In reaching an important holding about the scope of “federal officer” removal, as applied to “critical infrastructure” businesses operating during the pandemic:

In this case, we must decide whether Tyson Foods, Inc. was “acting under” direction from the federal government when it chose to keep its poultry processing plants open during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Tyson argues that it was, and that the district courts erred in remanding these cases back to state court. But the record simply does not bear out Tyson’s theory. Tyson received, at most, strong encouragement from the federal government. But Tyson was never told that it must keep its facilities open. Try as it might, Tyson cannot transmogrify suggestion and concern into direction and control.

(emphasis in original), the Fifth Circuit provided some interesting history about that important statute:

Congress enacted the first “federal officer removal statute” during the War of 1812 to protect U.S. customs officials. New England states were generally opposed to the war, and shipowners from the region took to suing federal agents charged with enforcing the trade embargo against England. Congress responded by giving customs officials the right to remove state-court actions brought against them to federal court. Since that time Congress has given the right of removal to more and more federal officers. Today all federal officers as well as “any person acting under that officer” are eligible.

(footnotes omitted). Glenn v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-40622 (July 7, 2022).

A recent Texas Monthly article offers a detailed analysis of the Fifth Circuit and its recent opinions.

On a Texas tort-law question about liability for a brake failure, the Fifth Circuit reasoned:

We do not think this question is close enough to warrant certification to the Supreme Court of Texas. See McMillan v. Amazon.com, 983 F.3d 194, 202 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting that certification is usually reserved for close questions of state law with “scant on-point precedent”). Certification is appropriate when “consequential state-law ground is to be plowed” and “any Erie guess would involve more divining than discerning.” Id. Our guess today is a safer bet. The Guijarros have not identified a single case cabining Armstrong to the realm of products liability. See Troice v. Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., 921 F.3d 501, 504–05 (5th Cir. 2019) (declining to certify because multiple intermediate courts had adopted one view of the issue, and the plaintiff had not identified any contrary authority). Nor does such a distinction make sense. Add to the one-sidedness of this issue that neither party requested certification.

       We conclude that Texas law requires plaintiffs alleging a brake defect to put forth “competent expert testimony and objective proof” that the defect caused their injuries.

Guijarro v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., No. 21-40512 (July 5, 2022).

“A bench ruling can be effective without a written order and does trigger appeal deadlines if it is final—which this ruling was. While Guerra is right that the district court’s bench ruling did not comply with [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 58’s ‘separate document’ requirement, that neither prevented him from appealing nor gave him infinite time to appeal.” Ueckert v. Guerra, No. 22-40263 (June 27, 2022).

The Fifth Circuit has set for rehearing en banc:

• Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden (the “federal employee vaccine” case, in which a panel reversed an injunction against a Presidential executive order about COVID-19 vaccination); and
• Cargill v. Garland (the “bump stock” case, in which a panel rejected a challenge to ATF’s regulation that treats a bump stock as a “machine gun” under the relevant firearms statute)

Ardoin v. Robinson, in which the Fifth Circuit denied a stay in a case about a new Louisiana congressional district, was stayed by the Supreme Court, which also granted the cert petition and held the matter held in abeyance pending a ruling in another case.

As Dickens famously wrote in Bleak House: “Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. … Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it.”

So to, the affirmative-action litigation about admissions policy at the University of Texas at Austin, where the Fifth Circuit held, inter alia, that an organization called “Students for Fair Admissions” was not barred by claim preclusion from bringing suit when (1) its principals were involved in earlier litigation, but did not control the new entity and had sued before in different capacities, and (2) the facts about UT’s policies and the makeup of its student body had materially changed since the earlier litigation. Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, No. 21-50715 (June 20, 2022).

Have the pre-Roe statutes (right) come back to life by operation of law? I give a high-level summary here.

Robinson v. Ardoin addressed whether to stay a preliminary injunction in a highly technical Voting Rights Act case about Louisiana’s congressional districts. The Court’s analysis of timeliness is of general interest in preliminary injunction practice involving similar situations (a board election or vote, etc.), even though some of the policy interests involved are unique to elections for public office. The key facts were:

• The primary election at issue was five months away; the deadline for a candidate to qualify for that election by paying a fee was approximately a month away, which was the path chosen by most candidates;
• While “multiple mailings could confuse some voters,” there was “[m]ore than enough time … for the state to assuage any uncertainty,” especially when no one had yet cast a ballot; and
• While “administrative burdens” related to equipment maintenance and voter-roll review were legitimate concerns, evidence showed that the state had significant administrative experience in adjusting to changes in the time, place, and manner of elections.

No. 22-30333 (June 12, 2022).

The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to remand when:

1. The defendant’s claimed amount in controversy did not tie to the plaintiff’s specific claim. “Deutsche Bank failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy was over $75,000. Deutsche Bank submitted evidence of the Property’s value [$427,662], which obviously exceeded the jurisdictional threshold. But Deutsche Bank failed to show that the automatic stay at issue here put the house’s value in controversy.”
2. The plaintiff stipulated it sought no more than $74,500. Citing a statement in the plaintiff’s pleading and an near-identical one in a later declaration, the Court said: “The best reading of these two statements is that Durbois is seeking–and will accept–no more than $74,500.” It continued: “Deutsche Bank claims these statements are insufficient. We don’t see why. Durbois used two forms of the word ‘stipulation’ and even bolded it once. A reasonable reader would understand that Durbois was limiting not only what he demanded but what he would accept from the suit. Perhaps Deutsche Bank thinks Durbois “should have used CAPITAL LETTERS …. [o]r maybe … should have added: ‘And [I] really mean it!!!’” But we don’t think such measures are necessary.” (The opinion did not address the potential role of semaphore signals in providing emphasis.)

Durbois v. Deutsche Bank, No. 20-11082 (June 16, 2022) (emphasis added, citation omitted)). The opinion thoroughly reviews the case law on these basic issues, and the “CAPITAL LETTERS” point may prove meme-worthy in the months ahead.

The Fifth Circuit found that the natural-disaster exception to the WARN Act did not apply to COVID-19, reasoning:

The natural-disaster exception provides that “[n]o notice under this chapter shall be required if the plant closing or mass layoff is due to any form of natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, or the drought currently ravaging the farmlands of the United States.” Congress’s use of the term “such as” “indicat[es] that there are includable other matters of the same kind which are not specifically enumerated by the standard.”  By providing three examples after “such as,” Congress indicated that the phrase, “natural disaster” includes events of the same kind as floods, earthquakes, and droughts.

Easom v. U.S. Well Servcs., No. 21-20202 (June 15, 2022). The Court went on to discuss specific canons of interpretation relevant to this observation.

CitiMortgage complained that a borrower made his mortgage payments late under a Trial Period Plan, and was thus ineligible for a loan modification. The borrower countered that he satisfied the TPP’s grace period for payments and the Fifth Circuit agreed: “[T]he TPP establishes a grace period. It accepts payment so long as it is made ‘in the month in which it is due.’ Neither the TPP nor the parties use the term ‘grace period’ to describe this language. But that is plainly what the text contemplates. And no one disputes that Burbridge’s payments comply with the governing grace periods.” Burbridge v. Citi Mortgage, No. 21-40309 (June 16, 2022).

Overruling almost 30-year-old precedent from the Fifth Circuit, a 5-4 Supreme Court ruled for a Texas Indian tribe and its plans to operate bingo facilities. Ysleta del  Sur Pueblo v. Texas, No. 20-493 (U.S. June 15, 2022). The El Paso Matters website has a good summary of the case and the parties’ views of the opinion.

In his 19th round of judicial nominations, announced yesterday, President Biden has nominated U.S. Magistrate Judge Dana Douglas of New Orleans to the Fifth Circuit. The White House website provides a short biographical sketch:

From first-year Torts comes XL Insurance Am., Inc. v. Turn Servcs., LLC, with a discussion of the economic loss rule and the physical injury exception to it.

• The en banc Fifth Circuit held in Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V TESTBANK, 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985): “Denying recovery for pure economic losses is a pragmatic limitation on the doctrine of foreseeability, a limitation we find to be both workable and useful.”
• But only a few months later, the Fifth Circuit held that “owners of cargo aboard a ship involved in a collision could recover their economic losses, despite their cargo’s being undamaged,” noting that given “a risk-shifting provision in the cargo-owners’ agreement with the ship owner, there was no risk of ‘double recovery, much less runaway recovery.'” Amoco Transp. Co. v. S/S Mason Lykes, 768 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1985).

XL Insurance fell on the Amoco side of the line as to $1.254 million in repair costs after an allision. No. 21-30520 (June 10, 2022).

Our firm again achieved Chambers & Partners Band One status this year for commercial litigation in the D/FW area; my partner Mike Lynn and I wrote the lead article introducing this year’s rankings and talking about our area’s strong economy and legal market.

Certain app developers had a sufficient interest to intervene in an FLSA case against Anadarko when: “The plaintiffs … represented in their contracts with the Intervenors that they were ‘independent professionals’—somewhat in tension with the plaintiffs’ current litigation position that they were really Anadarko’s employees. More importantly, the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate ‘every claim, controversy, allegation, or dispute arising out of or relating in any way to’ not only their relationship with the Intervenors, but also their resulting work placements with Anadarko.” Field v. Anadarko Petroleum, No. 22-20054 (June 7, 2022).

“Where, as here, a rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with a rule 12(b)(6) motion courts must consider the jurisdictional challenge first. The district court did so here, correctly finding jurisdiction lacking. But the district court then dismissed the action with prejudice, which our caselaw prohibits.” Williams v. Am. Commercial Lines, No. 21-30609 (May 24, 2022) (unpublished).

The Fifth Circuit recently put in place some new local rules about disclosure statements and certificates of service.

While the district court and the Fifth Circuit largely saw eye-to-eye on the contract in Otteman v. Knights of Columbus (a dispute between the Catholic lay organization and an affiliated insurance salesman), they differed on one provision related to the handling of “high-value prospects”:

The parties differ in their understanding of this conduct. Ottemann’s interpretation of this provision, as alleged in his complaint, is that “[S]ection[] 4 of the [GA] Agreement … stated that Plaintiff was an independent contractor that was ‘free to exercise independent judgment as to eligible persons from who applications for insurance will be solicited’ and have ‘freedom of action.’”

The Order responds that the GA contract explicitly stated that Ottemann had no “authority to bind the Order to issue any insurance policy,” and that it was no breach to tell Ottemann not “to waste his (and the Order’s) time and resources soliciting that person.” The Order also argues there would be no damages to sustain a claim because, even if Ottemann was allowed to solicit Lombardi, the Order contractually reserved rights to refuse the issuance of policies.

We hold that Ottemann’s claim as to Section 4 is plausible at the motion to dismiss stage. Although there is nothing particularly surprising about the Order’s interest in diverting high-value prospects into a special sales program, the contract states that the rules and procedures set up by the Order “shall not be construed as interfering with the freedom of action of the General Agent.” The contract does not demarcate the boundary between Ottemann’s freedom of action as a GA and the scope of the Order’s ability to dictate “rules and procedures” that would divert otherwise available insurance prospects from his territory.

No. 21-30138 (June 2, 2022) (additional spacing added).

Perhaps you have been wondering: “Did Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), implicitly overrule Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688 (5th Cir. 1986), and thereby limit the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in the Fifth Circuit?”

If so, you need fret no longer. While the Rooker-Feldman doctrine continues to “generally preclude[] lower federal courts ‘from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments,” we now know with certainty, from Miller v. Dunn, that “Rooker-Feldman is inapplicable where a state appeal is pending when the federal suit is filing.” No. 20-11054 (June 2, 2022).

A thicket of issues surrounding an attempted prosecution of Netflix led to an unsuccessful mandamus petition by the prosecutor; among other holdings, the Fifth Circuit said: “We have not been shown any example of an effort by this circuit to consider the approach of the three circuits identified by the district court. Such caselaw from other circuits is not dispositive on whether there is a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to a writ of mandamus. Regardless of the precise reasoning that justifies a federal court to require discovery of state grand jury proceedings, we conclude that Babin has not demonstrated entitlement to mandamus relief under this theory.” No. 22-40306 (May 25, 2022).

At issue in Stewart v. Entergy Corp. was whether BP v. Mayor of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021), allowed the review of non-CAFA grounds for removal, in the context of an appeal of a remand order taken pursuant to CAFA. The Fifth Circuit, acknowledging contrary authority from other Circuits, held that it did not, noting that unlike the statute at issue in BP, CAFA requires expedited appeals and thus establishes a unique, CAFA-specific system for review of rulings related to it. No. 22-30177 (May 27, 2022).

By a close vote, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s order that stayed the trial court’s preliminary injunction in the Netchoice litigation about Texas’s social-media statute.

A contract involving the acquisition of delinquent debt was not unenforceable for lack of a specific price term in Capio Funding LLC v. Rural/Metro Operating Co., LLC, reversing a district-court ruling to the contrary:

The crucial question is whether the term “additional Accounts” rendered the Forward Flow Amendment unenforceable. AMR urges a Shakespearean take—claiming it was but an indefinite promise to the ear, broken only to Capio’s hope.  Capio counters that “additional Accounts” governed all accounts that met the agreed-upon standards. Capio carries the day for two reasons. First, read in context, the term “additional Accounts” has enforceable meaning. Taken together, the plain meaning of the word “additional,” the contract’s clear architecture, and various settled principles of interpretation reveal that “additional Accounts” refers to all qualifying accounts that accrue quarterly.

No. 20-11218 (May 18, 2022). (The Shakespearean reference is to Act V, Scene 8 of Macbeth, when Macbeth reacts in horror to MacDuff explaining that he was not “of woman born”).

You may enjoy my latest (and short!) podcast episode, Originalism and its Discontents, which compares:

•  the Fifth Circuit’s May 2022 opinion in Jarkesy v. SEC, which held that the Seventh Amendment’s right to civil jury trial extends to an SEC enforcement action (although the SEC did not exist in 1791), and
• the draft Supreme Court majority opinion in Dobbs (which held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect an abortion right in 1868, although the vast majority of women could neither vote nor own property at that time).

The episode concludes that historical analogies, made in the name of “originalism,” may not be a faithful application of that technique for constitutional reasoning, when the historical context differs substantially from our own.

Overstreet v. Allstate, an insurance-coverage case about hail damage, presented an unsettled issue under Texas’ “concurrent causation” doctrine. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit hailed the Texas Supreme Court for assistance, certifying the issue to it for review (a topic where the Fifth Circuit had previously certified the same topic, only for the parties to settle). No. 21-10462 (May 19, 2022). (As is customary for such requests, the Court disclaimed any intention to hale the Texas Supreme Court toward any particular result.)

Important arbitration-waiver case today from SCOTUS:

“Most Courts of Appeals have answered that question by applying a rule of waiver specific to the arbitration context. Usually, a federal court deciding whether a litigant has waived a right does not ask if its actions caused harm. But when the right concerns arbitration, courts have held, a finding of harm is essential: A party can waive its arbitration right by litigating only when its conduct has prejudiced the other side. That special rule, the courts say, derives from the FAA’s ‘policy favoring arbitration.’  We granted certiorari to decide whether the FAA authorizes federal courts to create such an arbitration-specific procedural rule. We hold it does not.”

Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21-328 (May 23, 2022).

If Woodrow Wilson and James Landis seem alarmed in the picture to the right, it may be that they had a premonition about the Fifth Circuit’s 2021-22 skepticism toward the structure of the SEC. Following a 2021 loss in Cochran v. SEC on a procedural issue about constitutional challenges to the work of the SEC’s Administrative Law Judges (featuring a blistering critique of the administrative state in a concurrence by Judge Oldham, and as to which the Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari), the Court again reached constitutional issues in Jarksey v. SEC, holding:

“(1) the SEC’s in-house adjudication of Petitioners’ case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial; (2) Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise the delegated power, in violation of Article I’s vesting of “all” legislative power in Congress; and (3) statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs violate the Take Care Clause of Article II [of the Constitution].”

Judge Elrod wrote the panel majority opinion, joined by Judge Oldham. Judge Davis dissented as to each holding. These holdings have obvious significance to other administrative agencies and could well again draw Supreme Court attention. No. 20-61007 (May 18, 2022).

The unsuccessful parties in the NetChoice v. Paxton litigation have asked the Supreme Court, through Circuit Justice Alito, for an emergency stay. A response is due May 18.

“Springboards to Education” returned to the Fifth Circuit with another unsuccessful trademark-infringement lawsuit against a school district: “One decisive fact remains all the same: sophisticated school-district customers can tell the difference between goods Springboards is selling them and goods and slogans [the [Pharr-San Juan-Alamo  is Independent School District] is not.” (footnote omitted). A 2019 case involving Springboards provides a useful explanation of the different policy interests advanced by different bodies of intellectual-property law.

Badgerow v. Walters recently returned to the Fifth Circuit after the Supreme Court’s clarification that a “‘look-through’ approach to determining federal jurisdiction does not apply to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA.” No. 19-30766 (May 11, 2022).

A Fifth Circuit motions panel granted Texas’ request to stay a preliminary injunction against that state’s law about content moderation by major social media platforms; commentators suggest that a rapid Supreme Court appeal will now occur. (The asterisk below indicates that the ruling was not unanimous. No opinion has issued yet; argument was just conducted on May 9th.)

Two new Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure have been finalized and transmitted to Congress, they clarify earlier rule 25 about privacy protection, and 42 about voluntary dismissal.

Here is the PowerPoint from my presentation for the Dallas Bar Association today. And if you prefer it as a .pdf, here it is in that format.

In In re A&D Interests, a FLSA “collective action” involving exotic dancers, the panel majority and a dissent differed over whether the district court’s handling of a notice issue entitled the defendant to mandamus relief. The majority (“Judge Curiam,” speaking on behalf of Judges Smith and Willett) saw “clear and indisputable” error in the district court’s application of recent Circuit precedent, while the dissent (Judge Higginson) did not, citing previous actions in the case by the Court. No. 22-40039-CV (May 3, 2022).

The civil codes of Louisiana and Ecuador share a common lineage in the Napoleonic Code, which came in handy in Guerrero v. Occidental Petroleum–a dispute over a provision in Ecuadorian law that affected how hundreds of millions of dollars would be allocated in a litigation settlement. No. 20-20633 (May 5, 2022).

Johnson v. Huffington Post held, as to a libel claim, that Fifth Circuit precedent compelled dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction: “HuffPost is interactive, but its story about Johnson has no ties to Texas. The story does not mention Texas. It recounts a meeting that took place outside Texas, and it used no Texan sources. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over HuffPost with respect to Johnson’s libel claim.” The full court recently voted 10-7 to not take the matter en banc, as follows:

The third panel member, Judge King, as a senior judge was not eligible to participate in the en banc vote. The four judges whose names are underlined joined a dissent from the denial of en banc review.

The plaintiff’s pleading at the time of removal in Turner v. GoAuto Ins. Co. described a putative class made up of only “citizens of Louisiana.” The defendant argued “that the Louisiana law contravened Louisiana law in several ways by allowing [Plaintiff] to amend his complaint to redefine the class.” But that argument ran afoul of the “basic precept of our federal system … that federal courts do not exercise authority over the proceedings of a sovereign state’s judiciary as it relates to that state’s laws,” which meant that the amended pleading controlled, and that the defendant could not establish the necessary diversity of citizenship. No. 22-30103 (May 2, 2022).

I recently wrote a short piece for the UK’s Solicitor’s Journal about two recent personal-jurisdiction cases of note–one from the Fifth Circuit and one from the Dallas Court of Appeals–which it published as an “international insight” and titled “How to Deal with Texas Businesses Without getting Sued.”

The saying “that’s all she wrote” was particularly apt for the Fifth Circuit yesterday, as the hard-fought litigation brought by abortion providers to challenge Texas’s SB8 took its final turn back to the district court:

Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 21-50792 (April 26, 2022).

Reversing the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advertising, 972 F.3d 696 (5th Cir. 2020), the Supreme Court held that Austin’s use of an “on-/off-premises distinction” did not create a content restriction. The majority opinion reasoned:

A sign’s substantive message itself is irrelevant to the application of the provisions; there are no content-discriminatory classifications for political messages, ideological messages, or directional messages concerning specific events, including those sponsored by religious and nonprofit organizations. Rather, the City’s provisions distinguish based on location: A given sign is treated differently based solely on whether it is located on the same premises as the thing being discussed or not. The message on the sign matters only to the extent that it informs the sign’s relative location. The on-/off-premises distinction is therefore similar to ordinary time, place, or manner restrictions.

No. 20-1029 (U.S. April 21, 2022) (applying Reed v. Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015)).

While Solis v. Serrett deftly summarizes the Baroque case law about qualified immunity and use of force, it will be remembered for its constructive use of hyperlinks — links to the relevant video footage about the incidents in question. Particularly in this area of law, where dash and body cameras often provide critical evidence, including this material in the opinion provides helpful guidance for law enforcement officers and their counsel. No. 21-20256 (April 21, 2022) (citing, inter alia, this body camera video and this dash camera video). 

Some years ago, I unsuccessfully litigated a case about a contractual waiver of the right to remove. (The unique facts of that case were that Collin County had no federal courthouse at the time, but the Eastern District’s Plano facility was under construction.) Collin County v. Siemens Business Services, 250 F. App’x 45 (5th Cir. 2007). That case prompted me and two colleagues to write a thorough survey of the law on this topic, see Coale, Visosky & Cochrane, “Contractual Waiver of the Right to Remove to Federal Court,” 29 Rev. Litig. 327 (2010), after which I thought I had “seen it all” as to contractual waivers of removal rights.

However, I was wrong, as Dynamic CRM Recruiting Solutions LLC v. UMA Education, Inc. examines yet another turn of phrase in such a clause–what it means for an action to be “brought before” a particular tribunal. The Fifth Circuit held that “by using terminology similar to that which courts have generally construed as forbidding removal, they were waiving their right to remove an action filed in Harris County district court to federal court.” No. 21-20351 (April 19, 2022). The article now needs a pocket part.

“Plaintiffs who succeed in winning a money judgment against a state governmental entity in state court in Louisiana often find themselves in a frustrating situation. Though they have obtained a favorable judgment, they lack the means to enforce it. The Louisiana Constitution bars the seizure of public funds or property to satisfy a judgment against the state or its political subdivisions. Instead, the Legislature or the political subdivision must make a specific appropriation in order to satisfy the judgment. And since Louisiana courts lack the power to force another branch of government to make an appropriation, the prevailing plaintiff has no judicial mechanism to compel the defendant to pay. …

Finding themselves in this position, the Plaintiffs in this case, like others before them, have turned to the federal courts to force payment on their state court judgment. They claim that the Defendants’ failure to timely satisfy a state court judgment violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. The district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, applying long-standing precedent that there is no property right to timely payment on a judgment.”

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Ariyan, Inc v. Sewarage & Water Board of New Orleans, No. 21-30335 (March 21, 2022) (citations omitted); cf. generally Preston Hollow Capital v. Cottonwood Devel. Corp., 23 F.4th 550 (5th Cir. 2022) (also affirming dismissal of takings claim).

The Urban Dictionary associates the phrase “been had” with the buyer of an unintendedly green ring. The Fifth Circuit associates the phrase with the “buyer” of a JAMS arbitration:

Here the parties’ arbitration agreements called for arbitration pursuant to JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures, which included the right of JAMS to terminate the arbitration proceedings for nonpayment of fees by any party. Exercising this right, JAMS terminated the arbitration proceeding following the Fund’s nonpayment. Following the lead of our sister circuits, we conclude that arbitration ‘has been had.’ Even though the arbitration did not reach the final merits and was instead terminated because of a party’s failure to pay its JAMS fees, the parties still exercised their contractual right to arbitrate prior to judicial resolution in accordance with the terms of their agreements.

Noble Capital Fund Mgmnt. LLC v. US Capital, No. 21-50609 (April 13, 2022) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).

A merits panel, with a notably different makeup than the motions panel, reversed a preliminary injunction about a federal-employee vaccination requirement in Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, No. 22-40043 (April 7, 2022).

An antitrust case about the interrelated fees charged for the use of a debit network led to a detailed analysis of antitrust injury; in particular, the Court held as to one of the plaintiff’s claims:

Under Pulse’s theory, it doesn’t lose customers to Visa in a fair fight over per transaction fees. Rather, Pulse loses customers because Visa abuses its dominance in the debit card market. Merchants have no choice but to pay Visa’s high fixed monthly fee. They recoup that expense by routing more transactions through Visa’s network, which charges lower per-transaction fees than competitors. But Visa can achieve that only by leveraging the upfront fees to artificially deflate its per-transaction fees. We must assume this pricing structure violates the antitrust laws. When we do, the link between Pulse’s injury and Visa’s alleged anticompetitive conduct becomes plain. Pulse is squeezed out of the market because Visa exploits its dominance to impose supracompetitive prices on merchants and simultaneously undercut competitors’ per-transaction fees. That is textbook antitrust injury.

Pulse Network v. Visa, No. 18-20669 (April 5, 2022) (citation omitted, emphasis added). (The case has also drawn attention for its other holding that reassigned the matter to a different district judge on remand).

Seigler v. Wal-Mart Stores LLC presented the question whether a summary-judgment affidavit in a slip-and-fall case was an impermissible “sham” that contradicted prior deposition testimony.

The district court “identified four discrepancies between Seigler’s deposition testimony and affidavit pertaining to (1) the substance’s color, (2) its temperature and consistency, (3) its size, and (4) whether she touched the substance,” and struck the affidavit.

The Fifth Circuit disagreed, reviewing each of the claimed inconsistencies. In particular, as to the issue of  “temperature and consistency,” the Court reasoned:

” Wal-Mart argues that Seigler’s affidavit testimony that the substance was ‘cold,’ ‘congealed,’ and ‘thicken[ed] up’ contradicted her deposition testimony because Seigler testified at her deposition that (1) she had no ‘personal knowledge’ or ‘evidence’ of how long the grease had been on the floor and (2) that the substance was ‘liquid.’ However, we disagree that there was a contradiction. First, we agree with Seigler that a non lawyer deponent is not expected to understand the legal significance of the terms ‘personal knowledge’ and ‘evidence.’ Second, while the discrepancies between Seigler’s deposition and affidavit may call her credibility into question, we do not think they rise to the level of a contradiction or an inherent inconsistency, because the testimony can be reconciled.

 

Seigler described the substance as ‘some sort of greasy liquid’ at her deposition, but she was not asked questions about its temperature or consistency. Later, in her affidavit, she described the grease as ‘cold,’ ‘congealed,’ and ‘thicken[ed] up.’ These descriptions are not mutually exclusive, nor are they necessarily contradictory. In other words, it is possible that ‘some sort of greasy liquid’ could also be ‘cold,’ ‘congealed’ and ‘thicken[ed] up.’ Thus, we think the proper course in this case is to allow a jury to evaluate the testimony’s credibility.”

No. 20-11080 (April 6, 2022) (citations omitted).

In one corner, Getagadget LLC, which holds a registered trademark for “BIG BITE” for its beach toy shaped like a shark’s head. In the other, Jet Creations, Inc., which makes the Big Bite Prehistoric T-Rex Pool Float. Held, Getagadget did not establish Texas jurisdiction over its trademark-infringement claim when its counsel ordered a Big Bite Prehistoric T-Rex Pool Float:

“[I]n order to demonstrate that its trademark infringement and unfair competition claims arose out of sales that Jet directed at Texas, Getagadget was required to show that those sales were to customers who could have been potentially deceived by the alleged infringement. Getagadget’s counsel’s transactions will not suffice because counsel ‘knew exactly with whom []he was dealing and knew that defendants were not associated in any way with plaintiff.’ ‘Clearly, [Getagadget and its counsel were] not confused as to the source of the products in question.'”

Getagadget LLC v. Jet Creations, Inc., No. 19-41019 (March 30, 2022) (mem. op.).

Of general interest to court-watchers, building on a recent interview that I did with the Lincoln Project, the current episode of the “Coale Mind” podcast examines why today’s Supreme Court is like a bowl of soup, heated by two separate burners.

The first is the ongoing scrutiny over Justice Thomas’s recusal decisions in matters related to his wife’s political activity. The second, cool now but with the potential to become blazing hot, is the pending Dobbs case in which the Court could significantly limit or even overrule Roe v. Wade. 

The combined heat potentially generated by these two issues–an ethical dispute about a Justice coupled with the possibility of a uniquely controversial ruling–could present a legitimacy problem for the Court of a magnitude not seen in recent memory.

The panel majority opinion in Defense Distributed v. Bruck presents a rare — indeed, near-singular — grant of mandamus relief as to a transfer of venue (combined with a ruling about severance). The business at issue involves the growing, and controversial, field of creating firearms with 3-D printers. A dissent made a number of objections, substantive and procedural. No. 21-50327 (April 1, 2022).

A sanctions award was reversed in Ozmun v. Wood when, among other matters: “‘[T]he district court denied PRA[‘s] cross motion for summary judgment on the FDCPA claim which indicates [Appellant’s] position was far from frivolous. In fact, it was so substantial that the district court thought it warranted a trial.’ Thus, Ozmun’s claims brought under the TFDCPA were not a ‘clear misuse of the TFDCPA’ as the district court stated. They simply failed on summary judgment.”  No. 19-50397 (March 24, 2022) (unpublished, citation omitted)).

An interlocutory appeal had some matters entangled with it in Jiao v. Xu (not unlike the quantum entanglement recently photographed for the first time, right):

“The preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order made appealable by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The declaratory relief constitutes a final order, and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The turnover order is likewise final, and we have appellate jurisdiction to review it under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.  Typically, we would not have jurisdiction over the district court’s
denial of Xu’s motion to dismiss.  But to the extent the
underpinnings of Xu’s motion are inextricably intertwined with the district court’s subsequent rulings challenged on appeal, we determine that we have jurisdiction to address those issues. See Magnolia Marine Transp. Co. v. Laplace Towing Corp., 964 F.2d 1571, 1580 (5th Cir. 1992) (‘[O]ur jurisdiction is not limited to the specific [injunctive] order appealed from, and we may review all matters which establish the immediate basis for granting injunctive relief.’); see also In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig. (No. II), 200 F.3d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 2000) (reaching denial of motion to dismiss as part of § 1292(a)(1) appeal where issues were ‘so entangled as to arrive here together’ and ‘[d]elaying review . . . would make no practical sense’).”

No. 20-20106 (March 11, 2022) (emphasis added, footnote and certain citations omitted).

Making an Erie guess about Louisiana insurance law, the Fifth Circuit held: “Consistent with our decision in Terry Black’s, and the decisions of the unanimous circuit courts, we conclude, pursuant to Louisiana law, that losses caused by civil authority orders closing nonessential businesses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not fall within the meaning of ‘direct physical loss of or damage to property.'” Q Clothier v. Twin City Fire Ins., No. 21-30278 (March 22, 2022).

Trafigura Trading v. United States featured a dispute about one of the many prohibitions in Article I Section 9 of the Constitution; specifically, clause 5, which says: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” An oil company argued that a federally-imposed charge on oil exports, collected to finance the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, violated this provision.

The district court ruled for the oil company and a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed. One judge, drawing heavily from lyrics made famous by “Hamilton,” described the surprisingly colorful history of this provision, and voted to affirm. Another judge voted to affirm but declined to join that opinion. And the third judge dissented. As a result, the other opinion had no quorum supporting it and thus lacked precedential effect.  No. 21-20127 (March 24, 2022).

On that broader subject, cf. Sambrano v. United Airlines, No. 21-11159 (Feb. 17, 2022) (Smith, J., dissenting) (sympathizing with “the hapless trial judge or conscientious advocate” that must reason from nonprecedential rulings); see generally Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78 (May 28, 1788) (“To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.”).

The PREP Act — a 2005 law allowing the HHS secretary to make a declaration that immunizes certain disaster responders from liability — was held not to completely preempt state-law negligence claims in Mitchell v. Advanced HCS. The Fifth Circuit noted:

• “First, the only cause of action [the PREP Act] creates is for willful misconduct. Assuming—without deciding—that the willful misconduct cause of action is completely preemptive, the question is whether Mitchell ‘could have brought’ the instant claims under that cause of action. He could not. The Act clearly states that its willful-misconduct cause of action creates ‘a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.'”
• “Second, the compensation fund that the Act creates is not completely preemptive under this court’s precedents. To begin, a ‘compensation fund is not a cause of action.’ It may be a civil-enforcement provision, but such provisions must nevertheless ‘create[] a cause of action.’ … Assuming arguendo that the compensation fund suffices as a cause of action, the Act nevertheless does not create ‘a specific jurisdictional grant to the federal courts for enforcement of the right.’ Instead, the Secretary oversees administration of the fund. Worse, the statute expressly withdraws jurisdiction from any court, state or federal, concerning ‘any action [taken] by the Secretary’ in doing so.”

No. 21-10477 (March 10, 2022) (citations omitted, emphasis added).

“Attempting to sidestep Rooker-Feldman, Paul argues that an exception to the doctrine allows for collateral review of state court judgments that are void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. ‘This court has neither endorsed nor rejected [this] exception,’ and ‘[o]ur sister circuits are split on the issue.’ We need not resolve the split here, however, because even if we were to adopt this exception, ‘the cases that . . . recognize’ it ‘indicate that it is presently limited to the bankruptcy context.’ What is more, Paul’s basis for contesting the Texas courts’ jurisdiction is that the vexatious litigant statute is unconstitutional. But a judgment is not void simply because it applied an unconstitutional statute.” Nunu v. State of Texas, No. 21-20446 (March 17, 2022, unpublished).

FERC v. Ultra Resources presented a novel question about the interaction of the Bankruptcy Court and a filed-rate contract, and held “that under the particular circumstances presented here, Ultra Resources is not subject to a separate public-law obligation to continue performance of its rejected contract, and that 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(6) did not require the bankruptcy court to seek FERC’s approval before it confirmed Ultra Resource’s reorganization plan.” No. 21-20126 (March 14, 2022).

The long shadow of Edward Young (right), who served as Minnesota’s well-mustachioed Attorney General in the early 20th century, fell upon two companion cases about Texas election laws, in which a panel majority found that the Texas Secretary of State was not a proper defendant under Ex Parte Young.  A dissent (from both panel opinions) saw matters otherwise:

I write to remind failing memories of the signal role of Ex parte Young in directly policing the path of cases and controversies to the Supreme Court from our state and federal courts and warn against its further diminution. … ‘Ex parte Young poses no threat to the Eleventh Amendment or to the fundamental tenets of federalism. To the contrary, it is a powerful implementation of federalism necessary to the Supremacy Clause, a stellar companion to Marbury and Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee.’

…

The majority continues this Court’s effort to shrink the role of Ex parte Young, by overly narrow readings of the state officer’s duty to enforce Texas’s election laws. … [T]he Texas Secretary of State is the “chief election officer of the state” and is directly instructed by statute to “obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and
interpretation of this code and of the election laws outside this code.” Moreover, the Secretary is charged to “take appropriate action to protect the voting rights of the citizens of this state from abuse by the authorities administering the state’s electoral processes” and “to correct offending conduct.” Although recent decisions by this Court have split hairs regarding the level of enforcement authority required to satisfy Ex parte Young, the Secretary is charged to interpret both the Texas Election Code and the election laws outside the Code, including federal law, to gain uniformity, tasks it is clearly bound to do. The allegation in these cases is that the Secretary is failing in that duty. This charge should satisfy our Ex parte Young inquiry.

TARC v. Scott, No. 20-40643 (March 16, 2022); Richardson v. Flores, No. 20-50744 (March 16, 2022) (footnotes and citations omitted). (I was recently interviewed about the case by KDFW-TV in Dallas.)

A dispute about “fee forfeiture,” in the broader context of fidiuciary-duty breaches by a company’s lawyer, led to this observation about the proper role of the Burrow v. Arce fee-forfeiture factors: “[T]there is no “windfall” given the record in this case. Hughes unfairly transferred PPI’s assets to Performance Probiotics, in breach of her fiduciary duty to PPI, and then used those assets to generate the fees at issue. That is, even though Hughes was paid by Performance Probiotics, she was effectively paying herself with funds that were rightfully PPI’s. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of fee forfeiture in this context as it accords with the general rule that disloyal agents must disgorge their ill-gotten gains.”  Thomas v. Hughes, No. 20-50671 (March 3, 2022).

“Hughes asserts there was insufficient evidence to establish that Pearcy had any trade secrets or that Hughes and Performance Probiotics improperly used any of Pearcy’s trade secrets. But Hughes did not raise these challenges in her oral [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 50(a) motion at trial. Instead, Hughes ‘move[d] for [a] directed verdict on the misappropriation of trade secrets [claim] on the ground[ ] that there [was] no evidence of an appropriate measure of damages for that cause of action,’ an argument she renewed in her Rule 50(b) motion and likewise urges here. Because Hughes did not challenge the existence of a trade secret or improper use in her initial Rule 50(a) motion, those issues were not properly raised in her post-trial Rule 50(b) motion. We therefore decline to address them on appeal.”

Thomas v. Hughes, No. 20-50671 (March 3, 2022).

A technical setting illustrated a basic requirement for a justiciable claim in Continental Automotive Systems v. Avanci:

“[A]ssuming Continental is contractually entitled to a license on FRAND [‘fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory’]  terms as a third-party beneficiary, the pleadings reflect that it has suffered no cognizable injury. Put another way, even if Continental has rights under FRAND contracts, the contracts have not been breached because the SEP [‘standard-essential patent’] holders have fulfilled their obligations to the SSOs [“standard-setting organizations”] with respect to Continental. The supplier acknowledges that Avanci and Patent-Holder Defendants are ‘actively licensing the SEPs to the OEMs[,]’ which means that they are making SEP licenses available to Continental on FRAND terms. As it does not need to personally own SEP licenses to operate its business, it has not been denied property to which it was entitled. And absent a ‘denial of property to which a plaintiff is entitled,’ Continental did not suffer an injury in fact. ”

 

No. 20-11032 (Feb. 28, 2022).

While Johnny Cash famously walked the line, the defendants in Earnest v. Sanofi U.S. Servcs., Inc., did not successfully walk the line between Rule 701 and 702, with respect to a senior company employee in a products-liability case: “While parts of Dr. Kopreski’s testimony fall within the parameters of Rule 701, he also strayed beyond ‘facts, . . . subjective beliefs[,] and opinions,’ within either his personal knowledge or his capacity as Sanofi’s corporate designee. He testified regarding highly specialized and technical information related to Taxotere, the TAX316 study, and drug studies in general.” No. 20-30184 (Feb. 10, 2022) (citation omitted).

The author of a popular inspirational book sued a school district for copyright infringement when a softball team and color guard posted an excerpt from it (the “WIN Passage”) on Twitter. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district’s successful defense based on the defense of fair use, in an analysis both succinct and encyclopedic:

1. “[T]he purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” “This involves a few considerations. The first and most obvious is commerciality—’whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.’ The second is whether the user acted in good faith. The third is whether the use is ‘transformative,’ meaning it ‘adds something new’ to the copyrighted work. The school district does not assert that its use was transformative but argues the other inquiries tip the first factor in its favor. We agree.”
2. “[T]he nature of the copyrighted work.” “’In general, fair use is more likely to be found in factual works than in fictional works.'” Here, ”[c]onstruing the pleadings in Bell’s favor as we must, the WIN Passage is somewhat creative. The passage largely consists of well-worn truisms …. Still, Bell is entitled to the inference that the school chose the WIN Passage because it combines and condenses these principles in a particularly inspiring way. The second factor goes to Bell. But it is a meager victory. The nature of the work is widely considered the least significant fair-use factor.”
3. “[T]he amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.” “The school quoted a small excerpt from [the book] Winning Isn’t Normal, which was already freely available to the public. As a result, the third factor is neutral.”
4. “The fourth factor examines ‘the effect of the use’ on the market for and value of the copyrighted work.”  “[Bell’s] complaint contends that widespread
   use of the WIN Passage on social media could reduce “the incentive to
   purchase Winning Isn’t Normal or related merchandise. … The tweets do not
   reproduce such a substantial portion of Winning Isn’t Normal‘ as to make
   available a significantly competing substitute’ for the original work. If anything, the properly attributed quotation of a short passage from Winning Isn’t Normal might bolster interest in the book; it is free advertising.”

Bell v. Eagle Mountain Saginaw ISD, No. 21-10504 (Feb. 25, 2022) (all citations omitted).

The Texas Lawbook summarizes the many practical pointers from an hour-long discussion among Judges Haynes, Costa, and Ho at the recent Bench-Bar conference of the Northern District of Texas. Judge Hendrix from that District’s Lubbock Division moderated.

Continuing a not-infrequent practice, the Fifth Circuit denied mandamus relief in In re Royal Street Bistro while providing “[a] brief explanation” of the Court’s skeptical view of a controversial Seventh Circuit opinion about lessee rights. In conclusion, the Court observed: “None of this means that the bankruptcy and district courts’ overstatement of their reasoning created the kind of serious misinterpretation of law or facts that may support one of the criteria for mandamus relief. See In re JP Morgan Chase & Co., 916 F.3d 494, 500 (5th Cir. 2019). Courts must be cautioned, however, against blithely accepting Qualitech‘s reasoning and textual exegesis.” No. 22-30066 (Feb. 16, 2022).

“Karen does indeed have Article III standing to bring this suit. She seeks money damages to address the death of her son, which was allegedly caused by Defendants’ conduct. So she has sufficiently alleged all three elements required to establish Article III standing at this stage. … The defect here, by contrast, is one of prudential standing. And prudential standing does not present a jurisdictional question, but ‘a merits question: who, according to the governing substantive law, is entitled to enforce the right?’ … And a violation of this rule is a failure of “prudential” standing. ‘[N]ot one
[of our precedents] holds that the inquiry is jurisdictional.’ It goes only to the validity of the cause of action. And ‘the absence of a valid … cause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.'” Abraugh v. Altimus, No. 21-30205 (Feb. 14, 2022) (citations omitted) (emphasis added, citations omitted).

Hess Corp. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. notes an interesting, and seemingly unanswered, question about section 2.608 of the UCC, which says that a “buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it …..” (emphasis added). One side suggested that this phrase should be read in conjunction with section 2.715, which allows a buyer to recover damages “resulting from the seller’s breach,” while another advocated looking to a line of cases that ask whether a contract breach was a “producing cause” of an injury. The Court noted a dearth of Texas authority tying either suggested approach to this specific UCC provision. No. 20-20663 (Feb. 7, 2022).

A fiery dissent (literally fiery, as it warns that “the Good Ship Fifth Circuit is afire”) in Sambrano v. United Airlines faults the majority for, among other matters, not publishing the opinion. No. 21-11159 (Feb. 17, 2022). The opinions’ review of Fifth Circuit Local Rule 47.5.4 echoes a long-running debate, throughout all appellate courts, about the benefits and detriments of having multiple tiers of judicial precedent.

Texas practitioners will recall similar debate leading up to the adoption of Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, the “memorandum opinion” rule. They will also likely see similarities between this strongly worded dissent and the concurrence in Steward Health Care System v. Saidara from the Dallas Court of Appeals in 2021, which also examined the policy judgments embodied in a different set of appellate-procedure rules.

One issue in Hess Corp. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., a UCC case about the oil-and-gas industry, was whether the district court made clearly erroneous fact findings about a party’s compliance with a contract provision; specifically, whether “the difference between the Greene Tweed drawings and the 2004 validated valve was ‘insubstantial.'” The Fifth Circuit approached the issue in three steps:

1. Relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has explained how to apply a clear-error standard to a district court’s credibility findings at a bench trial. The Anderson Court cautioned that a trial court could not ‘insulate [its] findings from review by denominating them credibility determinations’ and outlined certain ‘factors’ for consideration that could show error. Namely, ‘[d]ocuments or objective evidence may contradict the witness’ story; or the story itself may be so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it.’ If ‘such factors are present, the court of appeals may well find clear error even in a finding purportedly based on a credibility determination.’” (citations omitted).
2. Relevant Circuit precedent: “We applied Anderson in an appeal involving a fatal maritime collision between a tug and a shrimper; the district court had considered physical evidence, expert testimony analyzing the physical evidence, and independent witness testimony. The district court determined that the tug was at fault. We considered the ‘plausibility and internal consistency” of the shrimper’s account, in addition to the actual evidence. Id. We found that ‘physical evidence strongly support[ed]’ the tug’s case; the tug’s expert witness was far more qualified than the shrimper’s expert and considered more information in making his assessment; the independent witness testimony was ‘inconsistent with the [shrimper’s] account of the collision’; and the shrimper’s account smacked of ‘sheer implausibility.’ Accordingly, we were left with the ‘definite and firm conviction” that the evidence showed clear error by the district court.'” (citation omitted, applying In re Luhr Bros., 157 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1998)).
3. Conclusion. “The drawings for the seal did not change from 2003 to 2014, and Schlumberger presented some evidence showing a series of springs from 2005 to 2015 that were manufactured within the tolerances specified in the drawings. Although it is clear that Greene Tweed produced springs that were outside the tolerances dictated by the drawings and thus did not conform, it is certainly not “implausible” that Greene Tweed manufactured its valves “to the qualified drawings” under the design-requirement-only interpretation of Section 6.3.2.2 adopted by the district court.”

No. 20-20663 (Feb. 7, 2022).

An argument that a summary-judgment motion was granted prematurely failed when:

“[T]he response did not ‘identify specific facts below that would alter the district court’s analysis’ or in any way /demonstrate . . . how the additional discovery would likely create a genuine [dispute] of material fact.’ Rather, it simply asserted that ‘no depositions have been held, nor have interrogatories, requests for admission, nor requests for documents been exchanged between the parties’ and that the ‘defendant has repeatedly failed to provide evidence of its allegations despite numerous opportunities to do so.'”

MDK v. Proplant, No.21-20207(Feb. 9, 2022) (mem. op.).

While expediting consideration of the merits, a Fifth Circuit panel declined to stay a national injunction against a vaccination requirement for federal employees; a detailed dissent would have granted an interim stay of the injunction. Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, No. 20-30090 (Feb. 11, 2022). A thorough (albeit, highly partisan) article about the case recently appeared in Slate.

“To be sure, the order on appeal is the district court’s order denying Doe’s motion to re-open the case and sever the cost-splitting provision of the arbitration agreement—not its order compelling arbitration. But that makes no difference for our purposes. As both parties acknowledge, Doe’s motion to re-open and sever was, in effect, nothing more than a motion to reconsider the merits of part of the district court’s order compelling arbitration. And we have no more jurisdiction to review an order declining to reconsider an order compelling arbitration than we do to review the order compelling arbitration itself.” Doe v. Tonti Mgmnt. Co., No. 21-30295 (Jan. 31, 2022).

Hurricane Harvey insurance litigation continues. The dispute in Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. SCD Mem. Place II, LLC involved a “named perils” policy, one of which was “Windstorm or Hail associated with a Named Storm.” While the unfortunate insured experienced significant damage when Buffalo Bayou overflowed its banks and flooded the insured’s property, it did not experience any wind or hail damage. The Fifth Circuit sided with the insured, holding that “[t]his framing sets up ‘Windstorm’ and ‘Hail’ as specific perils that may be associated with a number of weather events rather than as weather events that may encompass any number of perils.” No. 20-20389 (Feb. 3, 2022)

Mike Lynn and I have an article in the latest Oklahoma Law Review about a fiendishly tricky issue with some “battles of the forms” under the Uniform Commercial Code. A few years back, Mike had a hard-fought trial about this issue in the context of the roof insulation for a big warehouse near D/FW Airport. I hope you enjoy it – and can use it someday in your next UCC case – https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol74/iss2/3

In Fessler v. Porcelana Corona de Mexico, the Fifth Circuit flushed an attorneys-fee award in a class-action case about allegedly defective toilets, concluding that the district court had not plunged deeply enough into the factor of “degree of success obtained” — “[T]he [district] court stated simply that ‘the work done did not prove fruitless—it resulted in two settled classes receiving a host of monetary and non-monetary benefits they would not have received but for the Class Counsel’s diligent work.’ In other words, not receiving every bit of relief requested is no reason to reduce the lodestar. But this misconstrues Fifth Circuit precedent. The court was required to consider what was sought— compensatory, punitive, and treble damages for five tank models manufactured across nine years. Yet, the Class members only received a maximum of $4000 in damages for two tank models manufactured in one year.” No. 20-40357 (Jan. 10, 2022) (footnote omitted).

The Fifth Circuit found that the state-law question about liquor-sale permits presented by Gabriel Inv. Group v. TABC “checks every box” for certification, reasoning:

1. “The first factor—the closeness of the question and the existence of sufficient sources of state law—weighs in favor of certification. … Both parties have solid textual and structural support for their positions. Likewise, the Commission does not challenge GIG’s contention that the disputes in this case are questions of first impression in any court.”
2. “The second factor—the degree to which considerations of comity are relevant in light of the particular issue and case to be decided—similarly weighs in favor of certification. The Legislature enacted its general ban on public corporations owning or controlling package store permits in 1995, over 26 years ago. According to the parties, only two public corporations—GIG and Sarro Corp., who is not a party to this case—qualify for Grandfather Clause treatment. That may not seem like many. But when you factor in that GIG and Sarro could control up to 500 package stores between the two of them, it threatens to blow a Texas-sized hole in the careful balance that the Legislature created.” (footnotes omitted).
3. “The third factor—practical limitations on the certification process—also weighs in favor of certification. The questions that GIG asks are purely legal. And we are untroubled by any potential delay. ‘[B]y long tradition, the Texas Supreme Court graciously accepts and prioritizes certified questions from this circuit.'”

No. 21-50322 (Jan. 28, 2022).

A Texas law firm sued an Ohio firm, alleging the breach of an agreement about a substantial fee. The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, crisply summarizing key Circuit precedent for commercial tort and contract claims. (To the right is 600Camp’s standard personal-jurisdiction graphic, the classic comic book hero Plastic Man).

• Tort: “Walden and Sangha largely resolve this issue. Danziger alleges in support of its fraud and unjust enrichment claims (1) that Morgan Verkamp failed to disclose its representation of Epp when responding to an unsolicited email from Danziger about the Epp case and (2) that Morgan Verkamp continued not to disclose its representation of Epp while the two firms worked together on other cases. Danziger alleges in support of its tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim that Morgan Verkamp emailed Epp (who is not alleged to have been in Texas) to convince him not to formalize his relationship with Danziger. Thus, although Morgan Verkamp’s allegedly tortious conduct may have affected Danziger in Texas, none of this conduct occurred in Texas.”
• Contract: “Danziger alleges in support of its breach of contract claim that: (1) Epp reached out to Danziger about a potential qui tam matter; (2) Danziger arranged two conference calls between itself, Morgan Verkamp, and Epp; (3) Danziger and Morgan Verkamp agreed telephonically to split any fees they received from their work on the Epp matter; (4) the parties exchanged several emails with each other and Epp regarding their potential representation of Epp; and (5) Morgan Verkamp ultimately represented Epp in a Pennsylvania lawsuit but refused to split the fees that it received from the case.  Thus, unlike Electrosource, this case does not nvolve ‘wide reaching contacts and contemplated future consequences within the forum state.’ And unlike Central Freight, ‘[t]he plaintiff’s Texas location’ was not
  ‘strategically advantageous to the defendant …, suggesting that the defendant had purposefully availed itself of doing business in Texas.’ Rather, as in Trois, ‘[t]he only alleged Texas contacts related to contract formation or breach are [the defendant’s] conference calls negotiating the agreement while [the plaintiff] was in Texas.’ … And like Holt Oil, the defendant’s ‘communications to Texas rested on nothing but “he mere fortuity that [the plaintiff] happens to be a resident of the forum.”‘ As we held in Moncrief Oil, ‘mere fortuity that one company
  happens to be a Texas resident … is not enough to confer jurisdiction.'”

Danziger & De Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp, LLC, No. 21-20186 (Jan. 27, 2022) (citations omitted, emphasis in original).

Echoing the Texas Supreme Court’s skepticism about Wikipedia as a source in D Magazine Partners, LP v. Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2017), the Fifth Circuit held that the Wayback Machine was not a proper subject of judicial notice “because a private internet archive falls short of being a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned as required by [Fed. R. Evid.] 201.” The Court offered suggestions for how Wayback Machine information could be authenticated, and noted a page on the Wayback site that discusses the use of its material as court evidence. Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring Inc., No. 20-30568 (Jan. 20, 2022).

The Marys, landowners in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, complained that a pipeline had exceeded the scope of a servitude over their land, and sought disgorgement of the pipeline’s profits. The Fifth Circuit reviewed “the concepts of accession and fruits under Louisiana property law.” Unfortunately for the Marys, while they had an ownership interest in the intrusive pipeline by “accession,” it was also the case that: “[T]he gas at issue here was not taken from [their] land. It was produced from the Pedro Well, located on the neighbor’s land.” Accordingly, the “gas is not a fruit; it is a product,” and disgorgement was not an available remedy. Mary v. QEP Energy Co., No. 21-30195 (Jan. 18, 2022).

By popular demand, the nationally respected jury consultant Jason Bloom returns to the “Coale Mind” podcast after his insightful interview last year about the restart of jury trials after the 2020 quarantines. In this new 2022 episode, he discusses his insights from the continued return of jury trials.

Jason describes how, across the country, prospective jurors are more eager to be selected and serve on juries than ever before, reflecting a national mood that wants to reassert control over government after many months of uncertainty and frustration. Relatedly, jury deliberations are emphasizing a theme of “accountability”–examining which party to a case has demonstrated responsibility for its actions and decisions.

Obviously important for trial lawyers, Jason’s insights are also critical to understanding America’s political dialogue as society continues to reawaken after the COVID pandemic. Whether acting as jurors, voters, or customers, decisionmakers bring very specific interests and desires to 2022 that must be understood and accommodated to make effective policy.

A high-profile case about a child’s gruesome accident produced considerable media coverage, but the insurer’s awareness of that coverage did not satisfy the insurance policy’s “claim” requirement: “The fact that [the insured] became aware of media reports about Braylon’s injuries and sent those reports to Evanston, which in turn opened an internal ‘Claim/Occurrence’ file and monitored further developments, does not substitute for the Jordans actually making a timely claim against M&O. Their failure to do so is fatal to their assertion of coverage.” Jordan v. Evanston Ins. Co., No. 20-60716 (Jan. 17, 2022).

An unexpected cameo by William Butler Yeats . . .

. . . set the tone for an issue of ancillary jurisdiction, and a holding that when a case is dismissed per a settlement, the district court may keep jurisdiction to enforce that settlement — and no more:

“When the parties settle their dispute and seek dismissal, the court may choose to treat the parties’ settlement as part of its dismissal order, either by retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement or by directly integrating the settlement into the dismissal order. If the court does that, breaching the settlement would violate the court’s order, and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would therefore exist.’ [” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)].

…

But the power to enforce a settlement is just that. It’s not a blank check. It doesn’t authorize the district court to reach new issues or issues that only relate to the settlement. The court may decide ‘whether and under what terms’ to enforce the settlement, but it may go no further without an
independent basis for jurisdiction. Wise v. Wilkie, 955 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up)).”

Vikas WSP, Ltd. v. Economy Mud Prods. Co., No. 20-20309 (Jan. 10, 2022).

Key aspects of an asbestos-exposure case presented genuine issues of material fact, rather than impermissible speculation, and made summary judgment inappropriate:

• Potential exposure to airborne material. “[T]he MDL court accepted that Williams worked, for some amount of time, in a building that had asbestos, and expert testimony indicates the asbestos was deteriorating and becoming airborne during his tenure. An inference taken in favor of the non-moving party would be that Williams, who for some amount of time had to breathe in the spaces where asbestos was deteriorating, was exposed to this airborne asbestos. The MDL court, though, found that there was ‘no evidence that [Williams] was ever exposed to respirable asbestos dust at any location in the facility'” (the Court also noted expert testimony on this point);
• Location at a key time. “[I]n a summary judgment order rendered that same day regarding another defendant, the MDL court relied on evidence that Williams saw individuals in moon suits to assume he was present during the asbestos remediation. Just the opposite seems to have been inferred here, as the MDL court in Boeing’s summary judgment order stated that there was ‘no evidence that [Williams] was working nearby (or in that building at all) when that remediation work was performed”;
• Excluding alternative possible locations at the key time. “[T]he MDL court also found that the evidence that Williams primarily worked in Building 350 was not ‘sufficiently specific’ to allow a jury to conclude he was exposed to asbestos during an abatement project because ‘[t]he evidence that Decedent primarily worked in Building 350 does not exclude the possibility that he was not working there during the asbestos abatement project.’ Finding to the contrary, the MDL court found, ‘would be impermissibly speculative.’ We conclude that ‘speculation’ would not be involved, only a potentially reasonable inference.”

Williams v. Boeing Co., No. 18-31158 (Jan. 18, 2022).

“Most of Sea Wasp’s appeal challenges the district court’s summary judgment rulings finding it liable under both federal and state law. Despite those rulings, however, the court ultimately entered a judgment ‘that Plaintiff takes nothing and that Plaintiff’s case against Defendant is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.’ In other words, Sea Wasp won the war even if it lost some battles along the way. Because the final judgment was a full victory for Sea Wasp, it is not an aggrieved party entitled to bring a cross appeal.” Domain Protection LLC v. Sea Wasp, LLC, No. 20-40411 (Jan. 13, 2022) (emphasis added).

The Texas Lawbook reports that Judge Gregg Costa will resign his position on the Fifth Circuit this summer. Please check the Lawbook‘s page for further information.

A footnote in June Medical Services v. Phillips detailed the Fifth Circuit’s procedures for documents sealed in the trial court.

“When presented with an appeal, we routinely unseal documents that were sealed in the district court when those documents are used on appeal and there is no legal basis for sealing. Indeed, we often do this sua sponte.  In [one recent case], he district court sealed parts of the record pursuant to a stipulated protective order ‘in an effort to accommodate the defendant’s concerns about its trade secrets becoming public.’ Notwithstanding the stipulated protective order in that case, this court denied the appellant’s unopposed motion to place record excerpts under seal and ordered that the record excerpts be unsealed. . Indeed, when parties in this court seek to file documents under seal on appeal, the clerk’s office sends them a standard letter that requires them to ‘explain in particularity the necessity for sealing in this court. Counsel do not satisfy this burden by simply stating that the originating court sealed the matter, as the circumstances that justified sealing in the originating court may have changed or may not apply in an appellate proceeding.””

No. 21-30001-CV (Jan. 7, 2022) (citations omitted).

In Newman v. Cypress Env. Mgmnt.:

• Newman, a pipeline inspector, had an Employment Agreement with Cypress, a business that supplied pipeline inspectors for client projects, and that agreement had an arbitration clause;
• A Cypress affiliate entered a contract to supply services to Plains, a pipeline company
• Newman brought an FLSA action against Plains for unpaid overtime, and Plains sought to compel arbitration, citing the provision of the Newman-Cypress contract.

The Fifth Circuit held that Plains was not a third-party beneficiary of that contract and could not enforce it, noting: “First, Newman’s incorporated-by-reference Pay Letter [between the Cypress affiliate and Plains] did not clearly and fully spell out that Plains could take legal action if either Newman or Cypress breached its terms. To the extent that it named Plains at all, the Pay Letter merely list ‘Plains-Pipeline’ as the ‘Client.’ … [and] Second, the Employment Agreement itself did not clearly and fully spell out that Plains could take legal action if Newman decided to breach its other terms.” No. 21-5023 (Jan. 7, 2022) (emphasis in original).

Terry Black’s Barbecue provides outstanding Texas barbecue from its location in Dallas’s Deep Ellum neighborhood; it also experienced business interruptions from complying with various stay-at-home orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Terry Black’s did not have business-interruption coverage because it did not suffer a direct physical loss of property at its restaurants. The Court reasoned:

…  A “physical loss of property” cannot mean something as broad as the “loss of use of property for its intended purpose.” None of those words fall within the plain meaning of physical, loss, or property. And that phrase has an entirely different meaning from the language in the BI/EE provision. “Physical loss of property” is not synonymous with “loss of use of property for its intended purpose.”
We conclude the Texas Supreme Court would interpret a direct physical loss of property to require a tangible alteration or deprivation of property. Because the civil authority orders prohibiting dine-in services at restaurants did not tangibly alter TBB’s restaurants, and TBB having failed to allege any other tangible alteration or deprivation of its property, the policy does not provide coverage for TBB’s claimed losses.

Terry Black’s Barbecue BBQ, LLC v. State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co., No. 21-50078 (Jan. 5, 2022).

The en banc case of Cochran v. SEC, No. 19-10396 (Dec. 13, 2021), presented a difficult statutory-interpretation case, overlaid on fundamental issues about the limits of the administrative state. The majority held that the 1934 Securities Exchange Act did not divest district courts of jurisdiction over “structural constitutional claims” about SEC enforcement actions: “Cochran’s removal power claim is wholly collateral to the Exchange Act’s statutory-review scheme, is outside the SEC’s expertise, and might never receive judicial review if district court jurisdiction were precluded.” An informative concurrence examined the continuing influence of Woodrow Wilson and James Landis (the SEC’s second director) on modern thinking about the power and pervasiveness of federal administrative agencies.

The Texas Lawbook recently published a good feature by Androvett Legal Media & Marketing about the top Texas legal stories of 2021 (in which I discuss the hard-fought litigation about SB8, the new Texas abortion law). It’s worth a look while preparing for law practice in this New Year.

The defendant in United States v. Meals sought to suppress evidence obtained when Facebook monitored his inappropriate online communication.  His conviction was affirmed: “Under the private search doctrine, when a private actor finds evidence of criminal conduct after searching someone else’s person, house, papers, and effects without a warrant, the government can use the evidence, privacy expectations notwithstanding.” And while a federal statute “mandates reporting child exploitation on internet platforms to the [National Center for Missing and Exploited Children], … it neither compels nor coercively encourages internet companies to search actively for such evidence” and thus did not bring Facebook within a “government agent” exception to the private-search doctrine. No. 20-40752 (Dec. 30, 2021).

Walmart sued the U.S. government, seeking declaratory judgments on several issues about the enforcement of laws related to opioids. In the meantime, the the US brought an enforcement action against Walmart in Delaware. The panel in Walmart, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice concluded that the Delaware action made this declaratory-judgment case unnecessary; two judges also concluded that Wal-Mart had not identified a specific type of action or decision as to which the United States had waived sovereign immunity in the Administrative Procedure Act. No. 21-40157 (Dec. 22, 2021).

In DeOtte v. State of Nevada, the district court’s injunction about the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act became moot after a 2020 Supreme Court opinion. The State of Nevada, a latecomer to the case, sought vacatur of the injunction.

The Fifth Circuit summarized the applicable principles. Its “authority to vacate comes from [28 U.S.C. § 2106] that provides that an appellate court ‘may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review.'” (emphasis omitted). Under that statute:

“[V]acatur is not automatic; it is ‘equitable relief’ and must ‘take account of the public interest.’  Precedents ‘are not merely the property of private litigants and should stand unless a court concludes that the public interest would be served by a vacatur.’  A court must assess ‘the equities of the individual case’ to determine whether vacatur is proper. This consideration centers on (1) ‘whether the party seeking relief from the judgment below caused the mootness by voluntary action’; and (2) whether public interests support vacatur.”

(citations omitted). After a thorough review of Nevada’s unusual procedural position in the case, the Court found that Nevada had standing (in the language of the statute, had “lawfully brought” the appeal), and granted Nevada the requested relief of vacatur. No. 19-10754 (Dec. 17, 2021).

Reminder: “Standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order is, of necessity, quite limited. … [t]his test is an even more exacting standard than traditional constitutional standing.” Dean v. Seidel, No. 21-10468 (Dec. 7, 2021) (citations omitted).

Therefore: “Here, the order on appeal — approval of a litigation funding agreement — does not affect whether Dean’s debts will be discharged. Neither does it affect Reticulum’s related pending case in which it ‘objected to Dean’s bankruptcy discharge and to discharge of its claims against Dean.’ Dean thus does not have bankruptcy standing because he cannot show how the order approving the litigation funding agreement would directly, adversely, and financially impact him.”

Under Wyoming law, an indemnity agreement related to an oil-field injury could not be enforced; under Texas law, it could be. Applying the Restatement’s choice-of-law framework, the Fifth Circuit concluded:

1. More significant relationship. “The section 188 contacts rack up points for Wyoming. Cannon started negotiations by contacting KLX’s Wyoming office, and the parties executed the agreements in Wyoming and West Virginia. These place-of-negotiation-and-contracting contacts favor Wyoming and overwhelmingly disfavor Texas. … The only debatable section 188 contact is the principal place of business. Cannon leans on this contact, arguing that it favors Texas because the agreement was drafted by a Texas-based company. But although KLX’s principal place of business is in Texas, its Texas presence is negated by Cannon’s Wyoming domicile.”
2. Materially greater interest. “Wyoming’s interest in promoting worker safety in its oilfields is at its zenith on these facts. The underlying state court proceeding—in which a Wyoming resident was injured in Wyoming by the alleged negligence of a Wyoming oil company—implicates Wyoming’s policy with precision. Enforcing the indemnity provision would discourage what Wyoming hopes to encourage Cannon’s taking steps to avoid injuries in its oilfield operations. On the other side of the scale, Texas’s interest in this dispute is more attenuated. Its interest in enforcing the contract of one of its businesses is lessened when the contract was not negotiated, drafted, or performed within its borders.”
3. Fundamental policy. “Wyoming’s ban on oilfield indemnification is codified and voids any such agreement as being ‘against public policy.’ … Because Wyoming “has taken the unusual step of stating [the policy] explicitly” in a statute, and “will refuse to enforce an agreement” contrary to the policy even when other states connected to the agreement would enforce it, the anti-indemnity policy is a fundamental one.” (citations omitted).

Cannon Oil & Gas Servcs., Inc. v. KLX Energy Services, L.L.C, No. 21-20115 (Dec. 10, 2021).

Yes, it’s kind of a pain, and yes, it comes around every year. But you have a voice in the oft-cited “Super Lawyers” awards, and you can make it heard on the Super Lawyers’ website: Nominations are due by December 16, 2021

The district court certified a class based on a Texas statute about late fees, which says: “A landlord may not charge a tenant a late fee for failing to pay rent unless … the fee is a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to the landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result from late payment of rent.” 

The panel majority in Cleven v. Mid-Am. Apartments disagreed with the district court’s reading of the statute, and thus remanded: “[T]here is no requirement that a landlord engage in a process to arrive at its late fee so long as the fee is a reasonable estimate at the time of contracting of damages that are incapable of precise calculation. Therefore, the district court erred in interpreting section 92.019 and the case is remanded to the district court to determine if class certification is appropriate.”

A dissent saw matters differently: “That the plaintiffs all raised a common contention about how § 92.019 should be interpreted that is central to their claims for relief is sufficient reason for us to affirm class certification, and we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s partial summary judgment ruling on only the issue of liability at this stage in the litigation.” No. 18-50846 (Dec. 9, 2021).

Yes, it’s kind of a pain, and yes, it comes around every year. But you have a voice in the oft-cited “Super Lawyers” awards, and you can make it heard on the Super Lawyers’ website: Nominations are due by December 16, 2021.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a default judgment against the Elephant Group when it “agree[d] with the district court that neither claimed defense suffices. The presentation of meritorious defenses requires ‘definite factual allegations, as opposed to mere legal conclusions.’ Legal conclusions were all that were presented.” Tango Marine v. Elephant Group, No. 21-10068 (Dec. 5, 2021) (citations omitted) (On rehearing in 2022, the Court withdrew this opinion.)

“Most of the time, to be sure, Rule 60(b) orders denying relief are final and appealable because ‘Rule 60(b) motions ordinarily are made only after the district court has disposed completely of the subject litigation.’  But this is not so when unresolved matters remain pending in the district court. Where there is no ‘effective termination[] of district-court proceedings, a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is not final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Gross v. Keen Group, No. 20-20594 (Dec. 2, 2021) (citations omitted).

“Louisiana residents can access Eastrock’s website, no less than residents of other states. But as our cases suggest, and as we now expressly hold, a defendant does not have sufficient minimum contacts with a forum state just because its website is accessible there. The defendant must also target the forum state by purposefully availing itself of the opportunity to do business in that state. And here, there is no evidence that Eastrock targets Louisiana: Eastrock has not sold a single accused product to a Louisiana resident, and it solicits no business there through targeted advertising. That ends this case.” Admar Int’l Inc. v. Eastrock LLC, No. 21-30098-CV (Nov. 19, 2021). (For reference, I think this is the current version of the website in question; the litigation involved the defendant’s alleged misuse of product images.)

A Louisiana-based defendant removed a class action brought by an individual citizen of Louisiana, contending that a co-defendant’s “non-diverse Louisiana citizenship could be disregarded because the [statutory] claims against [the co-defendant] were ‘improperly and egregiously misjoined’ with the assignment-based bad faith claim against the removing defendant.”

This concept — called “fraudulent misjoinder” and reliant upon state-law procedural rules — is distinct from the traditional concept of “improper joinder” (a/k/a “fraudulent joinder”), which focuses on the viability of the claim against the nondiverse defendant.

The panel majority in Williams v. Homeland Ins. Co., written by Judge Haynes and joined by Judge Ho, soundly rejected removal based on fraudulent misjoinder, emphasizing the doctrine’s practical consequences: “Adopting the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine will dramatically expand federal jurisdiction, putting the federal district courts in this circuit in the position of resolving procedural matters that are more appropriately resolved in state court—all without a clear statutory hook.” No. 20-30196 (Nov. 30, 2021).

A concurrence by Judge Ho emphasized the importance of the statutory text in rejecting the doctrine; a dissent by Judge Jones focused on “the unusual circumstances here, which bespeak obvious joinder machinations undertaken to avoid federal court.” (both opinions are in the above link). The trio of opinions suggests that this case may receive serious consideration for en banc review.

In a coverage dispute between two excess carriers, the Fifth Circuit observed: “At bottom, the allocation issue depends upon the sufficiency of Great American’s summary judgment evidence. To support its allocation theory and establish that the covered claims were worth at least $7 million, Great American submitted the affidavits of (1) Brent Anderson, Liberty Tire’s attorney in the Underlying Litigation, and (2) Carol Euwema, Great American’s lead adjuster for the relevant claims.” Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. The trial court found those affidavits conclusive, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed; they provide good references for summary-judgment practice generally. No. 20-11113 (Nov. 17, 2021).

The question whether an insurance statute violated the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on “retroactive laws” presented a textbook case for certification in Fire Protection Service, Inc. v. Survitec Survival Prods, Inc.: “Beyond the closeness of the question and the dearth of on-point precedent, considerations of comity counsel in favor of certification.” No. 21-20145 (Nov. 22, 2021).

If you think that the modern administrative state relies heavily upon acronyms, you are not alone, as the Fifth Circuit illustrated in Leigh Ann H v. Reisel ISD, No. 20-50003-CV (Nov. 22, 2021):

In Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., both the Great American and Employers’ umbrella policies were “excess,” in that they both provided coverage for liability “in excess” of a “retained limit.” That said . . .

• the Employers’ policy defined “retained limit” as “the available limits of all ‘underlying insurance,'” a term that was, in turn, defined by two descriptions of primary coverage; while
• the Great American policy defined “retained limit” to include “the applicable limits of any other insurance providing coverage to the ‘Insured’ during the Policy Period.” (emphasis added).

Thus, “[b]ased on the plain terms of these policies, the Great American Umbrella Policy was the true excess policy after all other policies.” No. 20-11113 (Nov. 17, 2021).

In a rough stretch for the administrative state, after the Fifth Circuit’s recent skeptical rejection of an FDA regulation of e-cigarettes, another panel stayed OSHA’s vaccine-mandate regulation. It based its decision on several administrative-law principles and summarized:

“[T]he Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a “grave danger” in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat). The Mandate’s stated impetus—a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years, and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to—is unavailing as well. And its promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority.”

No. 21-60845 (Nov. 12, 2021) (footnotes omitted, emphasis in original).

The dispute in Guzman v. Allstate Assurance Co. was whether the insured was a smoker when he applied for insurance; the Fifth Circuit concluded that “self-serving” affidavits by family members were sufficient to raise a fact issue and avoid summary judgment. The details offer an excellent, general example about this sort of affidavit:

“Mirna’s and Martha’s affidavits are competent summary judgment evidence. They are based on personal knowledge, set out facts that are admissible in evidence, are given by competent witnesses, and are particularized rather than vague or conclusory. Mirna and Martha testify about their personal experiences with Guzman. In her deposition and affidavit, Mirna claimed that Guzman was not a smoker; that she was often with Guzman and would know if he smoked; that she is “able to tell whether [people] use tobacco because they have a peculiar and specific smoke smell”; and that neither Guzman nor his belongings, including his clothes and truck, ever smelled like smoke. Martha made substantially similar claims in her own affidavit. Though self-serving, this testimony is sufficient to—and does— create a genuine dispute of material fact.”

No. 21-10023 (Nov. 10, 2021).

“Federal courts can enforce an arbitration agreement only if they could hear the underlying ‘controversy between the parties.’ 9 U.S.C. § 4. In Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), the court told us to define that ‘controversy’ by looking to the whole dispute, including any state-court pleadings.” ADT, LLC v. Richmond, No. 21-10023 (Nov. 10, 2021).

ADT presented the question whether that technique for definition also applies to the parties in the case–a material issue in that case, because federal diversity jurisdiction over the arbitration suit depended on how the court treated nondiverse parties in the underlying state-court lawsuit.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that Vaden did not apply,, based on the plain language of section 4: “Having agreed to arbitrate its claims against a diverse defendant, a plaintiff may not escape our power by joining to its state-court suit nondiverse persons whom it could not hale into arbitration. ‘Parties,’ in § 4, means the parties to the § 4 suit–not everyone against whom one party claims relief.” (emphasis added).

In Wages & White Lions Investments LLC v. FDA, the Fifth Circuit found many problems with the FDA’s denial of a company’s application to market flavored e-cigarettes. Among them, the Court identified two issues with the FDA’s review of the company’s marketing plan to avoid improper product use by young people; the Court’s reasoning is of broad general interest for Daubert practice as well as administrative law:

1. The FDA’s contention “that no marketing plan would be sufficient, so it stopped working”: “That’s like an Article III judge saying that she stopped reading briefs because she previously found them unhelpful.”
2. Reliance on expertise and experience. “An agency’s ‘experience and expertise’ presumably enable the agency to provide the required explanation, but they do not substitute for the explanation, any more than an expert witness’s credentials substitute for the substantive requirements applicable to the expert’s testimony under [Rule] 702.”

No. 21-60766 (Oct. 26, 2021).

In Gezu v. Charter Communications, “the record show[ed] a valid modification to [plaintiff’s] employment contract–i.e., notice and acceptance,” when:

• Notice. “On October 6, 2017, Charter sent an email notice to Gezu of its new Program aimed at ‘efficiently resolv[ing] covered employment-related legal disputes through binding arbitration.’  … The email stated that by participating, the recipient and Charter ‘both waive[d] the right to initiate or participate in court litigation … involving a covered claim’ and that recipients ‘would be automatically enrolled in the Program unless they chose to ‘opt out of participating … within … 30 days.’ This language, along with the referenced links to additional information about the Program provided in the email, was sufficient to notify Gezu unequivocally of the arbitration agreement.” (emphasis added); and
• Acceptance. “The October 6, 2017 email ‘conspicuously warned that employees were deemed to accept’ the Program unless they opted out within 30 days. In re Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex. 2006). The email also provided recipients with directions on how to opt out. Nonetheless, Gezu did not opt out of the Program and continued working for Charter for over a year until he was terminated in May 2019.”

No. 21-10198 (Nov. 2, 2021).

A key issue facing OSHA’s new COVID regulation is whether a “grave danger” justified the agency acting so rapidly. In an unusual flash of appellate-court wit, the Fifth Circuit temporarily stayed the regulation, observing:

(Regrettably, Judge Graves was not on the panel.)

The Texas Supreme Court is using a new, standard layout for its opinions. Similar in some ways to what the Fifth Circuit has used for some time (most notably, the use of Old English for the court name), it is based on a Century font rather than the Equity font used by the Fifth Circuit.

“It should be obvious to any reasonable police officer that locking up a journalist for asking a question violates the First Amendment. Indeed, even Captain Lorenzo, the stubborn police chief in Die Hard 2, acknowledged: ‘Now personally, I’d like to lock every [expletive] reporter out of the airport. But then they’d just pull that “freedom of speech” [expletive] on us and the ACLU would be all over us.”  Die Hard 2 (1990).                                        Captain Lorenzo understood this. The officers in Laredo should have, too. Cf. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 443 (2000) (‘Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.’). The complaint here alleges an obvious violation of the First Amendment. The district court erred in holding otherwise.”

Villarreal v. City of Laredo, No. 20-40359 (Nov. 1, 2021).

In the course of resolving a long-running dispute about arbitration, the Fifth Circuit highlighted an important but infrequently litigated collateral-estoppel issue:

…  an unappealable ruling like a remand order is not entitled to preclusive effect. Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665, 673 (5th Cir. 2002) (explaining that when “a litigant, as a matter of law, has no right to appellate review, then he has not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate and the issue is not precluded”); see Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387, 395 (5th Cir. 1998) (suggesting that “collateral estoppel may not be applied offensively to a jurisdictional decision—such as one granting a motion to remand—that is not capable of being subjected to appellate review”) …  The unappealability of remand orders is why, after a remand, a state court may revisit the federal court’s jurisdictional reasoning. … We recognized this principle in dismissing the appeal of the 2002 remand: “[T]he district court determined that the arbitration clause was invalid in the process of ascertaining whether it had subject matter jurisdiction,” which meant the ruling “has no preclusive effect in state court.” Dahiya, 371 F.3d at 211. The state court could freely reexamine the issue and “reach a different conclusion about [the] dispute’s arbitrability.” Beiser, 284 F.3d at 674.

Neptune Shipmanagement Services v. Dahiya, No. 20-30776 (Oct. 1, 2021) (emphasis added).

I recently wrote an article, “Federalism and Appellate Procedure: Five Texas-Federal Differences to Know,” in the Appellate Advocate, the quarterly publication by the Appellate Section of the State Bar of Texas. I hope you find it interesting and useful.

A frequent international traveler alleged that he had been placed on a TSA list that required additional, invasive searches of him when he flew. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the several Constitutional claims that he raised in a lawsuit against the leaders of the relevant federal agencies:

“In short, Ghedi has no right to hassle-free travel. In the Supreme Court’s view, international travel is a ‘freedom’ subject to ‘reasonable governmental regulation.’ And when it comes to reasonable governmental regulation, our sister circuits have held that Government-caused inconveniences during international travel do not deprive a traveler’s right to travel. In the Sixth Circuit’s view, ‘incidental or negligible’ delays of ‘ten minutes’ to ‘an entire day’ do not ‘implicate the right to travel.’ The Second and Tenth Circuits have held the same. Ghedi has therefore failed to plausibly allege that he has been deprived of his right to travel internationally by the extra security measures he has experienced.”

Ghedi v. Mayorkas, No. 20-10995 (Oct. 25, 2021) (footnotes omitted).

A New Orleans bar was sued after two patrons were stabbed by another, underaged patron who had been drinking at the bar. The insurance company denied coverage under a “weapons” exclusion (reaching “instruments of an offensive or defensive nature and include but are not limited to batons, bow or crossbow [?!], arrows, knives, mace, stun guns, tasers, or swords.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the insurer:

“The district court described the claims of negligence in state court as Funky 544’s failure to require patron identifications and, more generally, its failure to prevent underage drinking. Even so, an element of each of [the plaintiffs’] claims is that Funky 544’s negligence caused them to be injured by a knife. … The term in this exclusion of ‘arising out of’ the use of weapons unambiguously provides that for coverage, an injury must be entirely separate from those relating to the use of weapons.”

Funky 544, LLC v. Houston Specialty Ins. Co., No. 21-30310 (Oct. 22, 2021) (unpublished).

While specifically addressing a novel Hague Convention child-custody issue, Harm v. Lake-Harm provides a useful general illustration of clear-error review: “There is evidence that SLH might have established a habitual residence in Ireland. As noted above, the family discussed and took steps toward setting up a ‘home base’ in Ireland to provide more opportunities to SLH. … It is equally plausible, however, as the trial court concluded, that SLH’s presence in Ireland was transitory. Ms. Lake-Harm’s career as a
professional musician sent mother and daughter on a dogged schedule of
travel outside Ireland. … We hold that the district court’s determinations are plausible in light of the record as a whole.” No. 20-30488 (Oct. 21, 2021).

In a challenge to the constitutionality of the “eviction moratorium,” the federal government argued that the case had become moot because the specific order at issue had expired. The Fifth Circuit expressed skepticism:

“Appellees respond that the appeal is not moot because the parties still dispute whether the government has constitutional power under the Commerce Clause to invade individual property rights by limiting landlords’ use of state court eviction remedies. The government maintains it has such authority. And in the government’s view, espoused at oral argument, that constitutional power is in no way limited to combatting the ongoing pandemic; the government asserts it can wield that staggering constitutional authority for any reason. Appellees further contend the proposed dismissal is a pretext to avoid appellate review of the constitutional question.”

(emphasis added). The court concluded, however, that it did not need to address mootness because it was granting the government’s motion to dismiss “on terms . . . fixed by the court” under FRAP 42. Those terms included the “express condition” that ‘”our dismissal does not abrogate the district court’s judgment or opinion, both of which remain in full force according to the express concession of the government during oral argument and in briefing.” Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control, No. 21-40137 (Oct. 19, 2021) (One panelist joined the result only.)

The complexity of the route map for the Erie Railway is well-illustrated by Butler v. Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC, No. 20-30365 (Oct. 15, 2021), in which one judge dissented from the panel’s decision to apply Louisiana tort law without certifying the issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and another dissented about the panel’s decision, based on Louisiana law, about whether prescription (limitations) had been established. No. 20-30365 (Oct. 15, 2021).

The Fifth Circuit denied the stay application in the appeal of the DOJ’s lawsuit against SB8, stating:While the referenced Fifth Circuit opinion primarily focused on Ex Parte Young (not relevant in a suit by the US, see West Virginia v. United States, 479 U.S. 305 (1987)), it made other observations about justiciability that this order suggests will now be central in the resolution of the merits. Professor Steve Vladeck further analyzes the relationship of the two cases in a recent Twitter thread.

The annual Appellate Judges Education Institute, hosted by the Appellate Judges Conference, an arm of the American Bar Association’s Judicial Division, will be held November 11-14, 2021, at the Hyatt Regency in Austin, Texas. This Appellate Summit offers four days of advanced-level appellate educational programming and is the largest nationwide gathering of appellate jurists and advocates. The most recent Summit sold out and the ABA had to cut off registrations early. Early-bird registration for the 2021 Summit is now open through October 15, 2021. Over 100 judges from throughout the country have already signed up for the Summit.

This year’s summit features speakers on the following topics, among others:

• How Judges Read in an E-filing Era
• Top-Notch Oral Argument Answers
• Managing Stress and Strengthening Resiliency: Practical Strategies for Judges and Lawyers
• Building and Growing an Appellate Practice
• Supreme Court Preview
• Writing from the Reader’s Perspective: How the English Language Really Works
• United States Supreme Court Civil Update
• Storytelling for Advocates and Judges: How and Why We Should Incorporate Storytelling Techniques and Themes into our Work

Panelists include:
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
Hon. Nathan Hecht, Chief Justice, Texas Supreme Court
Hon. Bridget Mary McCormack, Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme Court
Hon. Albert Diaz, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Hon. James Earl Graves Jr., United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Hon. Consuelo Callahan, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Hon. Steven H. David, Indiana Supreme Court
Hon. Marsha Ternus, former Chief Justice, Iowa Supreme Court
Hon. Samuel A. Thumma, Arizona Court of Appeals
Hon. Martha Warner, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Florida
Hon. David W. Ellis, Illinois Court of Appeals and best-selling author
Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
George Gopen, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of the Practice of Rhetoric, Duke University & Consultant on Writing the English Language

The summit will be taking place in a hotel that will easily accommodate social distancing for attendees and presenter. The ballroom boasts over 14,000 square feet and a ceiling height of 22 feet. It is rated to hold more than 1,000 attendees during normal times, but will be capped at 400 attendees. Round tables will be set with no more than 4-5 seats instead of the usual 7 to 8. The opening reception at the Bullock Museum will be held in the museum’s Grand Lobby, which has a capacity of 600. Additionally, a color coding system, to reflect your social distancing preference, will be offered at registration. Meals also will have enhanced safety measures.

For further details on speakers, programs, and registration, go to: https://lnkd.in/exxjtGjA.

In the movie “Girls! Girls! Girls!” Elvis Presley enthusiastically sang “Return to Sender.” In that general spirit, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a disgorgement award in SEC v. Blackburn when “[f]irst, the disgorgement amounts are the profits defendants received from their securities fraud,” and “[s]econd, the district court concluded that the SEC has identified the victims and created a process for the return of disgorged funds” to the victims. (emphasis added). In so doing, the SEC avoided the “the issue [Liu v. SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020)] left open: whether
disgorgement is ‘awarded for victims’ when the money is put into a
Treasury fund that helps “pay whistleblowers reporting securities fraud and
to fund the activities of the Inspector General.” No. 20-30464 (Oct. 12, 2021).

The fantastically controversial Texas abortion statute returned to the Fifth Circuit, which granted an administrative stay on Friday, October 8, while it receives further briefing about a stay during the appeal of Judge Pittman’s preliminary-injunction order. Enthusiasts of court history will note that the motions panel —

bears substantial similarity to the original panel in what led to the 2021 Supreme Court opinion in Collins v. Yellen. The panel divided 2-1 (Judges Haynes and Stewart, joining) about the constitutional problem with Fannie Mae’s regulator, and then again divided 2-1 (Judges Haynes and Willett, joining) about the proper remedy:

Johnson alleged that BOKF’s collection of “extended overdraft charges” (fees charged to customers who overdraw on their checking accounts and fail to timely pay the bank for covering the overdraft) were “interest” within the meaning of the National Bank Act. The Fifth Circuit rejected her claim, giving Auer deference to an interpretive letter of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and noting as to the relevant considerations:

1. Authoritative. The letter was drafted by the OCC’s chief counsel, in response to a bank’s request for OCC guidance, and thus “bears the hallmarks of an official interpretation by OCC.”
2. Within the agency’s substantive expertise.  OCC administers the National Bank Act, the letter “appears aimed at providing assurance to regulated parties,” and did not appear to merely take a “convenient litigating position.”
3. Fair and considered judgment.  The letter “is neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulations it interprets.”

No. 18-11375 (Sept. 29, 2021).

“[T]he district court erred by failing to give notice to the parties. We ask, then, whether that error was harmless. Lexon argues that, had it received notice, it would have submitted different evidence of the value of its ‘lost collateral’—less than the full amount of the letters of credit. Lexon argues that the lost collateral, while perhaps not being worth the full value of the letters of credit, ‘had at least some economic value.’ However, Lexon never pleaded nor argued in the district court that its damages could be anything less than the full value of the letters of credit—$9,985,500. If the district court did not have an opportunity to rule on an argument, we will not address it on appeal.” Lexon Ins. Co. v. FDIC, No. 20-30173 (Aug. 2, 2021) (footnote and citation omitted) (emphasis added).

In Jungian psychology, the “Trickster” archetype (right) has been called “the embodiment of ambiguity.” In McDonnel Group, LLC v. Jung, LLC, the Fifth Circuit found an embodiment of ambiguity in an insurance policy provision that defined the flood-damage deductible as:

“5% of the total insured values at risk at the time and place of loss subject to a $500,000 minimum deduction as respects … FLOOD.”

The Court observed that “the plaintiffs read the deductible as saying ‘5% of the total insured values at risk … as  respects FLOOD,'” and that “the insurers read the provision as ‘5% of the total insured values at risk at the time and place of loss, subject to a $500,000 minimum deduction … as respects FLOOD.” In other words: “[U]nder the plaintiffs’ theory, ‘as respects FLOOD’ modifies ‘total insured values at risk,'” while “[u]nder the insurer’s theory, ‘as respects FLOOD’ pertains only to the ‘$500,000 minimum deduction.'” The Court concluded that “[b]oth parties’ interpretations are reasonable, so the policy is ambiguous.” No. 20-30140 (Sept. 24, 2021).

The United States successfully seized the M/Y Galactic Star, a valuable yacht, in connection with a massive bribery scheme involving Nigerian government officials. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the majority shareholder of the yacht’s corporate owner lacked standing to complain: “LightRay chose to maintain Earnshaw as a separate corporate entity, thereby securing all the attendant advantages of doing so, including an attempt by its principals to support the argument that LightRay is an innocent owner. We agree with the Eighth Circuit that ‘[a] court of equity will not disregard a corporation’s exclusive ownership of assets and claims ‘where those in control have deliberately adopted the corporate form in order to secure its advantages.’'” United States v. The M/Y Galactic Star, No. 20-20471 (Sept. 13, 2021) (citations omitted).

• “Atlas Shrugged.” Ayn Rand, 1957.
• “Jesus wept.” John 11:35.
• “Mandamus lied.” Synopsis, State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1984).

(H/T to Ben Taylor for showing this one to me!)

Forby v. One Technologies presented the unusual situation of an arbitration waiver by the defendant, followed by an arbitration waiver the plaintiff as to a newly asserted claim: “We again address a class action claiming that One Technologies, L.P. (“One Tech”), duped consumers into signing up for ‘free’ credit reports that were not really free. The last time around, we ruled One Tech waived its right to arbitrate the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Forby v. One Technologies., 909 F.3d 780 (5th Cir. 2018) [hereinafter Forby I]. Now, we consider whether One Tech also waived its right to arbitrate federal claims added after remand. Adhering to our precedent that waivers of arbitral rights are evaluated on a claim-by-claim basis, see Subway Equip. Leasing Corp. v. Forte, 169 F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir. 1999), we hold that One Tech did not waive its right to arbitrate the new federal claims.” No. 20-10088 (Sept. 14, 2021) (citing, inter alia, Collado v. J&G Transp., Inc., 820 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2016)).

Despite the defeat of the Moorish armies in 732 by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours (right), the appellants in Luminant Mining Co. v. PakeyBey asserted rights as cotenants to certain real property in East Texas as “’Moorish Americans’ who are ‘sovereign freemen under the Republic . . . .'” The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the appellees, concluding: “[T]the PakeyBey parties contend that Luminant failed to demonstrate hostile possession vis-à-vis its cotenants. They assert that the record is devoid of evidence of actual notice of repudiation of the common title. They further contend that Luminant cannot show constructive notice of repudiation, arguing that constructive notice and ouster require more than Luminant’s demonstrated possession of the land and the absence of a claim against the land by Walling’s heirs. Their argument rests on a correct reading of the law, up to a point. (citation omitted) But Luminant’s possession and Luminant’s recorded deeds are sufficient to give constructive notice of hostility to cotenants and to effect an ouster.” No. 20-40803 (Sept. 17, 2021).

Ten years ago, I posted a short note about a CAFA case (right); today, I make the 1,957th post on this blog. Tomorrow, I’ll make the 1,958th — blogging is a road traveled one case at a time. Publishing this blog has been a fantastic journey and I appreciate everyone who has shared the ride so far.

To celebrate this anniversary properly, I observe three 600Camp traditions:

• Valuable 600Camp Merchandise. Anyone who catches an error in a post goes on the list to receive valuable 600Camp merchandise. Unfortunately I do not yet have any merchandise, but I assure you that all such commitments will be duly honored at the earliest possible time.
• Update on the M/V OCEAN SHANGHAI. The 2013 case of Farenco Shipping Co. v. Farenco Shipping PTE, Ltd. produced the best mootness argument of all time — a case about the seizure of a marine vessel became moot once the ship had sailed. The M/V OCEAN SHANGHAI, recently renamed as SFERA, has avoided the Fifth Circuit’s waters ever since; as of September 18, 2021, it was transiting the Laccadive Sea south of Sri Lanka (right).
• Creole Recipe. The Fifth Circuit is blessed to be headquartered in the culturally rich city of New Orleans; to celebrate 600Camp’s birthday properly, I recommend the Artisanal Eggs Benedict at Brennan’s.

In light of the recent, intense debate about principles of “textualism” in Hewitt v. Helix Energy, it seemed a good time to revisit this classic meme:

The Fifth Circuit recently released its opinion on the emergency-stay motions of early September in the high-profile challenge to Texas’s “heartbeat law,” Whole Womens Health v. Jackson, No. 21-50792 (Sept. 10, 2021). In addition to identifying problems with the application of Ex parte Young, the Court observed: “We do not even take into account the many other justiciability defenses Defendants have raised beyond Young. Defendants have argued powerfully that, not only do they enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity, but federal jurisdiction is also lacking under Article III. Related doctrines of standing, ripeness, and justiciability are also likely to prevail because these Plaintiffs have no present or imminent injury from the enactment of S.B 8.” 

• In reviewing a claim of improper joinder, a court may “conduct a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis” to determine if the claim against the in-state defendant “is plausible on its face.”
• Alternatively, if “discrete and undisputed facts . . . would preclude plaintiff’s recovery against the in-state defendant,” then “the district court may, in its discretion, pierce the pleadings and conduct a summary inquiry.”
• But, “unlike summary judgment, which can be granted when there is ‘lack of substantive evidence’ to support a plaintiff’s claim, improper joinder requires the defendant to ‘put forward evidence that would negate a possibility of liability on the part of ‘ the in-state defendant.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed a finding of improper joinder in Hicks v. Martinrea Automotive Structures (USA), Inc., No. 20-60926 (Sept. 7, 2021), noting that the defendant’s argument about the tortious-interference element of malice “rel[ies] on evidence developed during merits discovery, which is far afield from Rule 12(b)(6) [and] the evidence they cite relates to the crucial question of Clark’s motive in terminating Hicks.” No. 20-60926 (Sept. 7, 2021).

The en banc court divided along atypical lines in Hewitt v. Helix Energy, a dispute about overtime-pay obligations for highly compensated employees in the oil-and-gas industry. The Texas Lawbook and Houston Chronicle have covered the opinion thoroughly; below is a chart showing which judges joined the majority opinion and which judges dissented in some way.  Note that Senior Judge Wiener participated in this en banc case because he was part of the original panel.

Longtime observers of the Court may see echoes of the divided en banc court in Mississippi Poultry Ass’n v. Madigan, 31 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), a dispute about the import of the word “same” in the Poultry Products Inspection Act.

A chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy complained about the recent removal of a statue of a Confederate soldier from a San Antonio park. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of its claim, observing (1) an 1899 document relating to the construction of the statue did not create a conveyance or use privilege for the relevant land; and (2) if it had done so, any such conveyance expired when an earlier chapter that actually received the document ceased operations in 1972, without conveying any such interest to its successor. Albert Sidney Johnston Chapter, Chapter No. 2060, UDC v. City of San Antonio, No. 20-50155 (Aug. 25, 2021).

There’s always “that” customer, who brings rude remarks and behavior along with repeat business. In Sansone v. Jazz Casino Co., No. 20-30640 (Sept. 1, 2021), “that” customer led to a prima facie case about a hostile work environment: “The unidentified Harrah’s customer frequently asked Sansone about her sex life and expressed his desire to sleep with her. He commented on her breasts and physical appearance and directed sexual gestures towards her. His comments were made in the presence of others and occurred at least two times a week for a significant period of time. This contrasts with instances where we have held a smaller stint within a lengthy period of employment was not sufficiently pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim.” (citations omitted, applying Farpella-Crosby v. Horizon Health Care, 97 F.3d 803, 806 (5th Cir. 1996)).

“When reviewing for abuse of discretion, we will reverse a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction ‘only if the instruction (1) was a substantially correct statement of law, (2) was not substantially covered in the charge as a whole, and (3) concerned an important point in the trial such that the failure to instruct the jury on the issue seriously impaired the [party’s] ability to present a given [claim].'” (citations omitted). In HTC Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, while the panel divided 2-1 about whether a requested instruction was accurate, all three judges agreed that the appellant was not “seriously impaired” at trial by its absence. No. 19-40566 (Aug. 31, 2021).

CAFA creates an exception to federal class-action jurisdiction if, among other requirements, “the primary defendants[] are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.” Recognizing a lack of clear authority about the meaning of “primary defendant,” the Fifth Circuit reasoned that “there is much to commend the [Third Circuit’s] emphasis on the ‘real target’ of the litigation and [this Court’s] description of the controversy’s ‘primary thrust.'” Madison v. ADT, LLC, No. 21-90028 (Aug. 24, 2021).

“We are … persuaded that, under Texas law, undercapitalization alone would not be sufficient to pierce the corporate veil.” Ledford v. Keen, No. 20-50650 (applying, inter alia, Ramirez v. Hariri, 165 S.W.3d 912, 916 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.)).

Zurich won an insurance coverage dispute with Maxim Crane. On appeal, in addition to defending the merits, Zurich argued that the matter should be dismissed entirely because Maxim lacked standing. This argument led to the question whether a cross-appeal was needed to make that point, and the Fifth Circuit concluded:

… although our judgment would be different if we credited Zurich’s standing argument, that does not mean that Zurich needed to file a cross-appeal to present that argument. To be sure, as a matter of standard appellate practice, “[m]any cases state the general rule that a cross-appeal is required to support modification of the judgment,” whereas “arguments that support the judgment as entered can be made without a cross-appeal.” (quoting [Wright & Miller]). But this case falls within an exception to that general rule. A cross-appeal “is not necessary to challenge the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district court, under the well-established rule that both district court and appellate courts are obliged to raise such questions on their own initiative.” Id.

Maxim Crane Works LP v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 19-20489 (Aug. 20, 2021) (ultimately, certifying the underlying coverage issue to the Texas Supreme Court).

The practical problems cause by conversion of a Rule 12 motion to one for summary judgment were examined in Lexon Ins. Co. v. FDIC, where the nonmovant argued that “had it received [proper] notice, it would have submitted different evidence of the value of its ‘lost collateral,'” but the Fifth Circuit rejected that argument because the nonmovant “never pleaded nor argued in the district court that its damages could be anything less than the full value of the letters of credit ….” No. 20-30173 (Aug. 2, 2021).

The Texas Supreme Court’s longtime staff attorney for public information, Osler McCarthy, retires on August 31 after many years of dedicated service. I wanted to salute his hard work and share a well-written tribute to him recently prepared by former Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson.

The Fifth Circuit found that Petrobras did not have sufficient knowledge of a potential claim to trigger limitations in Petrobras America, Inc. v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., holding:

• two officers “acted in their own interests by accepting $10 million in bribes . . . [t]hus, [they] are clearly adverse agents of Petrobras. Their knowledge cannot be imputed to Petrobras.”;
• “an ujnfavorable contract alone is not a legally cognizable injury”;
• statements in SEC filings about the general topic of bribery, when they involved “separate bribery schemes [that] involved separate parties, separate contracts, and separate ships,” “at best raise fact questions not suitable for disposition under Rule 12(b)(6).”

No. 20-20339 (Aug. 11, 2021).

The Fifth Circuit reversed the Rule 12 dismissal of a Lanham Act case in which “Plaintiffs allege that Defendants purchased trademark terms as keywords for search-engine advertising, then placed generic advertisements that confused customers as to whether the advertisements belonged to or were affiliated with the Plaintiffs.” Adler v. McNeil Consultants, No. 20-10936 (Aug. 10, 2021) (LPHS represented the appellee in this matter).

Season Two of the “Coale Mind” podcast begins by returning to an earlier episode about the Supreme Court’s review of high-profile Fifth Circuit cases — “Is the Fifth Circuit More Conservative than the Roberts Court: Revisited.” I hope you have a chance to listen!

A triable fact issue on the issue of pretext arose in Lindsey v. Bio-Medical Applications: “As anyone who has ever worked in an office environment can attest, there are real deadlines and hortatory ones—and everyone understands the difference between the two. Missing real deadlines results in actual adverse consequences for employer and employee alike—while failing to meet hortatory deadlines does not. BMA does not point to any adverse impact that Lindsey’s tardy reports had on the company. And in any event, there is no evidence BMA ever warned Lindsey that failure to submit the reports on time could jeopardize her job. So there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether BMA’s assertion that it fired Lindsey for this reason is ‘unworthy of credence.'” No. 20-30289 (Aug. 16, 2021).

The provocatively named book “Hooker to Looker: a makeup guide for the not so easily offended” (video summary available here) gave rise to a dispute about the preemptive force of the Copyright Act, which the Fifth Circuit resolved in favor of preemption by looking to:

• Factual allegations. “Although Di Angelo muddles its complaint with contract allegations aplenty, it also alleges that it ‘acquired copyrights in the [B]ook’ by ‘writing, editing, planning and taking all photographs and making all illustrations, and planning, designing, and arranging the layout of the [B]ook.’ …  Although the complaint uses neither the term   joint work” nor “co-author,” it is nigh impossible to read Di Angelo’s allegations … without concluding that Di Angelo is alleging, at minimum, co-authorship of the Book.” 
• The parties’ contract. “The Contract does not define author, and the word’s common meaning can apply to multiple parties who collaboratively engage in producing one creative work, a possibility expressly contemplated by copyright law. And contrary to Kelley’s suggestion, the terms of the Contract lend some support to the notion that the Book would be produced collaboratively.” (footnote omitted).
• Requested relief. “[A] declaration of Di Angelo’s copyright in the updated work could permit it to exercise rights with respect to that work that it would not enjoy under the Contract. For instance, a declaration could allow Di Angelo to profit from the Book’s update, which according to its state court complaint, Kelley currently
  prevents it from doing.”

Di Angelo Publications, Inc., No. 20-20523 (Aug. 12, 2021).

Under Texas insurance law: “Payment and acceptance of an appraisal award means there is nothing left for a breach of contract claim seeking those same damages. But a plaintiff may still have a claim under the prompt payment law after it accepts an appraisal award. The Supreme Court of Texas recently held that even a preappraisal payment that seemed reasonable at the time does not bar a prompt-payment claim if it does not ‘roughly correspond’ to the amount ultimately owed.” Randel v. Travelers Lloyds, No. 20-20567 (Aug. 12, 2021).

The plaintiffs in Turner v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. obtained a “non-adversarial” default judgment against a defunct vocational school. The Fifth Circuit found that Texas’s “no-direct action” rule did not bar their claim against the school’s insurer: “[T]he Plaintiffs’ default judgment against ATI is an adjudication that satisfies the no-action clause. Accordingly, although the non-adversarial default judgment does not bind Cincinnati to its terms,  the no-direct-action rule is not a bar to this coverage suit.” (citation omitted). (Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the Court then affirmed the dismissal of their claim on timeliness grounds.) No. 20-50548 (Aug. 13, 2021).

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a jurisdiction-based collateral attack on a judgment in Bessie Jeanne Worthy Revocable Trust, reasoning that in the prior litigation, “the Estate’s Texas citizenship defeated diversity among the parties,” creating a “‘total want of jurisdiction’ to enter judgment[.]” No. 20-10492 (Aug. 10, 2021). In so doing, the Court distinguished Picco v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 900 F.2d 846 (5th Cir. 1990), as turning on a distinct question about the effect of the automatic bankruptcy stay. The able Rory Ryan from Baylor’s law school cautions against an overly broad reading of this new opinion.

To illustrate a point about the risks of unbounded judicial discretion, the Fifth Circuit quoted a well-known gorilla joke in Rollins v. Home Depot USA, No. 20-50736 (Aug. 9, 2021):

Counsel failed to file a summary-judgment response because his notification of filing went to his email “spam” folder. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e):

“It is not ‘manifest error to deny relief when failure to file was within [Rollins’s] counsel’s ‘reasonable control.’  Notice of Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment was sent to the email address that Rollins’s counsel provided. Rule 5(b)(2)(E) provides for service ‘by filing [the pleading] with the court’s electronic-filing system’ and explains that ‘service is complete upon filing or sending.’ That rule was satisfied here. Rollins’s counsel was plainly in the best position to ensure that his own email was working properly—certainly more so than either the district court or Home Depot. Moreover, Rollins’s counsel could have checked the docket after the agreed deadline for dispositive motions had already passed.”

Rollins v. Home Depot USA, No. 20-50736 (Aug. 9, 2021).

“‘Lost debt’ cases present a unique type of claim. They allege ‘a RICO violation whose central purpose [i]s to prevent the collection of a claim or judgment.’ The substantive RICO violation is the act of preventing collection. And the plaintiff’s injury is the inability to collect the lawful debt. So, when the plaintiff successfully recovers that debt, it is no longer lost. And because that unrecovered debt is the only source of the plaintiff’s injury, there is no RICO claim in its absence.  As a result, a plaintiff cannot rely on its lost debt to animate a RICO suit after it has recovered that debt. The ‘debt is “lost” and thereby
becomes a basis for RICO trebling only if the debt (1) cannot be collected (2)
“by reason of” a RICO violation.’ ‘In other words, to the extent of a successful collection, the RICO claim is abated pro tanto, prior to any application of trebling.'” HCB Fin. Corp. v. McPherson, No. 20-50718 (Aug. 4, 2021) (citations omitted). Put another way: “There must be independent damages to treble; the possibility of treble damages alone cannot confer statutory RICO standing.” 

A recent antitrust case reminds of an important but infrequently-litigated point about the review of pleadings in the context of a motion to dismiss: “If an attached exhibit contradicts a factual allegation in the complaint, ‘then indeed the exhibit and not the allegation controls.'” Quadvest LP v. San Jacinto River Auth., No. 20-20447 (Aug. 3, 2021).

The plaintiffs in Quadvest LP v. San Jacinto River Auth. alleged that a state-created river authority violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by unreasonably restraining the market for wholesale raw water in Montgomery County. Procedurally, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the denial of the authority’s motion to dismiss on immunity grounds was appealable under Circuit precedent (acknowledging that the Fifth Circuit is an outlier on this point). Substantively, the Court affirmed the denial of the authority’s motion “at this stage” of the case, concluding that “the Texas Legislature did not authorize [the authority’s] entry into and enforcement of the challenged [contract] provisions with the intent to displace competition in the market for wholesale raw water in Montgomery County.” No. 20-20447 (August 5, 2021).

Two rulings about the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege were recently reversed, by both the Fifth Circuit and Dallas’s Fifth District, in response to mandamus petitions. (This is a cross-post with 600commerce.com.)

• In the Fifth Circuit: “[A]s Boeing argues, the district court clearly erred in finding that Plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the contested documents were subject to the crime-fraud exception. The district court concluded that the contested documents were reasonably connected to the fraud based on one finding only—that the documents sought ‘f[e]ll within the period Boeing admit to hav[ing] knowingly and intentionally committed “fraud” in the DPA. However, a temporal nexus between the contested documents and the fraudulent activity alone is insufficient to satisfy the second element for a prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applies.” In re The Boeing Co., No. 21-40190 (July 29, 2021, unpublished).
• In the Fifth District, the Court noted: “[A] determination at the TCPA stage as to a prima facie showing does not automatically translate to a prima facie showing for purposes of application of the crime–fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege. The exception UDF attempts to invoke is for crime–fraud, not crime–tort.” From there, it declined to follow a broad view of the exception defined by another Texas intermediate court, “and note that, notwithstanding certain language in the [relevant] opinion, the El Paso court continues to apply the elements of common-law fraud when determining the applicability of the crime fraud exception, rather than requiring proof of a false statement only.” In re Bass, No. 05-21-00102-CV (July 30, 2021) (mem. op.).

A long-running discovery dispute in Texas state court led to a contempt order, which in turn led to a federal-court habeas action. The Fifth Circuit noted that habeas relief was potentially available under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, under which:

… if an adequate state ‘corrective process’ for raising a claim exists that the petitioner could avail him or herself of, a federal court may only consider the claim if the petitioner has exhausted available state remedies. And when the petitioner has done so and the state court has rejected the claim on the merits, federal courts may provide relief only when the state court adjudication was either ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ or ‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.’

(citations omitted). Among other observations, the Court held: “A rule that due process does not permit the use of civil contempt to compel the production of documents that are in the hands of third parties would also overturn longstanding precedents and would likely be unworkable in practice.” Topletz v. Skinner, No. 20-40136 (July 30, 2021).

• “While litigants should, when possible, identify specific contractual provisions alleged to have been breached, Rule 8 does not require that level of granularity. ‘So long as a pleading alleges facts upon which relief can be granted, it states a claim even if it “fails to categorize correctly the legal theory giving rise to the claim.”‘ ” (citations omitted).
• That said — “That the pleading was sufficient in this contract dispute, governed by an agreement neither exceedingly long nor rife with addenda, exhibits, and multiple parts, does not mean that Rule 8 would necessarily be satisfied by general allegations involving more complex contracts.” 

Sanchez Oil & Gas Corp. v. Crescent Drilling & Prod., Inc., No. 20-20304 (July 30, 2021).

The key contract provision in Papalote Creek II LLC v. Lower Colorado River Authority said that “[LCRA]’s damages for failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement shall likewise be limited in the aggregate to sixty million dollars ($60,000,000).” The Fifth Circuit concluded that read in context, this provision referred to damages that LCRA would owe to Papalote (acknowledging authority that, in the abstract, would suggest damages that LCRA would be owed).

The Court went on to conclude that this provision capped damages available under a specific liquidated-damages provision, finding that another clause dealing with those specific remedies did not displace the language of the cap (It said that “for any provision for which an express and exclusive remedy or measure of damages is provided, such express remedy or measure of damages shall be the sole and exclusive remedy, [and] the obligor’s liability shall be limited as set forth in such provision[.]”). No. 19-50850 (July 16, 2021).

The relevant policy language in a data-breach coverage dispute provided insurance for:
In Landry’s, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Penn., the Fifth Circuit found that this language created coverage, observing, inter alia:

• “Publication”: “[C]overage is triggered by a ‘publication, in any manner.’ It follows that the Policy intended to use every definition of the word ‘publication’—even the very broadest ones. And some of the dictionary definitions of ‘publication’ are quite broad.”
• Scope: “[T]he Policy does not simply extend to violations of privacy rights; the Policy instead extends to all injuries that arise out of such violations. … [I]t’s undisputed that a person has a ‘right of privacy’ in his or her credit-card data.” (emphasis in original).
• Injury: “[E]veryone agrees that the facts alleged in the Paymentech complaint constitute an injury arising from the violation of customers’ privacy rights, as those terms are commonly understood. It does not matter that Paymentech’s legal theories sound in contract rather than tort. Nor does it matter that Paymentech (rather than individual customers) sued Landry’s. Paymentech’s alleged injuries arise from the violations of customers’ rights to keep their credit-card data private.”

The Fifth Circuit rejected class claims about the handling of funds in an ERISA plan, identifying a basic standing problem arising from the links in the causal chain of the plaintiffs’ damages theory: “[Plaintiffs’] expert has provided calculations for the returns that they would have earned had they not invested in the FCU Option but  had instead placed their money in a stable value fund. This ‘lost investment income’ is a ‘concrete’ and redressable injury for the purposes of standing.  That said, another question we must ask is whether Plaintiffs would have in fact invested in a stable value fund to earn the higher returns had [Defendants] never offered the FCU Option. In other words, the question is whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated that it is ‘substantially probable that the challenged acts of the defendant, not of some . . . third party[]’ (including themselves) caused the injury.  If anything, the record reveals that Plaintiffs would not have invested in a stable value fund in a counterfactual world since they did not place their money in one when given the opportunity to do so.” (citations omitted, emphasis added). Oritz v. American Airlines, No. 20-10817 (July 19, 2021).

In a will contest, “the district court determined that, because the claims against Craig and Alita were founded on a single deprivation, the loss of the transferred assets, joint and several liability is appropriate.” The Fifth Circuit agreed, quoting the Restatement (First) of Restitution section cited by the district court: “Where a claim against two persons is founded upon a single deprivation as it is where a tort resulting in a single harm has been committed by two persons concurrently or acting in cooperation, the injured person, while having a cause of action against each of the parties for the entire amount of injury, is entitled only to one satisfaction. If he obtains judgment against one and it is satisfied, he thereby loses his claim against the other.” (citation omitted). In other words, “this part of the Restatement ‘effectively imposes joint and several liability on a restitution defendant when the action is founded ‘upon a single deprivation.’” Great American Life v. Tanner, No. 20-60588 (July 16, 2021).

In Spectrum Association Management of Texas v. Lifetime HOA Management LLC, the Fifth Circuit identified an “exceptional case” that justified an award of attorneys’ fees under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.  The Court contrasted Kiva Kitchen & Bath Inc. v. Capital Distributing, Inc., 319 F. App’x 316 (5th Cir. 2009), observing:

“Like the defendants in Kiva, the Lifetime Defendants acted in bad faith by registering and using an infringing internet domain with the intent to divert a direct competitor’s potential customers to Lifetime’s website. Further, the facts of this case are even more egregious than Kiva, because the Lifetime Defendants never offered to transfer the Infringing Domain to Spectrum, whereas the Kiva defendants made such an offer to the plaintiff shortly before trial. Finally, the Lifetime Defendants engaged in post-trial misconduct by blatantly copying text from Spectrum’s website—evidence of willfulness and bad faith that was not present in Kiva.”

No. 20-50604 (July 13, 2021).

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Walker County Hosp. Dist. presented a debtor’s challenge to the terms of a bankruptcy court’s sale order. The Fifth Circuit dismissed: “In this opinion, we have held that § 363(m) forecloses the creditor’s appeal because it failed to seek the required stay of the Sale Order. Established precedent leads us to this conclusion, and the Committee’s argument that it appealed an order not subject to § 363(m) is unpersuasive. In short: no stay, no pay.” No. 20-20572 (July 12, 2021) (emphasis added).

The government moved to dismiss a qui tam case; the Fifth Circuit found that the relators received the statutorily-required opportunity to contest that motion at a hearing:

“Health Choice had a hearing before the magistrate judge. It had a witness available to testify at that hearing, and the witness was not prohibited from testifying. Health Choice declined to call the witness to testify and the magistrate judge did not prevent Health Choice from presenting the witness. Health Choice’s statements at oral argument suggest that it consciously and strategically chose not to offer evidence because it believed it had already won the motion. Even assuming that [42 U.S.C.] § 3730(c)(2)(A) requires the hearing to be an evidentiary hearing, there was no error because Health Choice declined to offer evidence at the hearing.”

(citations omitted). A concurrence emphasized the fact-specific nature of the holding, and one of the three panel members concurred as to the judgment only. United States ex rel. Health Choice Alliance v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 19-40906 (July 7, 2021).

The Fifth Circuit granted a stay during appeal in a challenge to a Texas JP’s practices regarding an invocation at the beginning of court proceedings: “In deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal, we consider four factors: ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’ All four factors favor Judge Mack.” The Court found a “manifestly erroneous” analysis of Ex Parte Young by the district court, which guided the application of the remaining factors in the appellant’s favor. Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mack, No. 21-20279 (July 9, 2021).

Goodrich v. United States certified a complex issue of Louisiana law to that state’s supreme court; confirming the wisdom of that decision, it summarized a relevant principle as stating: “If the things subject to the usufruct are consumables, the usufructuary becomes owner of them. He may consume, alienate, or encumber them as he sees fit. At the termination of the usufruct he is bound to pay to the naked owner either the value that the things had at the commencement of the usufruct or
deliver to him things of the same quantity and quality.” No. 20-30422 (July 6, 2021) (emphasis added). Hopefully the resulting opinion will clothe the case with quality legal reasoning.

A wheelchair-bound potential juror complained about  the inaccessibility of the courthouse to him when he was called for jury duty. The Fifth Circuit reviewed two guideposts about standing for such claims in its earlier opinions, noting:

O’Hair and Herman can be summarized as holding that a plaintiff with a substantial risk of being called for jury duty has standing to seek an injunction against a systemic exclusionary practice but not a one-off, episodic exclusion related to a particular judge’s actions. Thus, the plaintiff in O’Hair had standing for injunctive relief against a state constitutional provision that systemically excluded atheists from jury service, but the plaintiff in Herman lacked standing for injunctive relief against a particular judge’s conduct.

Applied to this case, the Fifth Circuit held: “[Plaintiff] has a substantial risk of being called for jury duty again. He was called twice between 2012 and 2017. Those past incidents, though insufficient to confer standing, are still ‘evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.’ Moreover, Hinds County is not extremely populous, and only a subset of its population is eligible for jury service, so it’s fairly likely that Crawford will again, at some point, be called for jury duty.” Crawford v. Hinds County Board of Supervisors, No. 20-60372 (June 16, 2021) (citations omitted).

The Supreme Court will review Reagan National Advertising v. City of Austin, 972 F.3d 696 (5th Cir. 2020). The court’s summary of the issue presented is below, and here is my discussion of the case on the Coale Mind podcast —

Applying Keller v. State Bar of California, 491 U.S. 1 (1990), the Fifth Circuit concluded that certain activities by the State Bar of Texas were not “germane” to the Bar’s accepted purpose, and thus held that their funding with bar dues violated the First Amendment.

In sum, the Bar is engaged in non-germane activities, so compelling the plaintiffs to join it violates their First Amendment rights. There are multiple other constitutional options: The Bar can cease engaging in nongermane activities; Texas can directly regulate the legal profession and create a voluntary bar association, like New York’s; or Texas can adopt a hybrid system, like California’s. But it may not continue mandating membership in the Bar as currently structured or engaging in its current activities.

The Court acknowledged the “weakened foundations” of Keller after the union-dues case of Janus v. Am. Fed. of State, County, & Municipal Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), but concluded that it still framed the relevant issues in the context of a mandatory bar association. McDonald v. Longley, No. 20-50448 (July 2, 2021). The Texas Lawbook has written on the opinion. (The companion case of Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n, No. 20-30086 (July 2, 2021), reversed a standing-based dismissal to a similar challenge to the activities of Louisiana’s state bar.)

If you are an email subscriber to this blog’s new posts, or subscribe to its RSS feed, please know that Google has discontinued its “Feedburner” service, so 600Camp is converting to a similar (but hopefully much improved) service offered by “Follow.it.” With luck, the transition will be seamless. But if you experience a loss of service – or the opposite problem of multiple deliveries – please notify me at dcoale@lynnllp.com. Many thanks for subscribing!

The plaintiff in Arruda v. Curves Int’l alleged that violations of the Franchise Rule were RICO predicate acts, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed: “Congress’s omission of a private right of action in the [Federal Trade Commission Act] controls. A violation of the Franchise Rule does not itself constitute a predicate act of mail or wire fraud to support a RICO claim.” The Court cited D.C. Circuit opinion about the Service Contract Act that asked the cogent question: “If there is no implied cause of action for damages, how much the less for treble damages?” No. 20-50734 (June 28, 2021) (unpublished).

Huawei Technologies USA v. FCC presents an exhaustive summary of modern-day administrative law, in the context of reviewing an FCC rule that excluded Huawei from federal funds as a security risk. As the Court summarized its several holdings:

Their most troubling challenge is that the rule illegally arrogates to the FCC the power to make judgments about national security that lie outside the agency’s authority and expertise. That claim gives us pause. The FCC deals with national communications, not foreign relations. It is not the Department of Defense, or the National Security Agency, or the President. If we were convinced that the FCC is here acting as “a sort of junior varsity [State Department],” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 427 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting), we would set the rule aside.

 

But no such skullduggery is afoot. Assessing security risks to telecom networks falls in the FCC’s wheelhouse. And the agency’s judgments about national security receive robust input from other expert agencies and officials. We are therefore persuaded that, in crafting the rule, the agency reasonably acted within the broad authority Congress gave it to regulate communications.

No. 19-60896 (June 18, 2021).

The long and winding case of Doe v. McKesson, remanded from the Supreme Court with instruction to certify a threshold state-law question to the Louisiana Supreme Court, added one more state-law issue after remand. Doe v. McKesson, No. 17-30864 (June 25, 2021).

Strong feelings were voiced about the Fifth Circuit’s panel opinion in Ramirez v. Guardarrama, 844 F. App’x 710 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). The vote against en banc review was 13-4, with several opinions:

• Judge Jolly, who had been on the panel that found no Fourth Amendment violation, concurred with denial and observed: “The unanimous panel opinion also explains why we cannot quarterback from our Delphic shrines, three years later, the split-second decision making required of these officers in response to a suicidal man (1) doused in gasoline, (2) reportedly high on methamphetamine, (3) screaming nonsense, (4) holding a lighter, and (5) threatening to set himself on fire and to burn down the home, occupied by six people, which he had earlier covered in gasoline.”
• Judge Ho, joined by Judges Jolly and Jones, concurred and further observed:       “[H]ow can a constitutional violation be ‘obvious,’ ‘egregious,’ and ‘conscience-shocking,’ when the dissent can’t tell the officers what they should have done differently to keep people safe?”
• Judge Oldham (also on the panel), joined by all of the above and Judge Engelhardt, reviewed the Fourth Amendment claim through a Twombly lens and concluded: “[T]he Fourth Amendment is not an antidote to tragedy. It’s a cornerstone of our Bill of Rights, with an august history and profound original meaning. We cheapen it when we treat it like a chapter from Prosser & Keeton. And we transmogrify it beyond recognition when we say officers act ‘unreasonably’ without any effort to say what a reasonable officer would’ve done.”
• Judge Smith dissented, arguing that this case provided an opportunity to revisit another recent en banc opinion.
• Judge Willett dissented, joined by Judges Graves and Higginson, pointing to recent Supreme Court cases that rejected qualified-immunity claims and observing: “The complaint alleges a plausible Fourth Amendment violation, and an obvious one at that. How is it reasonable—more accurately, not plausibly unreasonable—to set someone on fire to prevent him from setting himself on fire?”

The defendant in IMA, Inc. v. Medical City Dallas sought to compel arbitration under a “direct-benefits estoppel” theory. It argued that the plaintiff’s claim, which involved a series of related contracts, necessarily implicated an agreement that contained an arbitration clause. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration, agreeing that the defendant lacked “knowledge of the contract’s ‘basic terms,’ and noting: “IMA neither was shown to have, nor needed, knowledge of the Hospital Agreement in order to fulfill its obligations to the Health Plan and the IMAPPOplus Agreement; rather IMA could process the claims with ‘a copy of the [Health] Plan and the PPO Contract Rates.'” No. 20-20032 (June 17, 2021).

Retana, a Dallas police officer, sued several social-media companies after he was injured in a mass shooting. He alleged that Hamas radicalized the shooter through their platforms, and sought relief under the Anti-Terrorist Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, agreeing that the Dallas shooting was not “primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States” as the Act requires, and also found that the companies did not assist any terrorist group’s actions: “The shooting was committed by a self-radicalized ‘lone wolf’ … not by Hamas.” Retana v. Twitter, Inc., No. 19-11389 (June 16, 2021).

A wrongful-foreclosure case reminds of a basic Twombly principle: “Green’s breach-of contract claim in her complaint alleged that Defendants violated conditions in the deed of trust, but she never explained which part of the deed was violated. It was only in response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion that Green identified the deed’s notice requirement as the specific violation. Her failure to specify her breach-of-contract claim in her complaint warrants dismissal of that claim.” Green v. Windsor Park Asset Holding Trust, No. 20-11226 (June 18, 2021, unpublished) (per curiam).

The Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit panel opinion about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, finding that none of the plaintiffs had standing in light of (1) the repeal of coverage-related penalties and (2) the apparent mismatch between the ACA provisions complained of as unconstitutional, and those that caused the complained–of harms to the states. California v. Texas, No. 19-840 (U.S. Jun 17, 2021) (reversing Texas v. United States, 945 F. 3d 355 (5th Cir. 2019)).

An important question about statutes bearing on the ability of a federal court to hear a matter is whether they are “jurisdictional,” or only speak to issues of “claim-processing.” See, e.g., Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010). In Rivero v. Fidelity Investments, “[e]xamining the text and structure of the [Declaratory Judgment Act]’s federal-tax exception” led to the conclusion that it was jurisdictional: “[T]he statute plainly ‘speak[s] to the power of the court.’ … [T]he juxtaposition of the DJA’s reference to federal courts’ jurisdiction and the federal-tax exception indicates that the latter deprives a court of jurisdiction that might otherwise exist in cases ‘with respect to Federal taxes.'” The court also noted holdings in cases about a similarly-worded provision of the Anti-Injunction Act. No. 20-40371 (June 10, 2021) (citations omitted).

While this is a post about Texas state practice, I am cross-posting it from 600Commerce because it is of broad general interest to civil appellate practitioners. 

With respect to court orders and judgments, the words “signed,” “rendered,” and “entered” are often used interchangeably. But those words have specific, technical meanings, and it is wise to remember those meanings when differences matter.  Accord, Burrell v. Cornelius, 570 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1978) (“Judges render judgment; clerks enter them on the minutes.  …  The entry of a judgment is the clerk’s record in the minutes of the court.  ‘Entered’ is synonymous with neither ‘Signed’ nor ‘Rendered.’”).

Two rules set the background as to when critical countdowns commence:

• Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a: “The date of judgment or order is signed as shown of record shall determine the beginning of the periods prescribed by these rules for the court’s plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct or reform a judgment or order and for filing in the trial court the various documents that these rules authorize a party to file …”
• Similarly, Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 begins: “The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed, except as follows …”

By contrast, “[j]udgment is rendered when the trial court officially announces its decision in open court or by written memorandum filed with the clerk.”  E.g., S&A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam).  And the above-quoted paragraph from Rule 306a concludes: “… but this rule shall not determine what constitutes rendition of a judgment or order for any other purpose.”

By contrast, entry of judgment refers to the recording of a rendered judgment in the court’s official records. See, e.g., Lone Star Cement Corp v. Fair, 467 S.W.2d 402, 405 (Tex. 1971) (“The law is settled in this state that clerical errors in the entry of a judgment, previously rendered, may be corrected after the end of the court’s term by a nunc pro tunc judgment; however, judicial errors in the previously rendered judgment may not be so corrected.” (emphasis added)).

I gratefully acknowledge the excellent insights of Ben Taylor in preparing this post!

The able Rory Ryan of Baylor’s law school has Tweeted in detail about a recent district-court opinion on a thorny, and persistent, removal-jurisdiction issue. The case, which arose under a Texas Insurance Code provision with a specific procedure about claims against insurance agents, presented these facts:

Plaintiffs sued their insurer, Chubb (who is diverse), and agent, Smith (who is non-diverse), in state court. Chubb then elected to accept whatever liability Smith might have, and the state court dismissed Smith. Chubb then removed the case under diversity jurisdiction.

Leading to this issue: “[I]n determining diversity jurisdiction, does the Court consider Smith’s citizenship?”

After an extensive review of the relevant statutes and cases, the Court concluded:

Without binding authority, the Court must rely on the policy and rationale supporting the improper-joinder rule. The improper-joinder rule holds that the non-diverse defendant never should have been a party.  As the Fifth Circuit has said: “If no reasonable basis of recovery exists, a conclusion can be drawn that the plaintiff’s decision to join the local defendant was indeed fraudulent …,” and therefore improper.  As shown above, this rationale explains the improper-joinder rule’s past application.

 

But the rationale does not support an improper-joinder finding when the plaintiff’s claims against the non-diverse defendant were initially valid. In this situation, it is false to say an improper-joinder finding amounts to a determination that the non-diverse defendant was never properly before the court. It was.

(citations omitted, emphasis in original). The case was thus remanded to state court.

If MoneyGram is a “bank” under the applicable Internal Revenue Code provision, it can take a large deduction that it cannot otherwise take. The Fifth Circuit did not agree with its claim to be a bank: “MoneyGram contends that when a customer buys a money order, the customer is placing funds with MoneyGram for safekeeping, at least until such time as the recipient of the money order presents it for payment. The tax court rejected this argument, likening a money order to the purchase of a gift card rather than a deposit in a bank account. We agree.” MoneyGram Int’l v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 20-60146 (June 1, 2021).

The Fifth Circuit harmonized two insurance-policy provisions in Miller v. Reliance Std. Ins. Co.:

“[T]he phrase ‘active, full-time’ employees must be construed in the insured’s favor to include those who, on the relevant date, are current employees even if not actually working. We also agree that the term ‘regular work week’ must be construed to refer to an employee’s job description, or to his typical workload when on duty.

 

To hold otherwise, as Reliance urges, would render the second paragraph of the Transfer Provision virtually redundant with the first. On Reliance’s reading, the paragraph would cover employees who actually maintain a full-time work schedule at the time of transfer. But this is barely different, if at all, from the previous paragraph’s provision for employees who at the time are ‘Actively at Work,’ defined to mean ‘actually performing on a Full-time basis the material duties pertaining to his/her job'[.]

 

Effectively, Reliance’s reading is that the second paragraph covers employees who are not “actually performing” work duties but are ‘otherwise’ actually working. We reject this convoluted construction as the unambiguous meaning of the provision.”

No. 20-30240 (June 2, 2021) (emphasis in original, breaks added).

The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s analysis of appellate costs (often a trivial issue, but here involving over $2 million in supersedeas-bond premiums) in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, stating: “[W]e hold that courts of appeals have the discretion to apportion all the appellate costs covered by Rule 39 and that district courts cannot alter that allocation.” No. 20–334 (U.S. May 27, 2021). (It remains to be seen how the Roberts Court will review other, more politically charged opinions from the Fifth Circuit this term.)

A party in Int’l Energy Ventures Mgmnt, LLC v. United Energy Group, Ltd. “recognize[d] the general proposition that litigation-conduct waiver is an issue that should be decided by the court,” but “contend[ed] that the general rule does not apply here for three reasons.” The Fifth Circuit rejected each one:

• Incorporation of AAA rules. Yes, the parties’ agreement gave the arbitrator “the power to rule on its own jurisdiction,” but it did not “clearly and unmistakably” confer the power to decided litigation-conduct waiver.
• Waiver. Again, the Court found that activity during the arbitration did not “clearly and unmistakably” result in the “submission” of this issue, noting reservations made by the relevant party and the arbitrator’s own actions.
• “Unique facts.” The Court did not find key cases inapplicable because of the party who sought arbitration: “‘Arbitration is a matter of contract,'” reasoned the Court, and “[e]xtra-contractual factors–like where an issue first arises and who initiates arbitration–are not part of the interpretive analysis.”

No. 20-20221 (May 28, 2021).

The “similar birds” case — Alliance for Good Government v. Coalition for Better  Government — returned to the Fifth Circuit to address attorneys’ fees. The panel majority affirmed the final fee award, over a strong dissent that questioned the application of the Lanham Act to what it saw as purely political speech. No. 20-30233 (May 19, 2021).

Canfield v. Lumpkin presented an ineffective-assistance claim arising from voir dire. The record showed the following exchange with the juror in question, followed by general questions to the panel about the ability ot be fair, with no individual followup questioning of this juror:

The panel majority found no error sufficient to justify habeas relief, as well as a lack of sufficient prejudice. A dissent saw matters otherwise: “[T]he trial judge and counsel were acutely aware of the necessary care that must attend jury selection and the challenges of this case. Our question is whether they succeeded in protecting the jury room. Unlike the majority, I conclude that they did not. During voir dire, a prospective juror volunteered that she felt the defendant was guilty and would probably vote to convict him even if the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither counsel nor the judge followed up with her. So, she served on the jury that first convicted Jerry Lee Canfield and, then, free to choose from a menu of sentences from  5 years to life imprisonment, sentenced him to 50 years in prison without the possibility of parole.” No. 18-10431 (May 18, 2021).

Please sign up for my Fifth Circuit update for the Austin Bar Association this Thursday, May 12, at noon – here is the link – and Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone will present a Supreme Court update as well! Here is a draft of my PowerPoint for the presentation.

Removals under the federal-officer statute have drawn increased scrutiny in recent years. In BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the Supreme Court addressed an important issue about appellate review of remand orders involving that statute, concluding: “To remove a case, a defendant must comply with 28 U. S. C. §1446. Essentially, that statute requires the defendant to provide affected parties and
courts with a notice stating its grounds for removal. §§1446(a), (d). The combination of these actions ‘effect[s] the removal.’ §1446(d). To remove a case ‘pursuant to’ §1442 or §1443, then, just means that a defendant’s notice of removal must assert the case is removable ‘in accordance with or by reason of’ one of those provisions. Here, everyone admits the defendants’ notice of removal did just that by citing §1442 as one of its grounds for removal. Once that happened and the district court ordered the case remanded to state court, the whole of its order became reviewable on appeal.” No. 19-1189 (U.S. May 17, 2021) (footnotes omitted).

The appellant in Lillie v. Office of Financial Institutions argued that an adverse summary judgment was based on an unreliable case. The Fifth Circuit disagreed: “The court relied on Friedman only in reasoning that a showing of ‘but-for causation’—namely that SEI might have been able to prevent STC’s violations—is not enough to establish control. Such a rationale … is distinct from Friedman’s independent holding that the plaintiffs there had not alleged culpability. One may cite a case without endorsing everything for which it stands. The district court understood the law.” No. 19-30705 (May 14, 2021).

Roe v. Wade famously named Dallas County DA Henry Wade (right) as its defendant, because he was the official charged with enforcement of the criminal statute at issue. The Texas Legislature has passed a new abortion law — a “heartbeat bill” — that features a novel enforcement procedure involving private litigants. The statute disclaims any public enforcement, relying on a private right of action against abortion providers that features an extremely broad definition of standing. The Texas Tribune correctly notes that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc opinion in Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2001), declined to extend Ex Parte Young (left) to a Louisiana statute that created a somewhat-analogous private cause of action against abortion providers. Assuming that the Governor signs the new Texas law, Okpalobi will likely be cited frequently in federal-court challenges to it. (I recently did a an interview with Fox 4’s “Good Day” about this new law.)

While Olivarez v. T-Mobile involved the high-profile topic of Title VII’s protection for  transgendered individuals, it turned on a basic and common proof problem in such cases: “Olivarez has failed to plead any facts indicating less favorable treatment than others ‘similarly situated’ outside of the asserted protected class.  In fact, the Second Amended Complaint does not contain any facts about any comparators at all. The complaint simply indicates that Olivarez took six months of leave from September 2017 to February 2018—including an extension granted by T-Mobile and Broadspire—and that when Olivarez requested additional leave in March 2018, T-Mobile denied the request and terminated Olivarez’s employment in April 2018. Notably, there is no allegation that any non-transgender employee with a similar job and supervisor and who engaged in the same conduct as Olivarez received more favorable treatment.” No. 20-20463 (May 12, 2021) (emphasis added).

In 2017, the USS Fitzgerald, a U.S. Navy destroyer, collided with the MV ACX Crystal, a commercial container ship, in Japanese territorial waters. The incident caused extensive damage and injury, including the death of seven American sailors. Relatives of the deceased sailors sued the ship owner in federal court under the Death on the High Seas Act. They based personal jurisdiction on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), “alleging that, despite NYK Line’s status as a foreign corporation, its substantial, systematic, and continuous contacts with the United States should make NYK Line amenable to suit in federal court.” I

In Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, the Fifth Circuit noted that that the case raised novel but significant issues about the distinction between 5th and 14th Amendment due process protections, but found itself constrained by the “rule of orderliness” to follow an earlier Circuit case on the topic. A 2-judge dissent urged en banc consideration, noting that “[o]ur decision today … determines that a global corporation with extensive contacts with the United States cannot be haled into federal court for federal claims arising out of a maritime collision that killed seven United States Navy sailors.” No. 20-30379 (April 30, 2021).