The Fifth Circuit found that the rule of lenity applied in a disciplinary proceeding involving this Louisiana ethics rule:

A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if: (1) the client agrees in writing to the representation by all of the lawyers involved, and is advised in writing as to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive; (2) the total fee is reasonable; and  (3) each lawyer renders meaningful legal services for the
client in the matter.

It concluded that the rule was ambiguous when applied to successive rather than simultaneous counsel. In re Andry, No. 22-30231 (Nov. 29, 2022). The panel later granted rehearing and issued a revised opinion.

By a 9-7 vote, the Fifth Circuit declined to review en banc the panel opinion in Seekins v. United States. Under well-established Circuit precedent, Seekins presented a straightforward application of a criminal statute about possession of ammunition that had moved in interstate commerce. The petitioner directly challenged that precedent, arguing that it rested on an overly broad reading of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Plainly, the close vote signals the Court’s willingness to reconsider longstanding concepts about that constitutional provision. The breakdown of votes is below:

In a straightforward application of its class-certification and Daubert case law, the Fifth Circuit rejected the certification of a class of aggrieved buyers of tickets to fly on 737 Max planes operated by Southwest Airlines, finding that the buyers suffered no cognizable injury:

[T]he plaintiffs in this suit have not plausibly alleged that they’re any worse off financially because defendants’ fraud allowed Southwest and American Airlines to keep flying the MAX 8 during the class period. If anything, plaintiffs are likely better off financially. If the MCAS defect had been widely exposed earlier, the MAX 8 flights plaintiffs chose would have been unavailable and they’d have had to take different, more expensive (or otherwise less desirable) flights instead.

The Court reasoned that if information about the MAX’s problems had become publicly known earlier than it did, then some combination of Boeing, Southwest, and the FAA would have grounded the MAX (as in fact happened), thus reducing the available supply of tickets and raising prices. Earl v. The Boeing Co., No. 21-40720 (Nov. 21, 2022).

In federal court, “the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a state,/” but in state court, “[t]he Supreme Court of Texas recognizes takings claims under the federal and state constitutions, with differing remedies and constraints turning on the character and nature of the taking ….” Devillier v. State of Texas, No. 21-40750 (Nov. 28, 2022) (footnotes omitted).

The Fifth Circuit concluded that an effort to collect a judgment in federal court failed for lack of a sufficient amount in controversy:

    … As pre-judgment interest has completely accrued during the prior case, this sum can be precisely calculated and does not vary depending on the other awards and when the plaintiff files suit. Because pre-judgment interest is an accrued component of the judgment sued upon at the time the claim to enforce the judgment arose, and because pre-judgment interest’s value does not depend on the passage of time after entry of the state court judgment, pre-judgment interest can be fairly said to constitute an ‘essential ingredient in the . . . principal claim.

As to the post-judgment interest accruing after entry of the Texas Judgment, however, we conclude that it may not be included in determining the amount in controversy in an action to enforce that Judgment. Excluding post-judgment interest from the calculation furthers § 1332(a)’s statutory purpose of preventing plaintiffs from delaying in filing suit until sufficient interest has accrued such that they can reach the jurisdictional amount.

Cleartrac LLC v. Lantrac Contractors, LLC, No. 20-30076 (Nov. 17, 2022).

The plaintiffs in National Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Ass’n v. Black sought to rein in the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, a private entity created by Congress in 2020 – nominally under FTC oversight – to nationalize the regulation of thoroughbred horseracing.  The Fifth Circuit scratched HISA, finding it facially unconstitutional as an excessive private delegation of federal-government power:

A cardinal constitutional principle is that federal power can be wielded only by the federal government. Private entities may do so only if they are subordinate to an agency. But the Authority is not subordinate to the FTC. The reverse is true. …  HISA restricts FTC review of the Authority’s proposed rules. If those rules are “consistent” with HISA’s broad principles, the FTC must approve them. And even if it finds inconsistency, the FTC can only suggest changes. … An agency does not have meaningful oversight if it does not write the rules, cannot change them, and cannot second-guess their substance.

No. 22-10387 (Nov. 18, 2022) (citations omitted, emphasis added).

For those who had doubts about the matter, Foley Bey v. Prator confirms that the search of a fez is protected by qualified immunity if conducted as part of courthouse security, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ appeal to the U.S.-Morocco Friendship Treaty of 1836. (The digital image to the right could be called a hi-res fez.) No. 21-30489 (Nov. 17, 2022).

With #RIPTwitter trending as the top hashtag on that platform, it seemed like a good time to reflect on the phenomenon that is/was #appellatetwitter, and recall the remarkable talent of now-Judge @JusticeWillett for legal tweeting:

“Foreseeability is a fundamental prerequisite to the recovery of consequential damages for breach of contract.” T & C Devine, Ltd. v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 21-20310 (Nov. 15, 2022) (citation omitted); see also Hadley v. Baxendale, [1854] EWHC J70.

Consistent with that principle, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment on a consequential-damage claim when the parties’ contract said that “[a]ll information obtained by [Plaintiff] in any Annual Report . . . shall be retained in the highest degree of confidentiality,” and went on to say: “Neither party may disclose the other party’s Confidential Information to any third party without the other party’s prior written approval.”

Thus: “Devine’s damages were not a probable consequence of the breach from Stericycle’s perspective at the time of contracting because it was not foreseeable that failing to provide confidential cost and expense data would deprive Devine of the opportunity to share that information with potential licensees.”

The Fifth Circuit granted mandamus relief as to an effort to subpoena Texas AG Ken Paxton for a deposition in a case about potentially overzealous enforcement of now-constitutional antiabortion laws.

The panel majority concluded: (1) that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and thus could not require his testimony, citing a recent Circuit case involving discovery and qualified immunity; (2) that the subpoena sought an inappropriate “apex” deposition; and (3) that plaintiffs overreached by opposing mandamus relief (because of a potential remedy by appeal), while also seeking to dismiss Paxton’s interlocutory appeal on immunity grounds (thus, extinguishing same).

A concurrence would have focused on the apex issue and not the broader dispute about jurisdiction, at least at this stage of the proceedings. In re Paxton, No. 22-50882 (Nov. 14, 2022) — REVISED, (Feb. 14, 2023).

Stringer v. Remington Arms, No. 18-60590 (Nov, 7, 2022), presents an instructive analysis of failure-to-disclose allegations, in the context of alleged fraudulent nondisclosure of a design defect in a popular rifle design.

The panel majority found a failure to satisfy Rule 9(b):

“In [plaintiffs’] complaint, they explain that they have found public resources that contradict Remington’s public statements regarding the safety of the XMP trigger. They also allege that Remington had “actual and/or physical knowledge of manufacturing, and/or, design deficiencies in the XMP Fire Control years before the death of Justin Stringer” and that the company received customer complaints regarding trigger malfunctions as early as 2008. But Plaintiffs do not make the leap to fraudulent concealment. They say merely that  Remington “ignored” notice of a safety related problem.“

(applying Tuchman v. DSC Commc’ns Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1068 (5th Cir. 1994) (“If the facts pleaded in a complaint are peculiarly within the opposing party’s knowledge, fraud pleadings may be based on information and belief. However, this luxury ‘must not be mistaken for license to base claims of fraud on speculation and conclusory allegations.'”).

The dissent would have found that rule satisfied, based in part of the detail provided about what Remington knew: “The complaint’s allegations indicate that Remington knew about problems with the X-Mark Pro trigger before the recall but did not disclose its knowledge of those problems during the limitations period. And, contrary to Defendants’ assertion that the complaint allegations relate only to the “Walker” trigger, the deposition testimony cited in the complaint expressly references the “XMP” trigger at issue here.” 

In the 1985 classic, “Return of the Living Dead,” a rainstorm spreads a zombie-creating chemical throughout a city. In 2022, the Supreme Court’s relentless focus on originalism in cases like Dobbs has also awakened long-dead legal doctrines (even as it put to bed the prospects for a “Red Wave” in 2022’s Congressional elections).

Such a resurrection can be seen in the concurrence from Golden Glow Tanning Salon v. City of Columbus, No. 21-60898 (Nov. 8, 2022), which advocates an examination of a “right to earn a living” in light of how such economic matters were understood in the late 1700s.

Of course, that phrasing is precisely how the Supreme Court described the issue in Lochner v. New York, the long-discredited 1905 opinion that struck down a maximum-hour restriction in the baking industry:

“Statutes of the nature of that under review, limiting the hours in which grown and intelligent men may labor to earn their living, are mere meddlesome interferences with the rights of the individual ….”

The Supreme Court abandoned Lochner in the 1930s when laissez-faire ideas proved useless in the face of a systemic failure of capitalism itself. There is, of course, ample room for argument about the proper role of government in the economy.  But the invocation of “originalism” to simply ignore Lochner ‘s failure is not consistent with the recognized best practices for battling zombies.

The slippery statutory-interpretation question in United States v. Palomares, briefly summarized in Monday’s post, presented a concurrence by Judge Andy Oldham. In it, he reminded of the importance of “textualism” in statutory interpretation, while cautioning against “hyper-literalism”:

“‘[W]ords are given meaning by their context, and context includes the purpose of the text.’ As Justice Scalia once quipped, without context, we could not tell whether the word draft meant a bank note or a breeze. Such nuance is lost on the hyper-literalist.”

(citations omitted). He further observed:

“[H]yper-literalism … opens textualism to the very criticism that necessitated textualism in the first place. In one of the most influential law review articles ever written, Karl Llewellyn denigrated the late nineteenth century ‘Formal Period,’ in which ‘statutes tended to be limited or even eviscerated by wooden and literal reading, in a sort of long-drawn battle between a balky, stiff-necked, wrongheaded court and a legislature which had only words with which to drive that court.'” 

(emphasis added, quoting Karl M. Llewellyn, “Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are to Be Construed,” 3 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 395 (1950)).

The prefix “hyper-” is well chosen; Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulations developed the concept of “hyperreality,” by which “simulacra” of reality can supplant reality itself–precisely the scenario described by Llewellyn and Judge Oldham’s concurrence:

If we were able to take as the finest allegory of simulation the Borges tale where the cartographers of the Empire draw up a map so detailed that it ends up exactly covering the territory (but where, with the decline of the Empire this map becomes frayed and finally ruined, a few shreds still discernible in the deserts – the metaphysical beauty of this ruined abstraction, bearing witness to an imperial pride and rotting like a carcass, returning to the substance of the soil, rather as an aging double ends up being confused with the real thing), this fable would then have come full circle for us, and now has nothing but the discrete charm of second-order simulacra.

Bloomberg Law provides a good summary of yesterday’s arguments in SEC v. Cochran, addressed by the en banc Fifth Circuit in 2021, as to the appropriate places to advance constitutional challenges to SEC enforcement actions.

Nonami Palomares received a 120-month, mandatory-minimum sentence for smuggling heroin. She sought a lower sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which allows a drug offender with a sufficiently minor criminal history to receive relief from a mandatory minimums if certain criteria are satisfied.

So far, simple enough. That statute, however, is extremely difficult to read. It has produced a circuit split, as well as three separate opinions from the panel members in United States v. Palomares, No. 21-40247 (Nov. 2, 2022).

Try your hand, if you dare, at reading the below law, and then compare your conclusion to the panel members’. To obtain sentencing relief, did Palomares have to negate all three matters in (A)-(C), or only one of them? 

The recent en banc vote in Wearry v. Foster featured discussion of a “dubitante” opinion filed by a panel member. Unfamiliar with the term, I learned from Wikipedia that this phrase has a long and distinguished – if somewhat obscure – history in judicial opinions as a way for a judge to note his or her doubts about the rule of decision.

I then consulted my friend Brent McGuire, the pastor of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Dallas, who gave me further detail:

“Dubitante would literally mean ‘having doubts’ or “with a wavering [mind].’  It’s the singular participial form of the verb dubitō, dubitāre, which means to doubt or to waver.  But that ‘e’ ending means it’s the ablative case, which is basically the adverbial case, that is to say, the case the noun or adjective takes when used to describe in some way a verb, adjective, or other adverb.”

To illustrate its historical use, Pastor Maguire offered this epigram from Martial, found on the Tufts classical search engine:

which he translates roughly as:

Pastor Maguire explains: “Martial is telling the sculptor Polyclitus that his statute of Juno is so beautiful that Paris (at that most fateful beauty pageant on Ida) would have picked it over Venus (Aphrodite) and Minerva (Athena) without hesitation.  Moreover, if Jupiter had not already fallen for his actual sister Juno, he would have fallen in love for Polyclitus’s statue of her.”  Conversely, then, a “dubitante” judge may have joined Paris’s conclusion, but with nagging doubts about the eternal beauty of the goddesses.

The Fifth Circuit denied mandamus relief in In re Planned Parenthood, noting, in particular, that:

The district court also stressed the lateness of Petitioners’ motion to transfer. It concluded that the motion was “inexcusably delayed,” observing that Petitioners “filed their motion seven months after this case was unsealed and months into the discovery period.” The district court was within its discretion to conclude that Petitioners’ failure to seek relief until late in the litigation weighed against transfer. This conclusion is only strengthened by the fact that Petitioners waited to seek transfer until after the district court denied their motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. 

No. 22-11009 (Oct. 31, 2022) (citations omitted). In a part of the opinion joined by two judges, the Court also favorably reviewed the district court’s analysis of the underlying forum-transfer issue.

Central Crude, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual confirms that under Louisiana law, a pollution exclusion doesn’t require the insured to have the ultimate fault for the alleged pollution:

Neither the CGL policy nor [the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Doerr] requires identification of the party at fault for the oil spill in determining whether the total pollution exclusion applies here. The CGL policy’s total pollution exclusion broadly precludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage that “would not have occurred in whole or in part but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants’ at any time.” The provision requires a dispersal of pollutants but makes no requirement that the party responsible for the dispersal be determined. 

No. 21-30707 (Oct. 26, 2022).

Among other issues from an insurance-coverage case arising from a building collapse, in Hudson Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, the Fifth Circuit considered whether the expense of fire and police personnel was “maintenance” within the meaning of a policy exclusion. The Court found that term ambiguous as to those expenses, and thus construed it against the insurer:

The City paid for the around-the-clock presence of its fire and police personnel to protect the integrity of the site and keep people out.

On the one hand, it is reasonable to read this police and fire department presence as maintenance. By keeping watch over the site and keeping people out, these public safety officials were “upholding or keeping in being” the property in its current state. This aligns with one of the definitions of maintenance listed above.

On the other hand, the definitions of maintenance as “[t]he action of keeping something in working order” or “[t]he care and work put into property” both imply that actions are taken upon the property to keep it in working order. Keeping watch is an action, but it is not performed upon the property and does not involve putting work into the property. Thus, there are at least two reasonable meanings for the term maintenance—one where these expenses would fall under the exclusion and one where they would not.

No. 21-60794 (Oct. 28, 2022) (paragraph breaks added).

Levy (a citizen of Louisiana) sued Dumesnil (also a citizen of Louisiana), along with Zurich American Insurance Company (not a citizen of Louisiana), and another entity that “claims to be citizen of Louisiana, and nothing in the record indicates otherwise.”

Complete diversity thus did not exist. A citizen of Louisiana was on both sides of the “v.”

Nevertheless, Zurich persisted. It removed to federal court. At the time it removed, it was the only defendant that had been served. Thus, argued Zurich, it had successfully completed a “snap” removal under Texas Brine Co. v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., 955 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2020).

The Fifth Circuit granted mandamus relief as to the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to remand. Yes, Zurich had removed before the in-state defendant had been served, and thus satisfied that requirement for a successful snap removal. But Zurich had not satisfied the more basic requirement for a snap – or for that matter, any – removal based on diversity: complete diversity of citizenship.

Because “the existence of diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship of the parties named and not from the fact of service,” removal was improper. In re Levy, No. 22-30622 (5th Cir. 2022) (applying New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 883 (5th Cir. 1998))

Summary judgment was affirmed in a contract case, despite the appellants’ claim that genuine issues of material fact existed about the overlap between two material parties: “Imperial and Harrison are—and always have been—separate entities with their own employees, customers, and warehouses. As the district court explained, A-Z and Ali do not allege, let alone present evidence, ‘that A-Z experienced any changes in ordering procedures, pricing, delivery schedules, type or brand of goods, inventory availability, or any other indicia that . . . [shows] it was no longer doing business with Harrison.'” Harrison Co., LLC v. A-Z Wholesalers, Inc., No. 21-11028 (Aug. 11, 2022).

The Fifth Circuit set a boundary – literally – for part of the administrative state in BP v. FERC, which reviewed a FERC fine of BP for alleged gas-price manipulation associated with Hurricane Ike. The Court held:

Contrary to FERC’s position, we hold that the Commission has jurisdiction only over transactions in interstate natural gas directly regulated by the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Specifically, we reject FERC’s broader theory that its authority to address market manipulation extends to any natural gas transaction which affects the price of a transaction under the NGA. Otherwise, however, we uphold the Commission’s order. Nevertheless, because FERC predicated its penalty assessment on its erroneous position that it had jurisdiction over all (and not just some) of BP’s transactions, we must remand for reassessment of the penalty in the light of our jurisdictional holding.

No. 21-60083-CV (Oct. 20, 2022, unpublished) (emphasis added).

The Fifth Circuit recently declined to review Jarkesy v. SEC en banc; the division of votes was as follows (names in blue were appointed by a Democratic president; red, by a Republican one):

CFSA v. CFPB finds – again – that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutionally structured, but this time because its “double insulated” funding mechanisms violated the Appropriations Clause by circumventing Congress’ “power of the purse.” The arguments about that fundamental Constitutional provision are intriguing and seem likely to draw the Supreme Court’s interest. No. 21-50826 (Oct. 19, 2022). The Fifth Circuit’s treatment creates a split with seven other federal courts, including PHH Corp. v. CFPB, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018). A recent Slate article offered criticism of the opinion.

The opinion also presents a rare appearance of the word “magisterial” to describe an earlier case on this topic:       Cf. Herman Hesse, “Magister Ludi” (1943).

If you are a Yale law student grown weary of debate about judicial clerkship policies, please come visit us here at Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann – Chambers says we’re in the top handful of courtroom advocacy firms in Texas, and the Dallas economy and legal market are both booming.

Ramirez v. Paloma Energy, No. 21-30536 (Oct. 12, 2022, unpublished), provides a clean example of affirmance on a ground presented by the record, independent of the district court’s opinion:

Ultra Petroleum entered bankruptcy because of a sharp decline in natural gas prices. During the bankruptcy case, however, the price of gas recovered and soared and “propelled the debtors back into solvency.” That fortunate situation led to the question whether the “solvent debtor” concept survived recent Bankruptcy Code amendments.

The Fifth Circuit’s panel majority applied the relevant statutory-interpretation framework:

We must defer to prior bankruptcy practice unless expressly abrogated. The [Supreme] Court has endorsed a substantive canon of interpretation regarding the Bankruptcy Code vis-à-vis preexisting bankruptcy doctrine. Namely, abrogation of a prior bankruptcy practice generally requires an “unmistakably clear” statement on the part of Congress; any ambiguity will be construed in favor of prior practice.

(citations omitted), and concluded that the exception continued to apply:

The reason for this traditional, judicially-crafted exception is straightforward: Solvent debtors are, by definition, able to pay their debts in full on their contractual terms, and absent a legitimate bankruptcy reason to the contrary, they should. Unlike the typical insolvent bankrupt, a solvent debtor’s pie is large enough for every creditor to have his full slice. With an insolvent debtor, halting contractual interest from accruing serves the legitimate bankruptcy interest of equitably distributing a limited pie among competing creditors as of the time of the debtor’s filing. With a solvent debtor, that legitimate bankruptcy interest is not present. 

Ultra Petroleum Corp. v. Ad Hoc Committee, No. 21-20008 (Oct. 14, 2022) (citations omitted). A dissent read the Code differently.

Echoing the Fifth Circuit’s recent opinion in King v. Baylor Univ., in Jones v. Administrators of the Tulane Education Fund, the Court again allowed a breach-of-contract claim about virtual education to proceed past the Rule 12 stage, concluding:

“First, we hold that the claim is not barred as a claim of educational malpractice because the Students do not challenge the quality of the education received but the product received. Second, we reject Tulane’s argument that the breach-of-contract claim is foreclosed by an express agreement between the parties, because the agreement at issue plausibly does not govern refunds in this circumstance. And third, we conclude that the Students have not plausibly alleged that Tulane breached an express contract promising in-person instruction and on-campus facilities because the Students fail to point to any explicit language evidencing that promise. But we hold that the Students have plausibly alleged implied-in fact promises for in-person instruction and on-campus facilities.“

No. 21-30681 (Oct. 11, 2022) (emphasis in original).

The recent Crane v. City of Arlington opinion declined to dismiss a traffic-stop case on qualified immunity grounds, noting significant factual dispute about how the situation escalated into a tragic shooting. No. 21-10644 (revised Oct. 4, 2022). The Dallas Morning News covered the case, and I did a lengthy interview with Fox 4 in Dallas about it.

In a COVID-19 coverage case, the appellant in Coleman E. Adler & Sons v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co. tried to avoid earlier Fifth Circuit precedent by pointing to a recent opinion from an intermediate Louisiana appellate court. The Fifth Circuit did not accept the appellant’s argument, noting:

1. Orderliness. “Our court’s rule of orderliness applies to Erie cases no less than cases interpreting federal law.”
2. Erie. “[T]here has been ‘neither a clearly contrary subsequent holding of the highest court of [Louisiana] nor a subsequent statutory authority, squarely on point.’ Nor has there been contrary intervening precedent that ‘comprises unanimous or near-unanimous holdings from several—preferably a majority —of the intermediate appellate courts of [Louisiana].’ We have only one subsequent decision from an intermediate state court, and that cannot overcome our rule of orderliness.” (citations omitted).

No. 21-30478 (Sept. 20, 2022).

The panel majority in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mack found no coercion, and thus no standing for the plaintiff, in an Establishment Clause challenge to a Texas Justice of the Peace’s practices regarding a prayer at the beginning of court sessions. No. 21-20279 (Sept. 29, 2022).

This case contrasts with Sambrano v. United States, in which the panel majority found standing in a Title VII case about a company’s vaccination requirement, concluding that the employer’s policies had a coercive effect as to certain employees’ religious beliefs. No. 21-11159 (Feb. 17, 2022, en banc review denied).

Chevrolet’s Caprice Classic was a popular sedan in the late 1970s. But the term “caprice,” applied to the business-judgment rule in the bankruptcy context, was less popular with the Fifth Circuit in In re J.C. Penney, No. 22-40371 (Oct. 6, 2022).

Specifically, a sublessee from J.C. Penney challenged that debtor’s decision to reject that sublease, noting irregularities in the relevant bidding process, and urging adoption a view of the business-judgment rule that would not defer to “the product of bad faith, or whim, or caprice.” The Court disagreed, observing:

The question is not whether the debtor’s decision reasonably protects the interests of other parties, but rather whether the decision “appears to enhance a debtor’s estate.” This distinction proves fatal to Klairmont’s claim, as bankruptcy, by definition, often adversely affects the interests of other parties. The long-standing purpose of allowing debtors to shed executory contracts is to afford trustees and assignees the opportunity to reject “property of an onerous or unprofitable character.” The correct inquiry under the business judgment standard is whether the debtor’s decision regarding executory contracts benefits the debtor, not whether the decision harms third parties.

No. 22-40371 (Oct. 6, 2022).

The Onion, America’s Finest News Source, recently weighed in at SCOTUS with a brilliant amicus brief about First Amendment protection for parody; this excerpt summarizes the overall flavor:

In Dune, Duke Leto Atreides cautions his son about the family’s move to Arrakis, telling him to watch for “a feint within a feint within a feint…seemingly without end.” In that spirit, Advanced Indicator & Mfg. v. Acadia Ins. Co. analyzed a complex removal issue, noting:

• “Ordinarily, diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity—if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same State as any defendant, then diversity jurisdiction does not exist.”
• “‘However, if the plaintiff improperly joins a non-diverse defendant, then the court may disregard the citizenship of that defendant, dismiss the non-diverse defendant from the case, and exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining diverse defendant.’ … A defendant may establish improper joinder in two ways: ‘(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.’”
• But see: “[T]he voluntary-involuntary rule … dictates that ‘an action nonremovable when commenced may become removable thereafter only by the voluntary act of the plaintiff.’”

These principles applied to this situation:  Advanced Indicator (a Texas business) sued Acadia Insurance (diverse) and its Texas-based insurance agent (not-diverse). But after suit was filed, Acadia invoked a Texas statute “which provides that should an insurer accept responsibility for its agent after suit is filed, ‘the court shall dismiss the action against the agent with prejudice.'”

The Fifth Circuit, noting different district-court opinions about this statute and carefully reviewing its own precedents, concluded that “because [the agent] was improperly joined at the time of removal, Acadia’s removal was proper.” No. 21-20092 (Oct. 3, 2022) (emphasis added, citations removed).

Scylla and Charybdis, the “double threat” foes of Ulysses in the Odyssey (right), would have been interested in Denning v. Bond Pharmacy, Inc., where the plaintiff successfully “show[ed] an injury in fact through her breach of contract claims.” So far so good. But the Court continued: “Athough Denning has established injury in fact, she cannot get past the redressability prong required to establish standing. This is because her injury, as she alleges it, is not redressable by the compensatory and punitive damages that she seeks. Put another way, rendering an award of damages in favor of Denning does not redress her insurer’s injury of being subjected to AIS’s unauthorized billing practices.” No. 21-30534 (Sept. 30, 2022).

Addressing a basic but delicate issue about franchise law, the Fifth Circuit stated its test for enforcement of an arbitration agreement based on “close relationship” principles in Franlink Inc. v. BACE Servcs., Inc.:

Borrowing from the precedents, including the Third and Seventh Circuits, we extract a few fundamental factors applicable here that we will consider in determining whether these nonsignatories are closely related: (1) common ownership between the signatory and the non-signatory, (2) direct benefits obtained from the contract at issue, (3) knowledge of the agreement generally and (4) awareness of the forum selection clause particularly. Of course, the closely-related doctrine is context specific and is determined only after weighing the significance of the facts relevant to the particular case at hand.

No. 21-20316 (Sept. 28, 2022) (citations omitted, emphasis added).

In Rhone v. City of Texas City, the Fifth Circuit denied a request for emergency relief without prejudice, first describing the controlling rules:

[Fed. R. App. P. ] 8(a)(1) states that “[a] party must ordinarily move first in the district court for … (A) a stay of the judgment or order of a district court pending appeal.” Rule 8(a)(2) provides, however that “[a] motion for the relief mentioned in Rule 8(a)(1) may be made to the court of appeals or to one of its judges.” That provision is subject to a requirement that “[t]he motion must: (i) show that moving first in the district court would be impracticable; or (ii) state that, a motion having been made, the district court denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested and state any reasons given by the district court for its action.” Rule 8(a)(2)(A).

Applying those rules, the Court concluded:

In this case, Rhone has moved for relief from judgment in the district court and no ruling has been made. As such, this motion is premature. Therefore, the motion before us is denied without prejudice. Should the district court deny Rhone’s pending motion, Rhone may revive the motion in this Court.

No. 22-40551 (Sept. 19, 2022, unpublished).

The district court in Williams v. Biomedical Research Foundation imposed a sanction for what it saw as an “impertinent” email to its law clerk. The Fifth Circuit reversed, noting: “The district judge signaled his intent to sanction Plante-Northington for the first time at an oral hearing on an unrelated matter. He then imposed the sanctions just minutes later at that hearing. Plante-Northington was allowed to utter only a few sentences in her defense before she was cut off. More importantly, she was given no advance notice sufficient for preparing a written or oral submission in response to the contemplated sanctions.” No. 22-30064 (Aug. 24, 2022) (unpublished).

Professor Steve Vladeck recently filed a provocative amicus brief about the State of Texas’s forum-selection practices in public law / constitutional cases.

The Fifth Circuit is soliciting comment on a potential change to local rule 47.5.4:

In BRFHH Shreveport, LLC v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of antitrust claims when:

• As to the plaintiff’s theory of a “threat-and-accession” agreement in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, “[t]he problem is that LSU had a completely independent reason for refusing to cooperate with BRF, which predated any alleged coercion by Willis-Knighton. Specifically, LSU issued a notice of breach to BRF in 2015--the year before LSU’s cash crunch and Willis-Knighton’s alleged coercion.” (emphasis in original).
• And as to the related monopolization claim under section 2, the relevant allegations “are little more than high-level assertions about how wonderful things would be if Willis-Knighton hadn’t formed an exclusive-dealing relationship with LSU … [T]hey are miles away from plausibly alleging that Willis-Knighton came close to substantially foreclosing the Shreveport healthcare market.”

No. 21-30622 (Sept. 19, 2022).

Today 600Camp celebrates its 11th birthday! For old times’ sake, here is the 10th-anniversary post from last year. Stir up some Shrimp Remoulade to celebrate properly!

The Fifth Circuit found an improper use of the Declaratory Judgment Act, and thus declined to apply the “first-filed” rule to a Louisiana lawsuit and deferring to another proceeding in Texas, when the record showed these facts:

“In June 2021, Bee Sand sued Pontchartrain in Texas state court. Pontchartrain removed the case to federal court in July. Later that month, Bee Sand voluntarily dismissed the case, and explained to Pontchartrain that it intended to refile in September— after a new Texas law governing attorney’s fees went into effect. Bee Sand also offered to refile in federal court to spare Pontchartrain the expense of a second removal, and Pontchartrain said that it would consider the matter. Instead of responding to this offer, Pontchartrain sought to preempt Bee Sand by suing in Louisiana state court on August 26, 2021. Pontchartrain requested a declaratory judgment in its favor.”

Pontchartrain Partners, LLC v. Tierra de los Lagos, LLC, No. 22-30286 (Sept. 15, 2022).

After a 5-4 order from the Supreme Court that allowed a stay of Texas’ social-media law to remain in effect, a 2-1 panel opinion  rejected a First Amendment challenge to that law in NetChoice LLC v. Paxton, No. 21-51178 (Sept. 16, 2022) (Judge Oldham writing the majority opinion, largely joined by Judge Jones who wrote her own concurrence, with Judge Southwick dissenting). The dissent aptly observed: “The Supreme Court will, as always, have the final word.”

Legal instruments often contain polite phrases before they get to the actual command in the instrument (“you have been sued and must file an answer,” or “you have been drafted,” etc.) Defense Distributed v. Platkin presents an unusual example of polite language in a legal instrument with no accompanying command, the background for which is as follows:

• Earlier this year, a 2-1 Fifth panel decision ordered a district judge, who had transferred a case about 3-D printed firearms to the District of New Jersey, to request the retransfer of that case back to Texas. (Judge Jones wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Elrod, with Judge Higginson dissenting).
• The New Jersey court considered the matter and declined the request on July 27.
• The Texas judge then closed the file, prompting further proceedings in the Fifth Circuit.

On September 16, the Court issued a routine order setting the matter for the earliest available argument date–but with a concurrence joined by two judges, asking that the New Jersey court reconsider the issue of transfer back to Texas:

“We can think of no substantive reason—and none has been offered to us—why this case should nevertheless proceed in New Jersey rather than Texas, other than disagreement with our decision in Defense Distributed. The Attorney General of New Jersey confirmed as much during oral argument. So we respectfully ask the District of New Jersey to honor our decision in Defense Distributed and grant the request to return the case back to the Western District of Texas—consistent with the judiciary’s longstanding tradition of comity, both within and across the circuits ….”

No. 22-50669 (Sept. 16, 2022) (Judge Ho concurring, joined by Judge Elrod, but not Judge Graves).

A surprising amount of case law addresses not whether a particular legal conclusion is correct, but whether it is “correct enough”–qualified immunity, for example, as well as mandamus cases about whether a “clear error” occurred in applying the law. Another such area involves whether the Fifth or the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over “Walker Process cases”–antitrust claims based on enforcement of a fraudulent patent. In Chandler v. Phoenix Services LLC, the Fifth Circuit held:

“We differ with the Federal Circuit over whether we have appellate jurisdiction over Walker Process cases. But the Supreme Court has told us to accept circuit-to-circuit transfers if the jurisdictional question is ‘plausible.’ While we continue to disagree with the Federal Circuit on this point, we do not find the transfer implausible. We therefore accept the case and affirm the district court’s judgment.”

No. 21-10626 (Aug. 15, 2022) (citations omitted).

It’s been a busy fall for the Dormant Commerce Clause. In addition to the Fifth Circuit’s recent invalidation of a Texas law about the ownership of electricity-generation facilities, the Court also struck down a New Orleans residency requirement for the ownership of Vrbo-type rental properties:

The district court held that the residency requirement discriminated against interstate commerce. That was the right call. But the court then applied the Pike test [for an incidental effect] to uphold the law. That was a mistake; it should have asked whether the City had reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives to achieve its policy goals. Because there are many such alternatives, the residency requirement is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause.

Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans, No. 21-30643 (Aug. 22, 2022).

Henley v. Biloxi H.M.A., L.L.C., No. 20-60991 (Aug. 31, 2022), presented a thorny issue about tort liability for nondisclosure; here, certain information about rates charged by health-care providers. Applying the relevant Restatement provisions, the Fifth Circuit rejected the district court’s distinction between “basic” and “material” facts, and reversed the dismissal of the nondisclosure claim under Rule 12(b)(6).No. 20-60991 (Aug. 31, 2022).

The plaintiff in King v. Baylor Univ. contended that Baylor had breached a contract with her (the “Financial Responsibility Agreement” pursuant to which she paid her tuition). During the COVID-19 pandemic, students at Baylor University were promised that they would have live classes on campus, but the university went “all-virtual” instead. She contended that she had made an informed decision to attend Baylor “live” when in fact her education was delivered remotely. The Fifth Circuit found potential ambiguity in the phrase “educational services” in the parties’ contract and remanded for further development of that issue. No. 21-50352 (Aug. 23, 2022).

In addition to the Court’s holding about the dormant Commerce Clause, NextEra Energy Capital v. Lake explained why the plaintiff’s claim based on the Commerce Clause was properly rejected (with citations omitted, although the citations are valuable and instructive):

          One of the original Constitution’s only express limitations on state power, it directs that “No State shall … pass any …  Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” The Contracts Clause was a response to the state laws relieving debtors during the 1780s. In the first century or so of the Republic, before the Bill of Rights restricted states, the Contracts Clause was “the primary vehicle for federal review of state legislation.”  Some of the greatest hits of the antebellum Supreme Court were Contracts Clause cases.

          But unlike the dormant Commerce Clause, the Contracts Clause is not what it once was. The Supreme Court substantially narrowed its scope during the Great Depression. Under modern caselaw, states have some leeway to alter parties’ contractual relationships “to safeguard the vital interests of [their] people.”

          A related principle that has sapped the Contracts Clause of its earlier force applies here. We now recognize that parties contract with an expectation of possible regulation. That is especially true in highly regulated industries like power. That history of regulation put NextEra on notice that Texas could enact additional regulations affecting its two projects.  After Order 1000, there was substantial uncertainty about how state regulators would respond.

          Despite PUCT’s declaration that transmission-only companies could enter the market, Texas courts never weighed in on the issue. Moreover, the emergence of state rights of first refusal signaled that Texas could enact something similar, if not more restrictive.

No. 20-50160 (Aug. 30, 2022).