The plaintiff’s counsel in Mick Haig Productions v. Does 1-670 served subpoenas on Internet service providers (ISPs) about the alleged wrongful download of pornographic material.  No. 11-10977 (July 12, 2012).   The district court found that the subpoenas violated orders that it had made to manage discovery, and imposed significant monetary and other sanctions on the lawyer.  Op. at 4-5.  The Fifth Circuit found that all of the lawyer’s appellate challenges were waived — either because they were not raised below, or were raised only in an untimely motion to stay filed after the notice of appeal, and thus were waived.  Id. at 5.  The Court declined to apply a “miscarriage of justice” exception to the standard waiver rules, stating that the lawyer’s actions were “an attempt to repeat his strategy of . . . shaming or intimidating [the Does] into settling . . . .”  Id. at 6.

In the case of Downhole Navigator LLC v. Nautilus Insurance, an insured retained independent counsel after receiving a reservation of rights letter from its insurer, arguing that the insurer’s chosen counsel had a conflict at that point.    686 F.2d 325 (5th Cir. 2012).  Applying Northern County Mutual v. Davalos, 140 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2004), the Court found no conflict because “‘the facts to be adjudicated’ in the underlying . . . litigation are not the same ‘facts upon which coverage depends.'”  The Court did not see the recent case of Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co., 261 S.W.2d 24 (Tex. 2008), which dealt with the responsibilities of insurers’ staff attorneys who defend a claim for an insured, as changing the basic analysis under Texas law.

While resolving an issue of Mississippi state property law, the Court provides a good example of an “Erie guess” involving canons of statutory interpretation in Marlow LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, No. 11-60394 (June 27, 2012).

In Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., a law firm had inadvertently distributed documents, designated as confidential under a Rule 26(c) protetive order, during a conference of personal injury lawyers.  No. 11-20557 (June 21, 2012).  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), the Court ordered the firm to reimburse Cooper for its fees and expenses incurred in rectifying the situation.  The Court found that the protective order was an “order to provide or permit discovery” as defined by Rule 37(b)(2), that the award was justified with “specific and well-reasoned grounds . . . that any lesser penalty would not have been an adequate future deterrent,” and that the affidavits of counsel were suficient to establish the amount awarded.  The Court noted that the firm had previously been sanctioned for another violation of a protective order involving Coooper.  Op. at 3 n.2 & 10.

The Court reviewed several Daubert rulings in the toxic tort case of Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., No. 11-50193 (June 20, 2012).  Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, it affirmed the exclusion of experts based on weaknesses in reliance upon (1) analysis of whether the materials at issue belonged to a “class of chemicals” known to cause disease; (2) state and federal exposure guidelines; (3) animal studies; and (4) the “temporal connection” between exposure and illness.  Op. at at 8-20.  The Court then affirmed the exclusion of an opinion based on a “differential diagnosis,” concluding that it was based on an unreliable presumption about general causation.  Id. at 22.  The Court concluded by reversing on a causation issue that did not require expert testimony, finding that the temporal connection between exposure and certain chronic injuries was close enough to allow trial — while also finding that the connection was to attenuated as to related chronic injuries.  Id. at 26.  A dissent took issue with the majority’s reasoning as to one well-credentialed toxicology expert.  Id. at 29.

The Court adddressed the contractual liability exclusion in a Texas CGL policy in the case of Ewing Construction v. Amerisure Insurance, No. 11-40512 (June 15, 2012).  The Court applied the “plain language of the exclusion,” guided by Gilbert Texas Construction LP v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010), and concluded that it reached a contractual commitment to complete a construction project.  Op. at 8.  The Court then examined whether an exception applied for liability that would exist even without the contract, and concluded that there was no such liability under Texas’s “con-tort” cases.  Id. at 9 (quoting Southwestern Bell v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991).  The Court concluded by deferring the issue of the duty to indemnify, and acknowledging a point raised by the dissent about overlap between the “contract” and “your work” exclusions in a typical CGL contract.  Id. at 10.

The bankruptcy case of Bandi v. Becnel involved a dispute as to whether a debt was nondischargeable because it arose from fraud, or whether it fell within an exception for statements about “financial condition” in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)).  No. 11-30654 (June 12, 2012).  The Court found that the phrase “financial condition” should be construed “to connote the overall net worth” of the debtor, and thus did not include “[a] representation that one owns a particular residence or a particular commercial property” because the property could be subject to liens or other liabilities.  Op. at 8.  The Court reviewed a substantial body of law from its prior opinions, other Circuits, and the Supreme Court about the intricacies of this statute and other related provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

In Greenwood 950 LLC v. Chesapeake Louisiana LP, the Court found an ambiguity in a Louisiana mineral lease, seeing two reasonable ways to harmonize clauses about obligations to “repair all surface damages” and “pay . . . all damages.”  No. 11-30436 (June 12, 2012) at 5-7 (emphasis added).  On the threshold Erie issue, the Court reminded: “[W]e look first and foremost ‘to the final decisions of Louisiana’s highest court’ rather than this Court’s prior applications of Louisiana law.”  Op. at 4 n.11 (quoting Holt v. State Farm, 627 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 2010)).

Mid-Continent Casualty v. Davis presented an insurance coverage dispute about a wrongful death claim by a construction worker.  No. 11-10142 (June 8, 2012).  Coverage turned on whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor.   Applying the five-factor test from Limestone Products Distribution v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2002), the Court affirmed a finding that the worker was an independent contractor.  Key facts were that the worker provided his own tools and supplies, largely controlled his own schedule and tasks, and was provided a 1099 rather than a W-2.  Op. at 13-14.

The Court briefly revisited personal jurisdiction in an unpublished opinion, ITL International v. Cafe Soluble, S.A., No. 11-60360 (rev’d June 7, 2012).  The case arose from a dispute between Mars, Inc. and a Latin American distributor, closely related to the dispute at issue in the recent case of ITL International v. Costenla, S.A.  The Court followed the same analytical framework, finding that the defendant’s contacts with Mississippi were not sufficiently related to the dispute to create jurisdiction.  It concluded by reminding that a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction should be without prejudice because it is not on the merits.

Environmental groups challenged several plans approved by the Department of the Interior for oil exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon accident.  In a group of consolidated cases, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the challenges on procedural grounds.  See, e.g., Gulf Restoration Network v. Salazar, No. 10-60411 (May 30, 2012).   Among other holdings, the Court found that the groups had standing as organizations to sue, op. at 8-10, and that case law about the effect of an agency’s allegedly “illegal [and] clandestine” internal policies did not excuse the groups’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies here.  Op. at 29.

In Continental Casualty v. North American Capacity Ins. Co., the district court required three primary carriers to split defense costs, while not allowing the excess insurer to recover defense costs from the primaries.  No. 10-20262 (May 30, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the cost-splitting issue, after careful review of the policies’ coverage triggers, scope, and “other insurance” clauses.  Op. at 15-20.  The Court reversed as to the excess carrier, finding it had a right of contractual subrogation, and distinguishing Mid-Continent Insurance v. Liberty Mutual, 236 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007).

In Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Guy, the Court reviewed a jury verdict that two lawyers had improperly induced a railroad into settling asbestos exposure claims.  No. 10-61006 (May 29, 2012).  The Court rejected jurisdictional challenges that were based on the Rooker-Feldman and Burford doctrines, finding sufficient distance between the facts of the case and the underlying state court proceedings.  Op. at 14, 16.  The Court also found sufficient evidence of affirmative acts of concealment, and due diligence by the railroad, to toll limitations, Op. at 20, although a dissent argued otherwise.  Op. at 27  (“I would reverse because doing nothing is not due diligence.”).  The Court rejected a waiver defense, distinguishing the defendants’ cases as arising when a fraud plaintiff accepted a benefit after it knew or should have known of fraudulent inducement.   Op. at 25.

In a significant case applying Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), the Court vacated a class arbitration award as exceeding the arbitrator’s authority.  Reed v. Florida Metropolitan University, No. 11-50509 (May 18, 2012).   The Court found that the “any dispute” and “any remedy” clauses in the parties’ agreement did not authorise class arbitration, acknowledging a different conclusion by the Second Circuit in Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 646 F.3d 113 (2011).  Op. at 19-22.   Before reaching that result, the Court reviewed the applicable AAA rules and concluded that they allowed the threshold matter of class arbitration to be reviewed by the arbitrator.  Id. at 8.

The plaintiff in Patrick v. Wal-Mart alleged: “Defendants have engaged in a continuing pattern of bad faith . . . [and] have among other things, unreasonably delayed and/or denied authorization and/or payment of reasonable, neceessary and worker’s comp related medical treatment, as well as permanent indemnity benefits, as ordered by [the state agency].”  No. 11-60217 at 11-12 (May 17, 2012).  The Court found that this allegation “invokes three potentially cognizable theories of liability,” but was “devoid of facts to make it plausible” under Twombly — the pleading “fails to identify the specific time or nature of such wrongs . . . [and] does not identify by date or amount or type of service, any of the alleged bad-faith denials and delays . . . .”  Id.   It found no abuse of discretion in not allowing further amendment, noting “repeated failure[s] to cure deficiencies . . . .”  Id. at 12-13 (quoting United States v. Humana Health Plan, 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003)).

The plaintiff in Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen alleged a denial of procedural due process and equal protection rights as to the handling of her license to run a snow cone stand in a particular location.  No. 11-60279 (May 14, 2012).   The Court applied Twombly and Iqbal to find that she had not stated an equal protection claim, reminding that a pleading should have “facial plausibility” from its “pleaded factual content” and not offer only “labels and conclusions or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”  Op. at 17 (noting “no allegations regarding the types of businesses . . . the size . . . where they are located, or what laws and regulations they have violated”).   The Court found an actionable due process issue and rejected a challenge to its ripeness, both under a specialized test for constitutional claims and under “general ripeness principles.”  Id. at 14-15 (requiring a claim “fit for judicial decision” as to which delay “would cause . . . further hardship”).

From the first third of 2012, here are 5 commercial litigation cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit worth knowing:

1. Unenforceable arbitration clause. A clause in an employee manual, which could be amended by giving appropriate notice, was illusory and not enforceable.  Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, 669 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 2012).

2. Personal jurisdiction. The defendant’s 55 transactions in Mississippi were not sufficiently related to the claim to create personal jurisdiction. This was the Circuit’s first jurisdiction case since two major Supreme Court cases in 2011.  ITL International, Inc. v. Sonstenla, S.A., 669 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2012).

3. Sufficient causation evidence. A thorough opinion finds that expert testimony was not needed in a personal injury case, but even then, the evidence of causation was not sufficient.  Huffman v. Union Pacific Railroad, 675 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2012).

4. Business Torts Damages 101. The defendants’ acts were not actionable in fraud, did not amount to fraudulent inducement, but did support liability for misappropriation of trade secrets.  Bohnsack v. Varco, 668 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2012).

5. Statute of Frauds 101. Sufficient evidence to satisfy the Statute of Frauds is different than what may establish contract liability.  Preston Exploration Co. v. GSF, LLC, 669 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 2012).

The Court will rehear en banc the case of Access Mediquip v. United Healthcare, decided by the panel earlier this year, which presents a sophisticated question about when ERISA preempts certain misrepresentation claims.

The unpublished case of Stanwood Boom Works LLC v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., in the context of affirming summary judgment for the defendant in a contract case, gives a thorough summary of “black letter” Texas law about contract formation, as well as the related situation of negotiations that are too tentative to create promissory estoppel.  No. 11-20511 (April 25, 2012).

In Grissom v. Liberty Mutual, the trial court awarded $212,000 in damages for negligent misrepresentation, based on the difference between the coverage a homeowner actually had at the time of Hurricane Katrina, and the coverage he could have had under a “preferred risk policy.”  No. 11-60260 (April 23, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit reversed on preemption issues unique to flood insurance as well as the viability of the claim itself, stating: “Because Liberty Mutual was not offering insurance advice, was not a fiduciary of Grissom, and did not offer any statement to Grissom to imply the lack of alternative insurance options, Mississippi law would not recognize negligent misrepresentation as a cause of action against Liberty Mutual . . . .”  Op. at 9-10.

The parties in Ballard v. Devon Energy disputed when a provision in an oil field joint operating agreement, about the effect of “surrendering” certain leases, would apply.  No. 10-20497 (April 19, 2012)  The Court affirmed the denial of leave to amend the plaintiff’s contract claims to add a fiduciary duty count, based on a lengthy delay in raising the issue.  Op. at 6.  The Court then, applying Montana law, concluded that while the parties had both advanced “facially plausible” readings of the provision in isolation, the defendant’s reading was more persuasive in the overall context of the entire development project.  Id. at 12-15.  The Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, although it criticized the trial court for considering “extrinsic evidence” before attempting to construe the document on its face.  Id. at 9-10.

Sawyer v. DuPont presented employee claims of fraudulent inducement to leave jobs with DuPont for new positions at a wholly-owned subsidiary.  No. 11-40454 (April 20, 2012).   The Court began by reminding of the deference for intermediate appellate opinions in making an “Erie guess” about state law — here, the “at will” employment doctrine in Texas and its prohibition of fraudulent inducement claims about employment relationships.  Op. at  5.  Based on intermediate court authority, the Court concluded that a CBA that was terminable on notice did not change the employees’ at-will status, which thus barred their claims.  Op. at 9.  The Court also found that oral representations to another group of employees were not sufficiently definite to change their at-will status, citing Montgomery County Hospital District v. Brown, 965 SW.2d 501 (Tex. 1998).  Op. at 10.  Summary judgment for DuPont was affirmed.

In Stoffels v. SBC Communications, the Court addressed issues about whether a “retiree concession” program involving long-distance discounts should be regulated as a retirement plan under ERISA.  No. 11-50148 (April 16, 2012).  In the court below, a district judge held a trial and made fact findings, after which he recused himself.  The second judge vacated those findings in light of a new and related Fifth Circuit opinion, Boos v. AT&T, 643 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 2011).   The Court found that Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 gave the judge authority to do so, that the “law of the case” doctrine did not constrain his authority, and that this case was not materiall different on the merits from Boos.  Op. at 8-9.

In response to a pointed request by the argument panel in a health care case, Attorney General Holder filed a letter brief on April 5 that affirms DOJ’s recognition of Marbury v. Madison while also defending its right to contest federal jurisdiction.   The request, and the letter brief, form part of the national debate now before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of recent health care legislation.

The defendant in Love v. Tyson Foods complained that an employee’s wrongful discharge claim was barred by judicial estoppel because it was not properly disclosed in the employee’s personal bankruptcy, and the Court agreed, rejecting the employee’s contention that the disclosure issues were inadvertent.  No. 10-60106 (April 4, 2012).  The Court provided a thorough summary of how the Fifth Circuit defines the judicial estoppel doctrine, reminding that because the doctrine protects the judicial system rather than litigants, detrimental reliance is not ordinarily an element.   A detailed dissent criticized the majority for how it addressed the burden of proof and for how it applied the doctrine in the context of broader bankruptcy policies, noting earlier Circuit authority in the area.

LRK Architects v. State Farm presented the question whether a “breach of contract” exclusion should be analyzed under a “but for” or an “incidental relationship” test to determine whether an insurance policy covered a claim for copyright infringement.  No. 11-30121 (April 4, 2012).   After reminding that under Erie its job “is to attempt to predict state law, not to create or modify it,” the Court concluded that Louisiana would use a “but for” test.  Op. at 7-8.  Because the copyright claim “would exist even in the absence” of the parties’ contractual relationship, the exclusion did not apply and the insurer had a duty to cover and defend.  Op. at 9, 10.

In Waldron v. Adams & Reese, LLP, the largest creditor of a bankruptcy debtor paid the retainer fee for debtor’s counsel.  No. 11-30462 (March 29, 2012).  That payment was not disclosed for some time, after which the trustee sought to disgorge counsel’s fees on the grounds of a disqualifying conflict of interest.  The Court affirmed the lower court’s rulings, finding no disqualifying conflict on the “specific facts of [the] case.”  Op. at 8 (quoting and distinguishing In re West Delta Oil Co., 432 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2005)).  It reviewed counsel’s conduct during the bankruptcy case as well as prior representations of the debtors.  Then, reminding of the “clear error” standard of review, the Court affirmed a sanction of partial disgorgement (20% of the fee) for the late disclosure.  Op. at 15.  The Court concluded with a thorough review of the standards for allowing pleading amendments and affirmed the denial of leave for the trustee to add new claims.  Op. at 15-16.

In a forcefully-written opinion, the Court vacated the EPA’s disapproval of Texas environmental emission regulations relevant to the power industry.  Luminant Generation Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 10-60891 (March 26, 2012).   The Court found that the EPA erroneously invoked Texas law and applied federal law incorrectly.  See Op. at 21 (“EPA disapproved the PCP Standard Permit . . . based on its purported nonconformity with three extra-statutory standards that the EPA created out of whole cloth”).   The Court concluded: “Because the EPA waited until more than three years after the statutory deadline to act on Texas’s submission, we order the EPA to reconsider it expeditiously [on remand].”  Id. 

A bankruptcy trustee sued to avoid an alleged fraudulent transfer, in the form of payments under a guarantee, in MC Asset Recovery v. Commerzbank AG, No. 11-10070 (March 20, 2012).  The Court found that the trustee had standing, even though the debtor’s creditors had been paid in full, because recovery would benefit the estate.  Op. at 7.  Then, applying the Restatement’s “significant relationship” framework and focusing on policy issues, the Court applied New York fraudulent conveyance law (which reached guarantees) as opposed to Georgia law (which did not).  Op. at 12-13.  The lower court’s dismissal of the case was vacated and reversed.

In a detailed opinion that surveyed differing Circuit opinions on several topics, the Court found that “the purchase or sale of securities (or representations about the purchase or sale of securities) is only tangentially related to the fraudulent scheme alleged” in state class actions about the Allen Stanford scandal.  Roland v. Green (March 19, 2012).  Therefore, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) did not preclude those actions.  The opinion will likely have a significant influence on future cases about the scope of SLUSA in the Fifth Circuit.

Bepco v. Santa Fe Minerals presented the appeal of a remand order, which was based in part on a contractual waiver issue (reviewable) and in part on a timeliness issue (not generally reviewable).  No. 11-30986 (March 15, 2012).   While the timeliness issue was arguably not presented within 30 days of the removal, the Court held: “Whether a removal defect is not raised by a plaintiff in the motion to remand, or is raised more than 30 days after removal, does not matter.  . . . [W]hat does matter is the timing of the remand motion.”  Op. at 8.  Because the motion itself was timely, and thus satisfied the statutory time limit, and because the remand order relied on a permissible statutory ground for remand, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  Id.

The Fifth Circuit has had a  about the application of Daubert, and its effect on the roles of judge and jury.  In Huffman v. Union Pacific Railroad, the Court moved to the other end of the technical spectrum, and analyzed the sufficiency of evidence in a FELA case about a former railway worker’s alleged on-the-job injuries.  No. 09-40736 (March 13, 2012)  After thorough analysis of the worker’s allegations, the Court held that expert testimony on causation was not necessary to support a jury finding for the worker, but found that the worker had not presented enough evidence about the type of injury to satisfy even that standard.  Op. at 21-22.   Judge Southwick wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Owen, and Judge Dennis dissented.  The case analyzes FELA precedent but is of substantially broader interest on general causation issues.  The Court also briefly analyzed and rejected a judicial estoppel argument.  Op. at 7-8.

As a counterpoint to some recent cases that have set limits on arbitrability, the Court rejected two court challenges to a $17 million arbitration award in a dispute about coal pricing.  Rain CII Carbon, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. 11-30669 (March 9, 2012).  The losing party argued that the arbitrator had failed to follow a specified “baseball” procedure, but the Court found that the arbitrator’s treatment of the proposed award was within the scope of his power to correct clerical issues.  Op. at 5.  The Court also found that the award was “reasoned” under prior case law: “The only description of a reasoned award in this circuit was rendered in a footnote: . . . ‘[A] reasoned award is something short of findings and conclusions but more than a simple result.'”  Id. (citing Sarofim v. Trust Co. of the West, 440 F.3d 213, 215 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006)).  The Court suggested that the parties could have contracted for more detailed findings and conclusions.   Op. at 8.

In Technical Automation Services Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. the Court addressed, sua sponte, an issue about the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge after the Supreme Court’s recent opinion limiting bankruptcy court jurisdiction, Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011).  No. 10-20640 (March 5, 2012).  The Court concluded that Stern did not directly overrule the prior Circuit precedent of Puryear v. Ede’s, Ltd., 731 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1984) and held: “[W]e will follow our precedent and continue to hold, until such time as the Supreme Court or our court en banc overrules our precedent, that federal magistrate judges have the constitutional authority to enter final judgments on state-law counterclaims.”  Op. at 12.  On the merits, the Court reversed the lower court’s ruling that an “eight corners” analysis of an insurance coverage issue precluded consideration of a claim of mutual mistake.  Op. at 15.

The Court affirmed almost all of a series of immunity rulings by the district court in the consolidated litigation against the Corps of Engineers arising from Hurricane Katrina.  In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation (March 2, 2012).  While most of the opinion focuses on issues unique to flood control, it provides a crisp summary of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act as to environmental impact statements, and concludes with a brief summary of the standards for mandamus relief in the federal system.  Op. at 27.  The Court declined to grant a writ of mandamus to stay an upcoming trial because its opinion affirmed the immunity rulings that the district court would use for that trial.  (A subsequent opinion mooted the mandamus issue because it changed the disposition of the merits.)

Lofton v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals presented a failure-to-warn claim based on a severe reaction to a common pain medicine.  No. 10-10956 (Feb. 22, 2012).  The Court concluded that the specific claim at issue, based on Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.007, required litigation about whether “fraud on the FDA” had occurred and was thus preempted.  Op. at 13-14.   The Court acknowledged a circuit split on this preemption issue, and also noted that it was not addressing an issue about the severability of the Texas statute because that issue was raised for the first time on appeal.

In McGee v. Arkel Int’l, the Court addressed the thorny choice-of-law issue raised by a conflict between limitations provisions.  No. 10-30393 (Feb. 16, 2012).  It found that Iraqi law was adequately proven under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 through an expert’s affidavit, which included a translation and cited a generally consistent website.  Op. at 13-14 (noting that defendant “did not put forth any alternative translation and has not suggested how the [plaintiff’s] translation might be inaccurate”).  The Court found that the action was time-barred under Louisiana law, was not shown to be time-barred under Iraqi law, and thus fell within a rarely-used Louisiana law allowing the action to proceed as “warranted by compelling considerations of remedial justice.”  Op. at 18 (citing La. Civ. Code art. 3549).

Here is a helpful summary of the “Federal Court s Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011,” H.R. 394, P.L. 112-63, which took effect in January 2012.

In Shcolnik v. Rapid Settlements, bankruptcy creditors had obtained a $50,000 arbitration award of attorneys fees against the debtor, and appealed a summary judgment that the award was dischargeable.  No. 10-20800 (Feb. 8, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding an issue of fact as to whether the fee award arose from “willful and malicious injury by the debtor” in pursuing meritless claims, and was thus nondischargeable.  Op. at 5-6 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)).  (The debtor’s threats included a “massive series of legal attacks . . . which will likely leave you disbarred, broke, professionally disgraced, and rotting in a prison cell.”  A thoughtful dissent questioned whether the majority’s ruling would deter legitimate litigation demands, and whether the Court was inserting itself into matters resolved by the arbitrator.  Op. at 9.

In the case of In re Dell, Inc., the Court reviewed the settlement of a shareholder class action against the arguments of two objectors.  No. 10-50688 (Feb. 7, 2012).  The Court first held that a class member does not have to file a proof of claim to have standing to object.  Op. at 5.  The Court then reviewed and rejected several objections to the fairnes of the settlement, reminding that a full evidentiary hearing is not necessarily required at a fairness hearing.  Op. at 10.  Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in awarding an 18% fee to the attorneys ($7.2 million) instead of requiring a “lodestar” calculation, rejecting a strict reading of In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prods. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 220, 228 (5th Cir. 2008) (which stated: “This circuit requires district courts to use the ‘lodestar method’ to ‘assess attorneys’ fees in class action suits.”).

In National Casualty Co. v. Western World Insurance, the Court addressed basic coverage issues under Texas law about auto insurance.  No. 10-41012 (Feb. 3, 2012).  It held that loading a patient into an ambulance is “use” of a an auto within the meaning of one policy, op. at 6 (citing Mid-Century Ins. v. Lindsey, 997 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. 1999)), but did not fall within a “use” exclusion to another policy, reminding that the standard for construing a coverage provision is different than for an exclusion from coverage. Op. at 11.  The Court also found that a “professional services” and an “other insurance” exclusion did not apply.

While the Fifth Circuit rarely addresses a “rear-ender” car crash case, it did so deftly in Fair v.Allen, No. 11-30467 (Feb. 3, 2012), in which the appellant sought reversal of a $38,000 judgment.  With no Daubert issue presented, the Court reviewed the conflicting testimony of medical experts and found it sufficient — under both Louisiana state law and the Federal Rules — to support the verdict and judgment.  The specific issues are unlikely to recur soon, but the framework of the opinion is a good illustration of a basic sufficiency review.

The dispute in Preston Exploration v. GSF, LLC was whether a contract to sell certain oil and gas leases satisfied the Texas Statute of Frauds (“SOF”).  (No. 10-20599, Feb. 1, 2012)  Acknowledging that the parties’ documents envisioned future title work, the Court reversed the district court’s conclusion that this remaining work barred the contracts’ enforcement under the SOF, stating: “Such analysis reflects the conflating of two distinct principles — whether parties come to a meeting of the minds as to the subject matter of a contract with whether a writing’s legal description is sufficient to meet the statute of frauds.”  Op. at 7.

Bass v. Stryker Corp. presents a highly technical analysis of whether state law claims about a hip implant are preempted by the federal Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.  No. 11-10076 (Jan. 31, 2012)  The Court found that the manufacturing claims could proceed as “parallel claims that do not impose different or additional requirements than the FDA regulations,” and that certain implied warranty claims survived because they were based on violations of federal requirements.  Op. at 19, 23.  The Court affirmed the dismissal on preemption grounds of other claims, including an alleged failure to warn.   The opinion provides a thorough example of how Twombly applies to a Rule 12 motion based on preemption.

The Supreme Court wrote two major personal jurisdiction opinions in 2011: Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, about general personal jurisdiction based on product sales into a state, and J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780, analyzing specific personal jurisdiction based on a “stream of commerce” theory.  In ITL International v. Constenla, S.A., the Fifth Circuit’s first lengthy personal jurisdiction opinion since then, the Court found that a defendant’s acceptance of 55 shipments of goods in Mississippi was “purposeful contact[],” but went on to find no specific jurisdiction because the parties’ trademark dispute had too weak a link to those contacts.  No. 10-60892 at 11 (Jan. 31, 2012) The Court did not address general jurisdiction and thus did not directly engage the Goodyear case.

In Amco Energy v. Capco Exploration (No. 11-20264, Jan. 30, 2012), the Court addressed two fundamental business tort issues.  The first involved a professional negligence claim about the evaluation of certain oil properties — the majority found that the professional’s contract did not extend to the matters complained of and thus created no professional duty, while the dissent “cannot fathom how one can conclude that there was no contract” for those matters.  Op. at 8, 10, 23.   The second found a contractual disclaimer of reliance that defeated a fraud claim, continuing the recent development of law on that issue in Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 341 S.W.3d 323, 333 (Tex. 2011) and LHC Nashua Partnership Ltd. v. PDNED Sagamore Nashua LLC, 659 F.3d 450, 460 (5th Cir. 2011).  Op. at 17.

The plaintiff in Arena v. Graybar Electric Company (No. 10-31096, Jan. 25, 2012) asserted a federal claim under the Miller Act (the statute for contractors’ claims on government projects) and related state law claims.  The Court found that failure to comply with a bonding requirement was fatal to the Miller Act claim, and thus to supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.  The district court allowed an amendment to assert diversity jurisdiction, but the Court remanded for consideration of evidence submitted in response to that amendment that would defeat diversity if credited.   Echoing its recent decision in Enochs v. Lampasas County, 641 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2011), which voided a judgment on state law claims after dismisal of the federal claim, the Court reminded: “The court’s reasoning of judicial efficiency to resolve [plaintiff’s] state-law claims comes into play only when jurisdiction is proper.”  Op. at 9.

The employee handbook in Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness contained an arbitration provision and a “Change-in-Terms” clause giving the employer “the right to revise, delete, and add to the employee handbook.”  No. 10-20845 (Jan. 25, 2012).  The  Court affirmed a finding that the arbitration provision was illusory, and thus unforceable.  Op. at 4 (citing  Morrison v. Amway Corp., 517 F.3d 248, 257 (5th Cir. 2008)).  The Court contrasted In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566, 569-70 (Tex. 2002), in which a clause was enforced when the employer’s right to amend the arbitration provision was specifically limited as to present disputes,  and favorably cited Weekley Homes v. Rao, 336 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2011, pet. denied), in which a provision requiring notice of a handbook was not sufficient to make an arbitration provision non-illusory.

Bohnsack v. Varco presented a post-judgment appeal of successful claims for fraud and misappropriation of trade secrets about an oil drilling device called the “Pit Bull.”  No. 10-20741 (Jan. 23, 2012).  The Court ruled: (1) the evidence was sufficient to hold the defendant liable for statements of its outside counsel, to show that those statements were a “material factor” to the plaintiff, and to establish injury from lost profits (op. at 13-16); (2) the fraud damages awarded were benefit-of-the-bargain damages, not compensable under common-law fraud (op. at 16-20 (discussing Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2001))); (3) fraudulent inducement failed because the defendant’s statements only induced negotiations, not entry into a contract (op. at 22); and (4) the damages were compensable as misappropriation of a trade secret, under the broad definition of “use” in Texas law, and in light of damages evidence sufficient to show “the value a reasonably prudent investor would pay for the trade secret.”  Op. at 25-26.

Two individuals, involved in a political struggle about a camera system for traffic lights, sought to intervene of right in a lawsuit between the City of Houston and the system’s contractor.  City of Houston v. American Traffic Solutions (No. 11-20068, Jan. 24, 2012).  The Court reviewed the general requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) but observed that “[b]riefing does not reveal any cases directly on point” to this situation.  Op. at 4.  The Court reversed the district court’s denial of intervention, observing that “[a] court must be circumspect about allowing intervention of right by public-spirited citizens,” but finding that these individuals were exceptionally involved in the political background for the system, and that the City was not necessarily an adequate representative for them in light of the specific history of this system and litigation.  Op. at 4-5.