The plaintiff in a personal injury case was found to be judicially estopped from asserting the claim because it was not properly disclosed in her personal bankruptcy, even though it arose post-petition.  Flugence v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., No. 13-30073 (Oct. 4, 2013).  The trustee, however, could pursue the claim and its counsel could recover professional fees. Accordingly, the Court declined to declare that the trustee’s recovery was capped at the amount owing to creditors.  (applying Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc)).

In one of the many unpublished cases dismissing “split-the-note” cases after Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 722 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2013), the Fifth Circuit addressed a foreclosure sale that had taken place while a TRO purported to stop it.  Hall v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, No. 12-41023 (Oct. 7, 2013, unpublished).  Because the TRO did not state why it was granted without notice, the Court concluded that it “did not meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 680,” making it “void under Texas law” and “a mere nullity.”  Accordingly, it could not support a wrongful foreclosure claim.

The plaintiff in Bradberry v. Jefferson County, Texas alleged that he was terminated from his job as a county corrections officer, in violation of federal law, because he was called to service in the Army Reserve during Hurricane Ike.  No. 12-41040 (Oct. 17, 2013).  A key issue was whether a county administrative proceeding about his termination had collateral estoppel effect on his later federal lawsuit.  The Fifth Circuit, noting that administrative proceedings can create collateral estoppel if state law would allow it, held that the questions were different and no estoppel arose: “We conclude that a finding that Bradberry was discharged due to a disagreement about military service is not the equivalent of a finding that the County was motivated by his military status to discharge him.” While analogical reasoning from this fact-specific holding may pose challenges, it still provides a clearly-stated example of when issues become “identical” for purposes of issue preclusion.

Washington Mutual (“WaMu”) failed; Chase took over its mortgage operations from the FDIC.  In the meantime, borrower Dixon (after receiving notice from Chase that it was replacing WaMu as mortgagee and servicer) obtained a default judgment in state court against WaMu for $2.8 million and a declaration that all liens were cancelled.  A year later, Chase foreclosed on the property and obtained title at a foreclosure sale.  Chase sued in federal court to quiet the cloud on title created by the recordation of the default judgment.  JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v. Dixon, No. 12-40590 (Oct. 7, 2013, unpublished).  The district court granted summary judgment to Chase.  Dixon argued that this ruling violated the Rooker/Feldman doctrine about federal review of state court judgments.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed, noting that the federal ruling did not technically “nullify” the state court judgment, and that Chase was not a party to the state proceedings and thus Rooker/Feldman was not implicated.

Devon Enterprises was not re-approved as a charter bus operator for the Arlington schools after the 2010 bid process.  Devon Enterprises v. Arlington ISD, No. 13-10028 (Oct. 8, 2013, unpublished).  Devon argued that it was rejected solely because of its bankruptcy filing in violation of federal law; in response, the district cited safety issues and insurance problems.  An email by the superintendent said “[Alliance] was the company that [AISD] did not award a bid to for charter bus services because they are currently in bankruptcy.”  Calling this email “some, albeit weak, evidence” that the filing was the sole reason for the decision, the Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for the school district.

Moore sued PPG Industries and several local parties for injuries at a chemical complex; the defendants removed, arguing fraudulent joinder.  After some jurisdictional discovery, Moore sought to add three more local parties, and the district court denied him leave to do so.  Moore v. Manns, No. 12-31265 (Oct. 8, 2013). The Fifth Circuit affirmed, first reminding; “If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court”; accordingly, a district court should review such a proposed amendment “more closely than an ordinary amendment.”  Factors include the extent to which the amendment is solely for jurisdictional purposes, whether plaintiff was dilatory, and potential harm to plaintiff of not allowing the amendment.  Here, the Court agreed that the “general responsibilit[y]” for safety under which the new parties were sued did not trigger personal fault under Louisiana law, making the amendment tactical and impermissible.

Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi hired Noatex to build a manufacturing facility.  Noatex subcontracted with King Construction.  Noatex then questioned some bills sent by King. King responded with a “Lien and Stop Notice” that trapped roughly $260,000.  Noatex v. King Construction, Nos. 12-60385 & 12-60586 (Oct. 10, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the Mississippi lien statute was unconstitutional, concluding: “The Stop Notice statute is profound in its lack of procedural safeguards.  It provides for no pre-deprivation notice or hearing of any kind . . . The statute even fails to require any affidavit or attestation setting out the facts of the dispute and the legal rationale for the attachment.”  The court rejected an argument that post-attachment penalties for a false filing could save the statute, as well as an argument based on the importance of the interest in “promotion of the health of the construction industry,” noting that no governmental official was involved in the attachment process.

In a straightforward analysis of “conflict preemption,” the Fifth Circuit agreed that the Federal Power Act (the enabling statute for FERC) “preempts property damage claims under state law where the claim alleges negligence for failing to act in a manner FERC expressly declined to mandate while operating a FERC-licensed project.”  Simmons v. Sabine River Authority, No. 12-30494 (Oct. 9, 2013).  Here, plaintiffs claimed damages from flooding after spillway gates along the Sabine River were opened in late 2009; the Court concluded that the claims “infringe on FERC’s operational control” because “FERC, not state tort law, must set the appropriate duty of care for dam operators.”

In Serna v. Law Office of Joseph Onwuteaka, P.C., the plaintiff alleged that a debt collector had sued him in an impermissible venue under the FDCPA .  No. 12-20529 (Oct. 7, 2013). The defendants obtained summary judgment on limitations; the question was whether the offending act under the FDCPA — to “bring such action” — was filing of the suit or service. The Fifth Circuit found that the term “bring” is ambiguous in this context, which justifies consideration of the statute’s history and purpose.  It then concluded that “the FDCPA’s remedial nature compels the conclusion that a violation includes both filing and notice,” and reversed.  A dissent argued that the term was not ambiguous, since the term “brought” refers only to filing in another provision of the statute.

In Vinewood Capital LLC v. Dar Al-Maal Al-Islami Trust, “[t]he only evidence offered by Vinewood in support of the alleged oral contract between Vinewood and DMI for DMI to invest $100 million in real estate [was] Conrad’s deposition testimony and affidavit.”  No. 12-11103 (Oct. 8, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit reminded: “[A] party’s uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot prevent summary judgment, particularly if the overwhelming documentary evidence supports the opposite scenario.” (citing Vais Arms, Inc. v. Vais, 383 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir. 2004)).Therefore, “[a]s the district court concluded, Conrad’s self-serving testimony is belied by the parties’ contemporaneous written communications and written agreements and is therefore insufficient to create an issue of fact.”

The district court awarded attorneys fees for a lawsuit filed in breach of a release, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  Dallas Gas Partners v. Prospect Energy Corp., No. 12-20496 (Oct. 7, 2013).  Among other arguments, appellants contended that even if they were bound by the release, they did not breach it because they were not named plaintiffs in the offending action.  Admitting that they funded the lawsuit, and directed the plaintiff entity to bring the suit, they argued that those actions did not violate the agreement not to “institute, maintain or prosecute any action . . . ”  The Court found that “maintain” meant financial support.

Attorneys filed fee applications in a bankruptcy and the debtor responded with tort counterclaims.  Frazin v. Haynes and Boone, No. 11-10403 (Oct. 1, 2013).  The bankruptcy court entered judgment for the attorneys.  The Fifth Circuit found a lack of jurisdiction over the DTPA counterclaim and remanded.  It reasoned that Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), had overruled prior circuit precedent saying that bankruptcy courts could enter final judgments in all “core” proceedings.  Applying Stern to these claims, the Court reasoned (1) the malpractice claim was intertwined with the fee application, (2) the fiduciary duty action was as well, as it sought fee forfeiture, but (3) “it was not necessary to decide the DTPA claim to rule on the Attorneys’ fee applications” (including whether the claim was an impermissible “fracturing” of a professional negligence claim under Texas law)  The court noted that the district court may have jurisdiction to enter final judgment on the claim.  A dissent would not remand “because no harm is done, at least in this case, and the district court will no doubt simply dismiss whatever has been remanded.”

John Doe, a 13-year-old member of the Choctaw Indian tribe, had an internship at a Dollar General store on the Mississippi Choctaw reservation.  He was sexually molested in the store and sued the company for damages in tribal court.  Dolgencorp Inc. v. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, No. 12-060668 (Oct. 3, 2013).  After losing jurisdictional challenges in the tribal system, the company sued in federal court to enjoin the prosecution of the case.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal in favor of Choctaw jurisdiction. Reviewing the Supreme Court authority in the area, it concluded: “[T]he ability to regulate the working conditions (particularly as pertains to health and safety) of tribe members employed on reservation land is plainly central to the tribe’s power of self-government.” (discussing Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) and Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981)).  A strongly-worded dissent criticized “[t]he majority’s alarming and unprecedented holding,” arguing that it “profoundly upsets the careful balance that the Supreme Court has struck” in the area. Over another dissent, the full Court denied en banc review in 2014.

The district court handling the Deepwater Horizon litigation rebuffed BP’s complaints that the agreed-upon claims processing formula was not working correctly.  Lake Eugenie Land & Development v. BP Exploration & Production, No. 13-30315 (Oct. 2, 2013).  A fractured opinion from the Fifth Circuit reversed in substantial part.  It required remand for further development of the record on how the agreement was intended to handle several accounting issues about claimed losses.  The Court then imposed a “tailored stay” on further payments to “allow[] the time necessary for deliberate reconsideration of these significant issues on remand.”  Judge Clement wrote the plurality, which Judge Southwick joined on the foregoing grounds.  Her opinion went on to note that, for standing reasons, a court lacked jurisdiction to administer a settlement “that included [class] members that had not sustained losses at all, or had sustained losses unrelated to the oil spill . . . .” Judge Dennis dissented as to the reasons for remand and disagreed with the standing analysis.

In Meyers v. Textron Inc., the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Rule 12 dismissal of a complaint on res judicata grounds.  No.13-10023 (Oct. 2, 2013, unpublished).  .Noting that res judicata is ordinarily an affirmative defense, the Court reminded: “When all relevant facts are shown by the court’s own records, of which the court takes notice, the defense [of res
judicata] may be upheld on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without requiring an answer.” On the merits, the Court found no dispute that the plaintiffs in two cases were in privity given the control one had over the other.

While nominally about a limited issue of workers compensation law,  Austin v. Kroger Texas LP analyzes basic issues of an “Erie guess,” Texas premises liability law, and the types of negligence claims available in Texas.  No. 12-10772 (Sept. 27, 2013).  Austin, a Kroger employee, slipped while cleaning an oily liquid with a mop.  Contrary to store policy, a product called “Spill Magic” was not available to him that day.   After a thorough discussion of the interplay between the common law of premises liability and the Texas workers compensation statutes (Kroger being a non-subscriber), the Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for Kroger that was based on Austin’s subjective awareness of the spill.  “Section 406.033(a) of the Texas Labor Code takes the employee’s own negligence off of the table for a non-subscriber like Kroger . . . ”  The Court went on to find fact issues about Kroger’s negligence in not having Spill Magic available, and about Kroger’s knowledge of the spill.  The Court affirmed dismissal of the gross negligence claim, and in the remand, asked the district court to consider the specific type of negligence claim that Austin asserted under Texas law.

A borrower claimed that a mortgage servicer was unjustly enriched when it obtained an expensive “force-placed” insurance policy on the property.  Baxter v. PNC Bank, No. 12-51181 (Sept. 26, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit reminded that a remedy based on restitution or unjust enrichment is not ordinarily available when an express contract deals with the same subject matter.  Here, the deed not only allowed the purchase of force-placed insurance, but warned that the ” “cost of the [forced-placed] insurance might significantly exceed the cost of insurance that [Baxter] could have obtained.”

Plaintiffs sued for defamation, based on critical comments about their role in the Chinese drywall MDL that ended up on the “Above the Law” website.  Herman v. Cataphora, Inc., No.12-30966 (Sept. 17, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that Louisiana had no jurisdiction over the defendants because that state was not the “focal point” of the statements, citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) and Clemens v. McNamee, 615 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2010).  It took issue, however, with the district court granting the motion to dismiss and then ordering a transfer.  It noted that a district court has authority to transfer (under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)) if it determines that it lacks personal jurisdiction, and therefore vacated the dismissal order and remanded with instructions to order transfer.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of several mortgage-related claims by a borrower against JP Morgan, based on the reasoning of the Court’s opinions in the area in 2013. Hudson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, No. 13-50407 (Sept. 23, 2013, unpublished).  After the district court ruled, the Bank of New York (who had been sued but not served) entered an appearance in the case, and asked the Fifth Circuit to dismiss the claims against it as well.  Finding that BONY was not a party at the time of the district court’s dismissal ruling, the Court dismissed that request for lack of jurisdiction.

Happy birthday today to 600camp.com.  The year had many great stories — courageous monks, generations of chickens, an itinerant ice-shaving machine and the travels of the M/V OCEAN SHANGHAI (presently on the high seas and out of range). Thanks to all readers and the author’s colleagues at Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox.  Please celebrate with some authentic shrimp remoulade from Galatoire’s in New Orleans.

The unpublished opinion of Wiley v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. affirms the Rule 12 dismissal of borrwers’ wrongful foreclosure claims, summarizing the 2013 cases from the Fifth Circuit about the “split-the-note” argument against the validity of a MERS assignment. No. 12-51039 (Sept. 16, 2013, unpublished).  The opinion reminds that while some borrowers’ claims have survived appellate scrutiny in 2013, a pleading that appears to rehash discredited arguments will not satisfy Twombly and Iqbal.  Other unpublished opinions to the same effect are Kramer v. Fannie Mae, No. 12-51171 (Sept. 19, 2013, unpublished), and Epstein v. U.S. Bank NA, No. 13-50047 (Sept. 25, 2013, unpublished).

The insured estimated loss from a hailstorm at a shopping center at close to $1 million; the insurer estimated $17,000.  TMM Investments v. Ohio Casualty Insurance, No. 12-40635 (Sept. 17, 2013).  The insurer invoked its contractual right for an appraisal, which came in around $50,000.  The insured sued, alleging that the appraisal improperly excluded damages to the HVAC system and that the panel exceeded its authority by considering causation issues.  Applying State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886 (Tex. 2009), the Fifth Circuit agreed on the HVAC issue, but did not see that as a reason to invalidate the entire award, and reasoned that the appraisers were within their authority when they “merely distinguished damage caused by pre-existing conditions from damage caused by the storm . . . .”

Davis, a Louisiana prisoner, was attacked and injured by another inmate, Anderson.  Davis sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that several prison officials and guards were “deliberately indifferent” to a “substantial risk of serious harm” to his safety.  Davis v. LeBlanc, No. 12-30756 (Sept. 12, 2013, unpublished).  Similar cases are filed frequently, summary judgment for the defense is common, and affirmance is near-universal under the demanding legal standards for such claims.  Here, Davis offered a sworn declaration from another inmate who spoke to a guard defendant shortly before the attack, and was told by that guard that Anderson was going to “‘whip that [expletive] Davis in the cell next to him’ and ‘that [expletive] needs a good [expletive] whipping and it is worth the paperwork for him to get it.'”  Summary judgment for that guard was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.   Whatever happens to Davis’s claims, this opinion provides a clear — if graphic — example of how to create a fact issue, and reminds that the Fifth Circuit does in fact review the record in the many prisoner cases presented to it.

This blog’s author is happy to have won third place in this year’s Twitter Brief contest, sponsored by the State Bar of Texas Appellate Section.  The entry was:

“Plaintiff slipped on #macaronisalad.  Too bad for her but #equalinference.   #reverseandrender  #cityofkeller”

Two employees entered a series of unauthorized loan transactions on behalf of their employer and took the proceeds.  BJ Services v. Great American Insurance Co., No. 12-20527 (Sept. 6, 2013, unpublished).  The employer’s carrier denied coverage, arguing that the losses did not “directly” result from employee dishonesty, in part because the company never actually got the money.  The district court agreed but the Fifth Circuit reversed, noting that the employees had “apparent” authority to enter the transactions, even if they did not have “actual” authority, and thus created binding contracts on behalf of their employer that made the losses “direct” within the meaning of the policy.

As part of a complicated battle about arbitrability and arbitrator selection, a district court ruled: “Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed for resolution by arbitration.”  Later, the district court rejected a challenge to the arbitrator selection process.  Adam Technologies Int’l v. Sutherland Global Services, No. 12-10760 (Sept. 5, 2013).  The panel divided over how to apply Kokkonen v. Guardian Life, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), which held that a court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to hear a dispute about the enforcement of a settlement provision in a dismissed action.  The majority reasoned: “The judgment dismissing [plaintiff’s] initial lawsuit operated, in all practical effect, as the functional equivalent of an order compelling arbitration between these parties.  We conclude that ancillary jurisdiction existed to allow the district court later to evaluate whether the dismissal that allowed the dispute to be taken to arbitration was being thwarted.”  The dissent did not read the district court’s ruling as retaining jurisdiction.    

A case about Medicare reimbursement for a “mobile stander” wheelchair became moot on appeal when the state agency found it was not medically necessary.  The Fifth Circuit dismissed the case and also vacated the district court opinion and judgment, noting legal errors in the opinion and discrepancy between the opinion and judgment.  In light of all the circumstances, the Court concluded that vacatur was in “the public interest.”  Koenning v. Janek, 12-41187 (Aug. 20, 2013, unpublished).

The Fifth Circuit addressed several important business litigation topics in May-August of 2013:

1.       Borrowers survive.  Mortgage servicers still won many cases, including a published opinion rejecting claims of “robosigning.”   Three times, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed Rule 12 dismissal of borrowers’ pleadings.

2       Personal jurisdiction.  The Fifth Circuit applied for the first time  a 2011 Supreme Court opinion about the “stream of commerce,” finding jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer, but noting that the opinion may affect older Circuit cases suggesting that a general intent to sell in the US could create jurisdiction in a specific state.

3.       Extrinsic evidence.  The proper handling of extrinsic evidence is a recurring challenge in contract litigation.  A recent case reminds of the importance of evidence about course of performance, even for an unambiguous contrac

4.       Venue.  The Court granted mandamus to compel an intra-district transfer from East Texas’s Marshall Division to its Tyler Division.

5.       Jury deference.  In Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP, the Court affirmed a $44 million jury verdict, reminding: “Had we sat in the jury box, we may have decided otherwise.”  Three other published opinions substantially affirm jury awards.

BONUS: Where is the M/V OCEAN SHANGHAI?  An admiralty appeal was recently found moot, in part because the “ship had sailed” from the Fifth Circuit.  Modern technology lets blog readers follow the SHANGHAI to non-Fifth Circuit locations around the globe.

Persons upset about posts on the Mississippi blog “slabbed.org” sued for defamation in Nova Scotia (some of the content related to a lodge owned there by a Mississippi resident).  After obtaining a default judgment, they sought to domesticate it in Mississippi; the defendant removed and resisted domestication under the SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C. § 4102.  Trout Point Lodge v. Handshoe, No. 13-60002 (Sept. 5, 2013).  That law, enacted in 2010, intends to prevent “libel tourism” by plaintiffs who obtain judgments in jurisdictions with less protection of speech than the First Amendment. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet its burden under the Act to prove either (1) that Canadian law (which allocates the burden to prove falsity differently than American law) offers as much free speech protection as Mississippi, or (2) a Mississippi court reviewing the allegations of the pleading would have found liability for defamation.  The Court found some of the pleading’s allegations conclusory and that others involved language that “[t]hough offensive . . . are not actionable . . . .”

In a high-profile “data breach” case, the district court dismissed several banks’ claims against a credit card processor after hackers entered its system and stole confidential information.  Lone Star National Bank v. Heartland Payment Systems, No. 12-20648 (Sept. 3, 2013).  The banks did not have a contract with the processor.  They sought money damages for the cost of replacing compromised credit cards and reimbursing customers for wrongful charges.  Applying New Jersey law, the Fifth Circuit found that the economic loss rule did not bar a negligence claim on these facts at the Rule 12 stage.  These banks were an “identifiable class,” Heartland’s liability would not be “boundless” but run only to the banks, and the banks would otherwise have no remedy.  The Court also noted that it was not clear whether the risk could have been allocated by contract.  The Court declined to affirm dismissal on several other grounds such as choice-of-law and collateral estoppel, “as they are better addressed by the district court in the first instance.”

Plaintiff asserted personal jurisdiction under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), alleging that a receiver’s purported misconduct would forseeably damage investors in Texas. Bustos v. Lennon, No. 12-50765 (August 16, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that the alleged misconduct was not intentionally aimed at Texas, and that jurisdiction did not comport with “fair play and substantial justice” given the status of related litigation in another state.

The plaintiffs in Young v. United States alleged that the Interior Department negligently prepared two studies which led to flooding along Interstate 12 in Louisiana, bringing federal litigation in 2008 when the last major flood was in 1983.  No. 13-30094 (August 21, 2013).  Plaintiff argued that the “continuing tort” doctrine saved the claim from limitations because the improperly-designed highway remained in place. The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, noting two controlling Louisiana Supreme Court cases.  The first, Hogg v. Chevron, involved leaking underground gasoline storage tanks and “rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the failure to contain or remediate the leakage constituted a continuing wrong, suspending the commencement of the running of prescription . . . [explaining] that ‘the breach of a duty to right an initial wrong simply cannot be a continuing wrong that suspends the running of prescription, as that is the purpose of every lawsuit and the obligation of every tortfeasor.'” 45 So.3d 991 (La. 2010).  Similarly, the second held: “[T]he actual digging of the canal was the operating cause of the injury[, and t]he continued presence of the canal and the consequent diversion of water from the ox-bow [were] simply the continuing ill effects arising from a single tortious act.”  Crump v. Sabine River Authority, 737 So.2d 720 (La. 1999).

On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit withdrew its original opinion and substituted a certification request to the Texas Supreme Court in Ranger Insurance v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., No. 12-30230 (Aug. 29, 2013).  The request asks for guidance about Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2008), and whether (1) it compels coverage for BP under the language of umbrella insurance policies if contractual “additional insured” and indemnity provisions are “separate and independent,” and (2) whether the contra proferentem doctrine would apply to the contract containing those provisions.  Thanks to Don Cruse’s SCOTX blog for picking this up, and that blog will be following the handling of the request in the state court.

In BP Exploration v. Johnson, the plaintiff in a Deepwater Horizon case sued in Texas to enforce an alleged settlement agreement.  No. 12-20512 (Aug. 8, 2013, unpublished).  BP asked the MDL panel to consolidate the case with the other Deepwater Horizon matters in the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Before the panel could rule, however, the Texas judge asked for summary judgment briefing and granted summary judgment to the defense on the ground that no agreement had been created.  The Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to transfer to the MDL case, noting the complexity of the Deepwater Horizon litigation, and more generally: “It is typical in such scenarios for the court before which the tort claims are pending to determine whether a binding settlement agreement has arisen, as that court is already familiar with the parties and the claims and the proceedings.”

As part of broader disputes about the bankruptcy of Pilgrim’s Pride, chicken growers alleged that its decision to shut down a large facility violated the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.  Relying on its earlier [9-7] en banc decision which found that a broader provision of the Act required proof of anticompetitive conduct, the Fifth Circuit found that section 192(e) of the Act imposes the same requirement.  Agerton v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, No. 12-40085 (August 27, 2013) (citing Wheeler v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, 591 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2009)).  The Court then reversed a $25 million judgment for the growers, reasoning: “In the instant case, PPC had overextended itself into the commodity chicken market, was producing more chicken than the market appeared to need, and was thereby driving the market price of chicken down at great cost to itself. Recognizing the damage inflicted by its own excess production, PPC wisely decided to stop flooding the market with unprofitable chicken.  . . . Far from being a nefarious goal, higher prices are the natural consequence of a reduction in supply.  If it is lawful for a business to independently control its own output, then it is also lawful for the business to hope for the natural consequences of its actions.”

Texas allows charitable bingo if the sponsoring organization does not use the proceeds for political advocacy; several charities challenged that restriction on First Amendment grounds.  Department of Texas, VFW v. Texas Lottery Commission, No. 11-50932 (August 21, 2013).  In a new opinion issued on panel rehearing, the Fifth Circuit rejected a standing challenge based on the interplay of the relevant law with other gambling laws (which the state argued made the lawsuit irrelevant), and then reversed an injunction against the law.  The Court saw the case as controlled by Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), noting: “The challenged provisions in this case do nothing to restrict speech outside the scope of the State’s bingo program. Charities are free to participate in the bingo program and engage in political advocacy; they simply must not use bingo proceeds to do so.”  For similar reasons, it distinguished Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010).  A dissent argued that Rust did not control and the law was invalid under the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine.

Verdin v. Fannie Mae rejected several claims against a mortgage servicer.  No. 12-40895 (August 15, 2013, unpublished).  As to a negligent misrepresentation claim, the Fifth Circuit held: “[the servicer’s] only allegedly false representation—that [the borrower]  should submit a request for postponement and ‘not worry about the foreclosure’—relates to a promise to do something in the future.”  The claim also failed because “Texas requires pecuniary loss independent from the loan agreement to support a negligent-misrepresentation claim,” and alleged mental anguish did not satisfy that requirement. Finally, the Court rejected waiver and misrepresentation claims: “[Borrower] is unable to demonstrate that Wells Fargo made an absolute repudiation of an obligation because providing mixed signals of an intent to foreclose—i.e., suggesting that it would consider a postponement and not to worry about a foreclosure—does not rise to an absolute declaration of intent to abandon an obligation.”

A district court vacated a previously-granted class certification in a securities case in 2004.  The putative class refiled in Texas in 2009.  The district court found the action time-barred, concluding that any tolling effect under American Pipe & Construction Co v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) ended with the order of vacatur.  Hall v. Variable Annuity Life, No. 12-20440 (August 15, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no meaningful distinction in this context between a vacatur order and a decision not to certify in the first instance.

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed a Texas suit under Rule 41, refiled in New York, and then voluntarily dismissed that action as well.  Because the second dismissal was with prejudice under the Federal Rules, Plaintiff sought relief under Rule 60(b) to allow reinstatement of the original case.  Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, No. 12-20520 (August 14, 2013). Defendant argued that a voluntary dismissal is not a “final proceeding” for Rule 60 purposes.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the grant of 60(b) relief.  The Court acknowledged Harvey Specialty & Supply, Inc. v. Anson Flowline Equipment, Inc., 434 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2005), which found no preclusive effect for a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal, but concluded that one was still a “final . . . proceeding” within Rule 60 because of its practical effect.  The Court noted that the weight of authority from other Circuits agreed with this conclusion.

Sims v. Carrington Mortgage certified four questions to the Texas Supreme Court about home equity loans – whether a specified transaction was a “modification” or a “refinance” under Texas law, and what rules would apply to the transaction if characterized as a modification.  No. 12-10978 (August 14, 2013, unpublished).  Don Cruse’s SCOTX blog has more detail.

The sole issue for bench trial in Union Oil v. Buffalo Marine Services was the amount of damages causedby an oil spill.  No. 12-40848 (August 16, 2013, unpublished).  Both sides appealed.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed.  As to the methodology used by the district court, the Court said: “Contrary to Buffalo’s assertion, the ‘reasonable certainty’ with which Unocal was required to prove lost profits did not require it to identify lost opportunities from specific vessels that would have visited the terminal but for its closure following the spill. Considering figures from adjacent months was more than adequate.”  The Court found “no support in the actual numbers” for an argument about a seasonal spike in revenue during the relevant period.  Finally, the Court agreed that a claim determination from the National Pollution Fund Center was inadmissible as proof of damages under Fed. R. Evid. 408.

For the third time in 2013, the Fifth Circuit has reversed, at least in part, the dismissal of foreclosure-related claims under Rule 12 – this time in a published opinion.  Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, No. 12-41273 (August 13, 2013).  The Court began by reminding that the Texas fair debt collection statute is broader than the federal one, and can encompass a servicer.  Here, the borrower stated a cognizable claim about the servicer misrepresenting its services (the status of a foreclosure), while failing to do so on several other misrepresentation claims based on other statutory provisions.  The Court rejected a DTPA claim because the allegations related to a loan modification — an entirely financial transaction that did not involve a “good” or “service” — and the plaintiffs thus lacked standing.  In so doing, the Court distinguished authority finding consumer status as to an original home loan transaction, where the goal can be called obtaining a house.  The Court also found that the defendant properly raised the Statute of Frauds as a defense as a Rule 12 ground in opposition to the plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claims.

The FTC sued debt negotiation companies, claiming that their ads deceptively promised substantial reductions in consumers’ credit card debt.  The district court concluded that “deception” under section 5 of the FTC Act should be evaluated on the basis of all information disclosed by the companies to consumers up to the point of purchase, and entered judgment for the defendants.  FTC v. Financial Freedom Processing Inc. No. 12-10520 (Aug. 12, 2013, unpublished). The Fifth Circuit thought that the district court’s analysis was “dubious,” noting authority in other circuits that holds “each advertisement must stand on its own merits.”  The FTC, however, elected to challenge the district court’s finding about deceptiveness at the point of purchase.  Here, “while the Companies’ radio ads and websites may be misleading–indeed, it is difficult to conclude that the websites are not deceptive–we are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding . . . .”

The defendant in American General Life v. Bryan owned a company (“IMG Inc.”) through which he routed commission checks that he received for selling life insurance.  No. 12-20435 (Aug. 14, 2013, unpublished).  An insurer rescinded a policy and then sought repayment of the commission.  The agent defended on the ground that the insurer’s agency relationship was actually with another company, “IMG Cap.”  The Fifth Circuit found that issues about the scope of the parties’ contracts were not appropriate for summary judgment, but the case was properly resolved by the doctrine of quasi-estoppel because the agent routinely used IMG Inc. for the handling of commissions and had not used IMG Cap.  Accordingly, it would be “unconscionable to allow [the agent] to hide behind the assignment . . . when his behavior over a multiple-year period was flagrantly inconsistent with the legal arguments he now urges us to adopt on appeal.”

The SEC settled an enforcement action except as to the issue of potential disgorgement. SEC v. Halek, No. 12-11045 (August 5, 2013).  Negotiations then broke down because the SEC did not accept the financial information provided by the defendants.  The district court then entered an order to disgorge over $20 million.  In affirming the district court, the Fifth Circuit: (1) found no abuse of discretion in reopening the case, noting that “[a]n administrative closure is more akin to a stay than a dismissal,” (2) reminded that “[d]istrict courts have ‘broad discretion in fashioning the equitable remedy of a disgorgement order,'” and (3) found no clear error in the court’s determinations about joint and several liablity, the reasonableness of the ordered amount as an approximation of the defendants’ unlawful gain, or its decision not to credit settlement payments against the ordered amount.

An unsecured creditor contended that the gross negligence of a bankruptcy trustee allowed a key asset to escape the estate.  The court agreed and ordered payment from Liberty Mutual’s bond for the trustee.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding: (1) the relevant limitations period was set by a 4-year federal statute rather than a 2-year state one, (2) the finding of gross negligence was not clearly erroneous, and (3) expert testimony was not necessary to establish gross negligence in this situation: “While the precise course of action the Trustee should have taken may be subject to reasonable debate, it requires no technical or expert knowledge to recognize that she affirmatively should have undertaken some form of action to acquire for the bankruptcy estate the assets to which it was entitled.”   Liberty Mutual v. United States, No. 12-10677 (revised August 20, 2013).

A borrower alleged that the servicer mishandled an insurance issue, setting in motion events that led to a wrongful foreclosure.  Gardocki v. JP Morgan Chase, No. 12-20733 (Aug. 8, 2013, unpublished).  Citing Twombly and Iqbal, and criticizing the lack of analysis by the district court, the Fifth Circuit held: “Were Gardocki to prove the facts alleged in his complaint, it is plausible the district court could find that JPMC breached the Mortgage contract by failing to endorse the reimbursement check in a timely manner, thereby causing Gardocki to fail to meet his monthly payment obligations. But for this failure, foreclosure would have been improper. It is equally plausible that Gardocki will fail to meet his burden to prove the above facts, and that JPMC might successfully move for summary judgment.”  Gardocki is the second of two opinions this year ruling for borrowers in Rule 12 situations about wrongful foreclosure claims.

The plaintiff in Morlock LLC v. Bank of New York sued to quiet title, claiming that it had not received notice of a foreclosure sale despite having an interest in the property.  No.12-20832 (August 5, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment on the pleadings for the bank, finding the plaintiff’s allegation of an ownership interest “conclusory,” and stating: “Morlock’s petition pleads the initial transaction between the original borrowers and the lender, but the petition does not even suggest how Morlock acquired an ownership interest in the property in the light of the fact that it was not an original borrower. Although Morlock eventually stated that its ownership interest was derived from a Trustee Deed dated August 5, 2011, no copy of that deed was attached to any of the filings, and the deed is not otherwise contained in the record.”

The Court released a revised opinion in Anadarko Petroleum v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, No. 12-20716 (August 6, 2013), which reversed and rendered for a contract plaintiff based largely on the parties’ course of performance.  The expanded opinion addresses an argument made on rehearing that the panel failed to find the contract ambiguous before examining evidence about course of performance.  The opinion notes that the relevant UCC provision in fact says the opposite, noting that “the course of actual performance by the parties is considered the best indication of what they intended the writing to mean” since that performance can “become an element of the meaning of the words used.”  Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 2.202 comment 2.

Acceptance Loan had a lien on a Mississippi office building, which was the principal asset of S. White Transportation (“SWT”) when it went into bankruptcy.  Acceptance Loan Co. v. S. White Transportation, No. 12-60648 (August 5, 2013).  Acceptance received notice of SWT’s bankruptcy several times.  After plan confirmation, Acceptance sought a declaration that its lien survived.  The Fifth Circuit held that “passive receipt of notice” did not constitute “participation” in the bankruptcy under In re Ahern Enterprises, 507 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir. 2007).  Therefore, the general rule applied that “a secured creditor with a loan secured by a lien on the assets of the debtor who becomes bankrupt before the loan is repaid may ignore the bankruptcy proceeding and look to the lien for satisfaction of the debt.”