Applying the international convention about arbitration, the Fifth Circuit found an abuse of discretion in not compelling arbitration because of equitable estoppel, reasoning:

While Bufkin was certainly free to name and then dismiss the foreign insurers, the district court was not free to disregard them in considering the domestic insurers’ motion to compel arbitration. Yet in focusing on Bufkin’s dismissal of the foreign insurers, the district court neglected to consider the foreign insurers’ part in the seamless coverage agreement struck by the parties, and Bufkin’s interactions with the insurers. Honing in, that coverage arrangement included the arbitration clause that afforded the insurers–foreign and domestic—“predictability in resolving disputes dealing with the substantial risks presented by a surplus lines insurance policy.” …  The upshot is that indulging Bufkin’s pleading-and-then-dismissing gamesmanship by denying arbitration turns on its head the axiom that “[t]he linchpin for equitable estoppel is equity—fairness.”

Bufkin Enterprises, LLC v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 23-30171 (March 4, 2024) (emphasis added).

After an earler (unexplained) grant of an administrative stay touched off weeks of fast-paced appellate litigation about Texas’s “SB4” immigration law, a majority of the Fifth Circuit’s merits panel denied any further stay of the trial court’s injunction against enforcement of that law. USA v. Texas, No. 24-50149 (March 26, 2024). Argument is scheduled next week; barring Supreme Court intervention, merits opinions similar to these are likely.

The Fifth Circuit made/ an interesting observation about the comparative weight of Erie precedent in SXSW LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co.:

Federal cites two federal district courts to support its broader interpretation. …  But these authorities are worth relatively little in this case. Our focus is on Texas law as interpreted by the Texas state courts.

No. 22-50933 (March 21, 2024) (unpublished).

This morning’s Supreme Court arguments in the mifepristone cases (which will be available here when ready) lead to a couple of observations about legal issues of the day:

1. Standing. As the Washington Post effectively summarized: “A majority of justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism that the antiabortion doctors challenging the government’s loosening of regulations have sufficient legal grounds — or standing — to bring the lawsuit.” (Last year, I wrote about the “conservative” approach to standing in high-profile constitutional cases in a Slate article, and the application of basic standing principles in the mifepristone cases in this Dallas Morning News editorial.)
2. Comstock. Justice Holmes famously observed: “The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky.” But the Comstock Act is, and Congress should do something about the law before its 1870s-era moralism is inflicted on modern society. Mark Stern’s X feed on the mifepristone arguments summarizes some of the present state of play.

A propane grill exploded; the injured plaintiff won a judgment against the supplier of the propane tank, and the Fifth Circuit reversed in Johnston v. Ferrellgas, Inc.:

[T]he circumstantial evidence on which the Johnstons rely does not cure the want of proof that the tank was defective when it left Ferrellgas’s possession. This is not a res ipsa case. Indeed, the Johnstons did not advance that theory of liability before the district court or before us. In sum, the Plaintiff’s expert admitted that he could not say the tank was defective at the time it left Ferrellgas, making his prior comments about the tank’s condition at that time pure speculation; the tank functioned properly before Johnston used it; the tank and seal are not sealed containers; and both parties agree Ferrellgas successfully refilled the tank with gas under highpressure months before the accident. There is no reasonable basis on which the jury could find the Johnstons met their burden.

No. 23-10019 (March 21, 2024). A dissent saw matters differently.

In the 1950s, Big Tobacco advertised the safety of “Kent with the Micronite Filter,” which was unfortunately made with an exceptionally dangerous form of asbestos. After decades of advertising bans and mandatory disclosures, the battle over cigarette ads continues, leading most recently to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA – a First Amendment challenge to new, more graphic disclosures about the potential harms of smoking.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the challenge (reversing a contrary district-court opinion) and remanded for consideration of claims involving the Administrative Procedure Act. As to the First Amendment issues, the Court summarized:

When determining whether Zauderer applies, (1) images can be factual; (2) ideological or emotion-inducing statements are not per se controversial or non-factual; (3) “uncontroversial” means not subject to good-faith dispute about the accuracy of the factual statement; and (4) legitimate state interests other than the prevention of consumer deception are cognizable under Zauderer. For the reasons detailed above, the district court erred by finding Zauderer inapplicable to the FDA’s newest Warnings. Applying Zauderer, the Warnings survive constitutional muster against the First Amendment challenge.

No. 23-40076 (March 21, 2024).

In Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Myers, the appellant argued that its notice of appeal was timely, when filed within 30 days of a second judgment, and when the first judgment “was mislabeled because even though it purported to dispose of all claims and parties in the case, the title of the order did not signal that it was a final judgment.”

The Fifth Circuit agreed. Noting that “[o]rdinarily, such minor changes to an order do not ‘disturb or revise legal rights and obligations’ of the parties” (cleaned up), it concluded that “there was in this case a clear discrepancy between the label and the body of the district court’s order” that was sufficient to treat it as a substantive revision for purposes of calculating the appeal deadline. No. 24-20018 (March 18, 2024) (applying FTC v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U.S. 206, 211 (1952)).

(The graphic was provided by DALL-E, and explained by it as follows: “The images above illustrate the concept of a substantive change versus a change solely of form, through the comparison of a caterpillar’s transformation into a butterfly (substantive change) and a chameleon’s color change (change of form).”

All eyes will be on New Orleans this morning, for the (videoconferenced) arguments in United States v. Texas, where last night’s order suggests a 2-1 decision will be forthcoming that continues to bar enforcement of Texas’s SB4 during the pendency of its appeal. The Supreme Court will likely be asked about the resulting order, whatever it may be.

Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit granted mandamus relief, including the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Western District of Texas, requiring that the district court request the return of a case from the District of the District of Columbia. That request was made on March 7. As of March 19, that court had not ruled on the request, and the CFTC continues to urge that the court delay action until it has received further briefing on the venue issue.

In Calogero v. Shows, Cali & Walsh, LLP, (discussed earlier this week for stylistic reasons), a panel majority found that two recipients of certain Hurricane Katrina relief stated a viable Fair Debt Collection Act claim when:

• The longest possible limitations period (10 years) had run by the time the demand letters requested payment; and
• The demand letters threatened a claim for attorneys fees, when the relevant documents only created a specific right to potential fee recovery that did not include the alleged debt at issue.

The third judge, without opinion, concurred in the result only. No. 22-30487 (March 15, 2024).

Michael Cloud, a former NFL running back, sued the NFL’s retirement fund for additional disability benefits. The Fifth Circuit reversed a trial-court ruling in his favor, noting the one-sided nature of the plan’s operations, but concluding:

Cloud’s claim fails because he did not and cannot show any changed circumstances entitling him to reclassification to the highest tier of benefits. He could have appealed the 2014 denial of reclassification to Active Football status—but he did not do so. Instead, Cloud filed another claim for reclassification in 2016, which subjected him to a changed-circumstances requirement that he cannot meet—and did not try to meet. He therefore forfeited the issue at the administrative level and at any rate has not pointed to any clear and convincing evidence supporting his claim.

The district court’s findings about the NFL Plan’s disregard of players’ rights under ERISA and the Plan are disturbing. Again, this is a Plan jointly managed by the league and the players’ union. And we commend the trial court judge for her diligent work chronicling a lopsided system aggressively stacked against disabled players. But we also must enforce the Plan’s terms in accordance with the law.

Cloud v. Bell-Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, No. 22-10710 (revised March 17, 2024).

You can tell your argument isn’t working when the Fifth Circuit summarizes it as follows:

“SCW’s last remaining counterargument is that it should be able to pick and choose different clauses from the LSAA and the Grant Agreement and then mush them together to demand money from debtors.”

and when the Court begins its opinion:

“Widowed octogenarians Iris Calogero and Margie Nell Randolph received dunning letters from a Louisiana law firm … .”

Calogero v. Shows, Cali & Walsh, LLP,  No. 22-30487 (March 15, 2024). More substantive review to follow in the week ahead!

The Judicial Conference has voted to strenghen its policy about random case assignment, as set forth here.

Deanda v. Becerra presents a conflict between Title X (a federal law about the availability of contraception), and a Texas parental-consent statute. The Fifth Circuit found no conflict, and thus no preemption. On the threshold question of standing, the Court rejected the argument that any parent could sue about this issue, observing, inter alia: “This case does not concern all ‘parents or potential parents.’ It concerns only a parent with particular religious beliefs about raising his children.” No. 23-10159 (March 12, 2024).

The Fifth Court ordered a rare reversal for a new trial because of improper closing argument in Clapper v. American Realty Investors. The Court summarized the improper statements as “employ[ing] nearly every type of improper argument identified by our court, including highly improper and personal attacks against opposing counsel, remarks about Clapper’s wealth, a discussion of matters not in the record, insinuations that Clapper had lower moral standards because he was from Michigan, and suggestions of Clapper’s bad motives through counsels’ opinion.”

The Court concluded: “We remind all practitioners in our court that zealous advocacy must not be obtained at the expense of incivility. As Judge Reavley aptly explained, ‘Although earnest, forceful, and devoted representation is both zealous and proper, Rambo and kamikaze lawyers lead themselves and their clients to zealous extinction.'” No. 21-10805 (March 8, 2024).

Notably, footnote two dismisses several arguments about preservation, concluding that “[t]he serious nature of the argument in this trial … indicates that substantial justice requires a new trial ….”

In the ongoing proceedings about the transfer of venue in a dispute between SpaceX and the NLRB, a Fifth Circuit judge has held the mandate – a step often seen in difficult cases where en banc review is possible. Interestingly, in Texas state practice, a mandate does not issue in a mandamus proceeding, because a mandamus petition is an original proceeding in the court of appeals and there is no jurisdiction to return to a trial court.

I apologize for the peculiar look of many of the site’s posts. A WordPress “plug in” has malfunctioned and until it is replaced, the site’s graphics will just look a little funny.

Last week, the Central District of California returned a case to Texas district court, after the Fifth Circuit pointed out that it had issued a stay order (in a mandamus proceeding brought to challenge the venue transfer) before the California court had docketed the transferred matter.

Then, after the return of the case to Texas, the Court denied mandamus relief. The majority did not write an opinion. A dissent would have granted the writ. In re SpaceX, No. 24-40103 (March 5, 2024). It remains to be seen what court will act next.

In Cheapside Minerals, Ltd. v. Devon Energy Prod Co., L.P., the Fifth Circuit concluded that CAFA’s “local controversy” exception did not apply, and thus reversed a remand to state court in an oil-and-gas royalties dispute:

[T]he “principal injury” each Plaintiff sustained is obvious because there was only one type of injury: a financial harm resulting from Devon’s alleged underpayment of their royalties. While most Plaintiffs sustained that injury in Texas, others did not. Therefore, the principal injuries prong is not satisfied in this case, and Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the local controversy exception applies.

No. 24-40026 (March 1, 2024).

After a case was transfered to the District of Columbia, the Fifth Circuit granted mandamus relief about that transfer in In re Clarke, focusing on the district court’s analysis of the “local interest” factor

          [E]vents giving rise to the suit can be separated into two categories: The first concerns individual traders who purchased contracts on the marketplace. Five of them are based in Austin, bought their contracts from Austin, and have been harmed in Austin. The second category deals with marketplace service providers—Aristotle and PredictIt. Based in D.C., they “expended significant resources to assist Victoria University in developing and operating the PredictIt Market” and “will be forced to incur massive administrative, labor, time, and other costs if forced to liquidate pending contracts prematurely.”

          Given those events, there is an obvious connection between the facts giving rise to this case and the Western District of Texas. And, if we assume that Aristotle’s and PredictIt’s development and operations activities occurred in D.C., there is also a factual connection with D.D.C.

          Additionally, the effect of this suit is completely diffuse. Should plaintiffs prevail on their APA challenge, this court must “set aside” CFTC’s ultra vires recission action, with nationwide effect. That affects persons in all judicial districts equally.

No. 24-50079 (March 1, 2024) (footnote omitted). As with last week’s decision in a similar posture involving SpaceX, it remains to be seen whether the transferee district court will return the case.

Together with Marcy Greer, I recently gave an update about recent Fifth Circuit cases at the first-ever Central Texas Bench-Bar meeting. This is our PowerPoint from the March 1 presentation.

In 2022, a venue skirmish in a contentious firerarms-manufacturing case led to a Pennsylvania district court declining to return a transferred case to the Fifth Circuit. Echoes of that skirmish can be heard in In re Space Exploration Technologies Corp., a dispute between SpaceX and the NLRB, where the following occurred:

SpaceX petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus on February 16, 2024, requesting that we direct the district court to vacate its transfer order.  Our court stayed the Southern District of Texas’s transfer order on February 19, 2024. Nevertheless, the Central District of California docketed the case four days later, on February 23, 2024, as case number 2:24-cv-1352-CBM-AGR. 

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit directed the district court to ask the California court to return the case. The Fifth Circuit’s order points out that the California court lacks jurisdiction, since the docketing did not occur until after the stay issued. And unlike the 2022 gun case, the transferee court agreed with the Fifth Circuit, and has indicated that it will return the case to Texas when it receives the official request from the Texas trial court. No. 24-40103 (Feb. 26, 2024) (unpublished order).

The plaintiffs’ takings claim failed in Treme v. St. John the Baptist Parish Council, when the relevant mineral lease was “for a period of Three (3) years from the date Lessee procures approval to commence operations frm local, state and federal authorities, as needed ….”  The requirement of government approvals created a “suspensive condition” to the lease’s effectiveness, and “[b]ecuase they have not been obtained, the district court was correct in determining that the lease had not yet become effective.” No. 23-30084 (Feb. 16, 2024).

February 2024 has been a busy month for en banc votes. The recent vote by the full court about a stay in U.S. v. Abbott, as well as votes to deny en banc review of Baker (a takings case about police destruction of a home) and Solis (holding that a preferential-transfer claim was stated as to a Stowers-related payment) provided an unusual snapshot of the full court’s views on multiple issues at the same time.

Those votes are now supplemented by an 8-9 vote to deny review in McNeal v. LeBlanc, a panel opinion that denied qualified immunity in an “overdetention” case. The below chart summarizes those votes (a “yes” vote is for en banc review or issuance of a stay, as appropriate):

Judges Jones, Ho, and Oldham voted “yes” for review of each of these four cases. Judges Southwick, Haynes, Higginson, Douglas, and Ramirez voted “no” for review of each of these four cases.

The contract between Catalyst (a consulting firm) and CBS (an equipment-rental company), required payment of a substantial fee if CBS satisfied the contract’s requirements as to a “Transaction.” The Fifth Circuit held that the contract supplanted the “procuring cause doctrine” recognized by Texas law as a default rule for such business situations, and further held that under the contract, Catalyst had made the required showing to recover its fee. Catalyst Strategic Advisors LLC v. Three Diamond Capital SBC LLC, No. 23-20030 (Feb. 22, 2024).

Aggrieved creditors argued that a recent Supreme Court opinion, which held that section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code was not jurisdictional (and could thus be waived), also impacted the scope of that statute when it applied. The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument in Swiss Re v. Fieldwood Energy, stating: “We perceive no narrowing of the effect of Section 363(b) other than to clarify that a party can lose the benefit of its terms.” No. 23-20104 (Feb. 20, 2024). From there, the Court found that the creditors’ appeal was moot because a stay had not been obtained, and the issues presented did not relate to anything left open by the bankruptcy plan.

(The illustration is from DALL-E, I asked it to illustrate the bankruptcy concept of statutory mootness, and it came up with that image, for no reason that I can ascertain. I offer it to you as a good example of generative AI doing something that is both very sophisticated and very weird.)

After the Texas Supreme Court answered a certified question about an arcane Texas limitations-tolling statute, the Fifth Court applied that answer in a later case presenting the same issue, Bullock v. UT-Arlington:

“The state trial court dismissed her case on June 8, 2020, for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal was affirmed by the state appellate court on May 20, 2021. The appellate court’s plenary power expired on July 19, 2021. Under the Texas Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 16.064(a)(2), Plaintiff had sixty days from July 19, 2021, in which she could refile her action in a court of proper jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this instant lawsuit on July 16, 2021, before the state appellate court’s plenary power expired and well within the sixty-day grace period.”

No. 22-10013 (Feb. 15, 2024) (citations omitted).

Shaw v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. carefully describes the unique heritage of Louisiana law, and then reached a holding well known to the common law:

“By Shaw’s own allegations, the alleged contract was conditioned on RH wanting to use the at-issue artisans to produce nonlicensed designs and the outcome of the parties’ future negotiations regarding compensation. Because the at-issue agreement left the terms of potential compensation “wide open” to future negotiation, RH and Shaw never entered into an enforceable contract.”

No. 22-30277 (Feb. 15, 2024).

The recent vote by the full court about a stay in U.S. v. Abbott, as well as votes to deny en banc review of Baker (a takings case about police destruction of a home) and Solis (holding that a preferential-transfer claim was stated as to a Stowers-related payment) provide an unusual snapshot of the full court’s views on multiple issues at the same time. The below chart summarizes those votes (a “yes” vote is for en banc review or issuance of a stay, as appropriate):

In an opinion reversing the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss, the Texas Supreme Court made a helpful observation for the legal blogging community:

[A]nyone who appreciates lawyerly precision has probably read plenty of news stories about legal affairs that gloss over lawyerly distinctions or contain inadvertent mischaracterizations of legal or procedural concepts. These journalistic imprecisions are not to be applauded, and they certainly can mislead the average reader in some cases. But errors of law by those reporting on the law are not automatically actionable as defamation.

Polk County Publ. Co. v. Coleman, No. 22-0103 (Tex. Feb. 16, 2024).

In United States v. Abbott, Texas contends that the Rio Grande is not navigable, which allows it to place a floating barrier in the river to deter navigation. After a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s injunction against the barrier, the Court voted to take the case en banc, after which the district court placed the underlying case on a rapid schedule. Texas sought a stay, which the en banc Court denied for a variety of reasons:

A litigation trust, created as part of a bankruptcy plan confirmation, sued Raymond James. The trust asserted claims that had been assigned to the trust by aggrieved bondholders for the bankrupt entity, who contended that they had been misled about the bonds by Raymond James. (Remarkably, $300 million in bonds were sold in connection with a facility in rural Lousiana that would have refined raw wood into specialized fuel pellets.)

In defense, Raymond James cited an indemnity agreement that it made with the debtor pre-bankruptcy. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower courts’ conclusion that the plan barred Raymond James from defending with that agreement. The Court said:

1. Notice. “Even though [Debtor] failed to list Raymond James as a creditor when it filed for bankruptcy, Raymond James is nevertheless subject to the confirmation plan because of its actual knowledge of the underlying proceedings.”
2. Plan. “Even if Raymond James was not subject to the plan, [Debtor] no longer exists, and neither the bondholders nor post-confirmation entity are its successors-in-interest.”

Raymond James & Assoc. v. Jalbert, No. 23-30040 (Jan. 30, 2024).

An explosion on the M/V FLAMINIA (right) led to a $200 million arbitration award, which in turn led to an action to confirm that award in New Orleans federal court. The Fifth Circuit reversed for a lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding:

• Forum. “When assessing personal jurisdiction in a confirmation action under the New York Convention, a Convention, a federal court should consider contacts related to the parties’ underlying dispute and not only contacts related to the arbitration proceeding itself. That holding aligns our court with every other circuit to address this issue.”
• Waiver. Unlike the facts of an earlier case involving a “letter of understanding,” the defendant’s LOU in tihs case said that it was “given without prejudice to any and all rights or defenses MSC, its agents or affiliates have or may have in the Proceedings.”
• Contacts. “[T]he dispute’s sole contact with the forum—the DVB’s shipping from the Port of New Orleans—did not occur as a result of MSC’s ‘own choice.’ … [The fact that the DVB was loaded onto the FLAMINIA in New Orleans was the result of “the unilateral activity” of other parties, not MSC.” (citations omitted).

No. 22-30808 (Jan. 29, 2024).

The trademark-infringement issue in Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v Beckertime, LLC turned on whether the customary “digits-of-confusion” analysis should have been augmented by additional considerations involving the refurbishment of trademarked products. The Fifh Circuit agreed with the district court’s treatment of the issue:

Champion instructs that a reseller may utilize the trademark of another, so long as it involves nothing more than a restoration to the original condition, and not a new design. In that case, “[f]ull disclosure gives themanufacturer all the protection to which he is entitled.”  Here, BeckerTime does more than recondition or repair vintage Rolex watches. As the district court found, BeckerTime produced “modified watches,” with “added diamonds,” “aftermarket bezels,” and aftermarket bracelets or straps. It found that the watches sold by BeckerTime were “materially different than those sold by Rolex.” In fact, the district court found that Rolex has never sold watches matching the descriptions provided by BeckerTime. Unlike the plugs in Champion that “are nevertheless Champion plugs and not those of another make,” BeckerTime’s watches are of another make and cannot properly be called genuine Rolex watches. … Champion’s misnomer exception properly applied to the facts of this case and the district court did not err by conducting a traditional digits of confusion analysis.

No. 22-10866 (Jan. 27, 2024) (citations omitted).

This Instagram video with fonts talking to each other is really funny. Thanks to my law partner Mary Nix for sending it my way.

Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v Beckertime, LLC affirmed a finding of infringement, while also affirming the trial court’s finding that laches precluded a disgorgement award:

The district court concluded that at a minimum, Rolex’s agent “should have known about BeckerTime in 2010, ten years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and no later than 2013 when [a Rolex employee] wrote that BeckerTime watches were junk.” …  On appeal, Rolex offers no justification for the delay, instead arguing that BeckerTime failed to show prejudice. But the record supports that the ten years of permitted sales enabled BeckerTime to build up a successful business that it would not otherwise have invested in absent Rolex’s delay in filing suit. This is clear prejudice.

No. 22-10866 (Jan. 26, 2024).

After a massive computer failure, Southwest sued one of its cyber risk insures about five categories of damages (vouchers, frequent-flier miles, etc. used to mitigate the effects of the outage). The district court ruled against Southwest, describing the losses as arising from “purely discretionary” decisions.

The Fifth Circuit reversed. Acknowledging that the policy covered “all Loss … that in Insured incurs … solely as a result of a System Failure,” the Court reasoned:

Here, Liberty argues that the system failure cannot be the sole cause of Southwest’s claimed costs because the “independent” and “more direct” cause of those losses was Southwest’s decision to incur them. But those decisions can only be independent, sole causes of the costs if they were the precipitating causes of the costs. The decisions, like the infection in Wright or the medical complications in Wells, were not precipitating causes that competed with the system failure, but links in a causal chain that led back to the system failure. 

Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded. Southwest Airlines Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., No. 22-10942 (Jan. 16, 2024). The Court noted that “[t]he parties concede that there are no cases directly on point in the context of business interruption insurance.”

A challenge to the sale of a preference claim was rejected by the Fifth Circuit in Briar Capital v. Remmert: “[P]reference actions may be sold pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1) because they are property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. §§ 541(a)(1) and (7). ” No. 22-20536 (Jan. 22, 2024).

By a 9-7 margin, the full Fifth Circuit held that qualified immunity barred the wrongful-arrest claims of a Laredo “citizen-journalist.” Villarreal v. City of Laredo, No. 20-40359 (Jan. 23, 2024). The breakdown of votes appears below:

To the right appears William Humphrey, who like William Marbury, is known to history as the subject matter of a famous opinion. President Roosevelt’s efforts to remove Humphrey from the Federal Trade Commission led to the 1935 Supreme Court case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, about constitutional limits on the structure of administrative agencies. (Humphrey died during the litigation so his executor continued with the matter). In Consumers’ Research v. CPSC, the Fifth Circuit summarized the current state of the issue addressed by Humphrey’s Executor as follows:

     The Humphrey’s exception traditionally “has applied only to multimember bodies of experts.” Sitting en banc, we recently described the exception like this: Congress’s decision “limiting the President to ‘for cause’ removal is not sufficient to trigger a separation-of-powers violation.” Instead, for-cause removal creates a separation-of-powers problem only if it “combine[s]” with “other independence-promoting mechanisms” that “work[] together” to “excessively insulate” an independent agency from presidential control.

     The plaintiffs in this case argue that the Supreme Court recently upended this framework in Seila Law. In their view, that 2020 decision held that for-cause removal always creates a separation-of-powers violation—at least if the agency at issue exercises substantial executive power (which nearly all agencies do). This is so, the plaintiffs argue, even if for-cause removal is the only structural feature insulating an agency from total presidential control. We do not read Seila Law so broadly. On the contrary, and as in Free Enterprise Fund, the Supreme Court in Seila Law left the Humphrey’s Executor exception “in place.”

No. 22-40328 (Jan. 17, 2024) (citations and footnote omitted).

After carefully reviewing what arguments were properly before it, the Fifth Circuit went on to hold in Shambaugh & Son, LP v. Steadfast Ins. Co. that the plaintiff had not established jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurer: “Steadfast could not have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Texas simply because Shambaugh’s records were kept in an office (in Austin) maintained by a division (Northstar) of a subsidiary (Shambaugh).” No. 23-50004 (Jan. 18, 2024). The Court noted the insurer’s involvement with other Texas litigation but found those contacts irrelevant and inadequate to establishe jurisdiction.

Shambaugh & Son, LP v. Steadfast Ins. Co. presents a dispute about personal jurisdiction in an insurance-coverage case. The Fifth Circuit began by identifying the arguments properly before it, noting the distinction between waiver and forfeiture:

“The terms waiver and forfeiture—though often used interchangeably by jurists and litigants—are not synonymous.”  “Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’”

Applying those standards, the Court observed, inter alia:

• “… if complaint allegations alone prevented subsequent forfeiture, then
  it is difficult to imagine when any claim or argument could ever be forfeited”;
• “… if including a claim in a complaint fails to preserve that claim … then a fortiori attaching an exhibit to a pleading does not insulate arguments derived from that exhibit“;
• A statement about choice of law did not avoid forfeiture when that “statement is nested within a broader discussion about forum shopping”;
• An argument about a specific statute was forfeited, and was not saved by a broader discussion about minimum contacts, when the lower-court briefing did not cite that statute and the statutory argument “is narrower and conceptually distinct from [appellant’s] other minimum contacts arguments.”

No. 23-50004 (Jan. 18, 2024).

In Book People, Inc. v. Wong, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of the Texas “READER” law, which “requires school book vendors who want to do business with Texas public schools to issue sexual-content ratings for all library materials they have ever sold (or will sell), flagging any materials deemed to be ‘sexually explicit’ or ‘sexually relevant’ based on the materials’ depictions of or references to sex.”

The Court held that the law violated the First Amendment, in that the ratings required by the law were not government speech, and fell within no exception to the rule against “compelled speech”:

1.  They did not come within the “government operations” exception because they “go[] beyond a mere disclosure of demographic or similar factual information.”
2. Similarly, they were not a permissible commercial-speech regulation because “[b]alancing a myriad of factors that depend on community standards is anything but the mere disclosure of factual information.

No. 23-50668 (Jan. 17, 2024).

Start the New Year off right!

Please join the Dallas Bar Association Appellate Section at noon on Thursday, January 18, for a lunch presentation by me. I’ll be speaking on trends and cases to know from the past year in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Fifth District Court of Appeals. I’ve done a similar presentation around this time of year for a few years now.

Here’s my PowerPoint. This CLE will be in-person at the Arts District Mansion, 2101 Ross in downtown Dallas.

State of Louisiana v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy is an instructive analysis of basic administrative rulemaking concepts, in the unlikely setting of the regulation of washing machines and dishwashers. The substance will be discussed in future posts.

For today, in the “who knew?” department, the plaintiffs were several states, and their standing was based on the substantial purchases that those states made of those appliances. An affidavit quoted in the opinion, for example, describes the purchasing habits of the Montana Highway Patrol as to appliances for its bunkhouses. No. 22-60146 (Jan. 8, 2023).

The issue in Stewart v. Gruber was the exclusion of an untimely expert report; among other points made in affirming, the Fifth Circuit noted:

Plaintiffs fail to identify any precedent barring courts from considering whether the proponent of an untimely expert report declined an opportunity to cure such untimeliness by refusing to join a motion to continue that would have extended deadlines for both parties and therefore lessened any prejudice to the opposing party. Put another way, Plaintiffs were only willing to have extra time for them, not a similar extension for the Defendants who would need to, of course, have an expert that addressed the Plaintiffs’ expert. Such a notion on the part of the Plaintiffs was totally improper.

No. 23-30129 (Dec. 14, 2023, unpublished).

Illumina, Inc. v. FTC provides a comprehensive review of every aspect of an FTC antitrust decision about a merger:

To sum up, Illumina’s constitutional challenges to the FTC’s authority are foreclosed by binding Supreme Court precedent, and substantial evidence supported the Commission’s conclusions that (1) the relevant market is the market for the research, development, and commercialization of MCED tests in the United States; (2) Complaint Counsel carried its initial burden of showing that the Illumina-Grail merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in that market under either the ability-and-incentive test or looking to the Brown Shoe factors; and (3) Illumina had not identified cognizable efficiencies to rebut the anticompetitive effects of the merger. However, in considering the Open Offer, the Commission used a standard that was incompatible with the plain language of the Clayton Act. 

No. 23-60167 (Dec. 15, 2023). The “Open Offer” issue involved a dispute about precisely where an agreement, entered to stave off competition-based challenges to this merger, should be considered in the context of the relevant burdens of proof.

The concurrent causation doctrine precluded recovery under an insurance policy for alleged hurricane damage in Shree Rama, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.:

Shree Rama did not carry its burden under the concurrent causation doctrine. The policy issued by Mt. Hawley explicitly covers damage from wind and explicitly excludes damage from wear and tear. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Shree Rama, it is possible that some damage to the hotel roof came from Hurricane Hanna and some from wear and tear. But the concurrent causation doctrine requires Shree Rama to provide the jury with “a reasonable basis” for allocating the damage between wind and wear and tear. . Shree Rama provided no reasonable basis. To the contrary, Shree Rama admitted at the district court level that its causation expert “could not definitively attribute [specific damages to the roof] to Hurricane Hanna when deposed.” Without a basis for allocating damages between covered and non- covered causes, Mt. Hawley was entitled to summary judgment.

No. 23-40123 (Dec. 14, 2023) (citations omitted).

Smith v. Edwards examined whether a preliminary injunction should be vacated when the dispute became moot on appeal:

     “[H]istorically, the established rule was to vacate the judgment if the case became moot on appeal.” However, in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership,  “[t]he Supreme Court made clear and emphasized that vacatur is an ‘extraordinary’ and equitable remedy . . . to be determined on a case-by-case basis.” One principal consideration “is whether the party seeking relief from the judgment . . . caused the mootness by voluntary action.” “Thus, for example, ‘vacatur must be granted where mootness results from the unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the [district] court.’” 

     The equitable principles espoused in U.S. Bancorp and recognized by Staley apply in this case. Though Defendants complied with the preliminary injunction by removing the youths from BCCY-WF, they did not cause mootness by voluntary action. And though the injunction automatically expired under the PLRA, Plaintiffs could have sought an extension to extend its duration. . Having been “frustrated by the vagaries of circumstance, [Defendants] ought not in fairness be forced to acquiesce in the judgment.

No. 23-30634 (Dec. 19, 2023).

Start the New Year out right with “Get the Last Word in an Effective Reply Brief,” which I recently co-wrote for the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit with my skillful colleague Campbell Sode – available here along with many other valuable practice pointers by members of that great bar association.