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.

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).