense and not to their knowledge prior to the actual filing of the complaint—does not remedy or sufficiently explain the contradiction in light of the repeated questions about the particular date certain events took place concerning their royalty claims accruing from the Property. The deposition questions, as Appellees counsel repeatedly indicated and Appellants affirmed, related to the Property and royalties accruing from the production of oil on the Property.” No. 17-30165 (Nov. 3, 2017, unpublished).