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).

“Imagine if Texas—a state that prides itself on promoting free enterprise—passed a law saying that only those with existing oil wells in the state could drill new wells. It would be hard to believe. It would also raise significant questions under the dormant Commerce Clause. …

Texas recently enacted such a ban on new entrants in a market with a more direct connection to interstate commerce than the drilling of oil wells: the building of transmission lines that are part of multistate electricity
grids. A 2019 law says that the ability to build, own, or operate new lines “that directly [connect] with an existing utility facility . . . may be granted only to the owner of that existing facility.” …

NextEra challenges the new law, as it applies to the interstate electricity networks in Texas (but not the intrastate ERCOT network), on dormant Commerce Clause grounds. … Once we wade through the thicket of electricity regulation, the ban’s interference with interstate commerce becomes as clear as it is for the oil well hypothetical. We thus conclude that the dormant Commerce Clause claims should proceed past the pleading stage.”

NextEra Energy Capital v. Lake, No. 20-50160 (Aug. 30, 2022) (citations omitted).

For August’s end-of-month summary by the Fifth Circuit Bar Association, I contributed a one-page article about preparation for oral argument, complete with action picture (right), joining a similar one contributed last month by Association president Tom Flanagan of New Orleans. If you belong to the BAFFC, I encourage you to write one of your own! And if you don’t belong you should, it’s a great resource and features an outstanding body of work about the Fifth Circuit by the able Walter Woodruff, also of New Orleans.

A long-running trademark dispute involving a New Orleans dining treasure, the Camellia Grill, came to an end in Uptown Grill, LLC v. Cameilla Grill Holdings, Inc. Among other holdings, the Fifth Circuit held that the following permanent injunction about trade dress was not an abuse of discretion “where the district court adhered to our recitation of … eight elements [in a prior opinion in the case], albeit adding the less precise language ‘all or most.'” The Court distinguished “other cases in which injunctions referencing trade dress have been reversed for vagueness, [because] the injunction set forth by the district court here has much more detail than a general prohibition from employing ‘confusingly similar’ trade dress.”

In crafting this injunction, the Court looks specifically to the definition of “trade dress” utilized by the Fifth Circuit in its May 29, 2019 opinion. “Trade dress” is defined as “the total image and overall appearance of a product [that] may include features such as the size, shape, color, color combinations, textures, graphics, and even sales techniques that characterize a particular product.” The alleged elements of trade dress include: (1) the pink and green interior paint scheme, (2) the “U-Shaped” double horseshoe counter design, (3) the stainless steel stemmed stools with green stool cushions, (4) the fluted metal design under the customer side of the counter and above the cooking line, (5) the visible pie cases attached to the rear wall at both ends of the cooking line, (6) the “straw popping” routine, (7) audible order calling routine, and (8) the individual counter checks handed to each customer. The enjoined parties’ utilization of all or most of the above Camellia Grill trade dress elements at any single location will constitute a violation of this injunction.

No. 21-30639 (Aug. 23, 2022).

The plaintiffs in Lee v. Andrew Lawrence Collection LLC sought to register the trademark “THEEILOVE” – a phrase associated with the alma mater of Jackson State University. Then they sued that university’s licensing agent and some licensees.

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss under the infrequently-used combination of Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and 12(b)(7), based on the university’s interest in the subject matter, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. It reasoned:

• Interest. The university had a non-frivolous interest in the ownership of the mark based on the university’s consistent usage of it, and that interest could be “practically impaired” by a decision on that topic in this case (as distinct from an analysis of whether a judgment would in fact be preclusive). Thus, the university was a required party under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i).
• Proceed or dismiss? As a state university, Jackson State had sovereign immunity from suit; that interest “is necessarily impaired when plaintiffs try to use the state’s sovereign immunity to lure it into a lawsuit against its will.” That issue alone favored dismissal. The Court noted that the other, practically focused factots in Rule 19(b) also favored dismissal.

No. 20-30796 (Aug. 24, 2022).  (In honor of this fairly rare analysis of Rule 19, here is a link to Paul Hardcastle’s 1985 hit Nineteen.)

Sambrano v. United Airlines, a religious-discrimination case about an airline’s vaccine mandate that prompted a (literally) fiery dissent from the panel opinion, ended in a 13-4 vote against en banc review. A dissent again urged caution in the use of unpublished (and thus, nonprecedential) opinions in significant matters. No. 21-11159 (Aug. 18, 2022).

In the unlikely event that any litigation proceeds under Texas’ SB8 law after Dobbs, a useful reference will be Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C., which found that a plaintiff’s claim under the Fair Debt Collection Act about an inaccurate demand letter failed to satisfy Article III standing requirements:

“’Congress’s creation of a statutory prohibition or obligation and a cause of action does not relieve courts of their responsibility to independently decide whether a plaintiff has suffered a concrete harm under Article III.’ Any other rule would allow Congress to grant private plaintiffs a personal stake in enforcing regulatory law and ultimately usurp the President’s Article II authority to execute the laws. And that would aggrandize our power by letting us resolve disputes that are not ‘of a Judiciary Nature.’

No. 21-50958 (Aug. 15, 2022) (citations omitted) (applying TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021)).

The 2017 collision between the MV ACX Crystal and the destroyer U.S. Fitzgerald led to litigation in New Orleans federal court against NYK, a huge shipping concern with global operations. The district court acknowledged that for this international case, the constitutional standard for personal jurisdiction was based on the Fifth rather than the Fourteenth Amendment, but concluded that the standards were materially similar and that it lacked jurisdiction over NYK.

A Fifth Circuit panel affirmed and the en banc court did also, noting that the other Circuits addressing this constitutional question reached similar conclusions. A dissent argued that the majority’s position about jurisdiction would undermine the effective operation of Congressionally-created causes of action involving asset seizure by the Castro regime and terrorist activity. Douglass v. NYK, No. 20-30382 (Aug. 16, 2022) (en banc). The judges’ votes broke along atypical lines and are detailed below:

In State of Louisiana v. Biden, the district court enjoined the federal government from pausing certain oil and gas lease sales:

The Fifth Circuit found that the term “Pause” was too vague to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, even considering the district court’s accompanying opinion: “The present injunction fails to meet Rule 65(d) requirements. We cannot reach the merits of the Government’s challenge when we cannot ascertain from the record what conduct—an unwritten agency policy, a written policy outside of the Executive Order, or the Executive Order itself—is enjoined. Our review of APA claims must begin by determining if there was final agency action. Where, as here, it is unclear what final agency action the district court predicated its order upon, we are unable to reach the merits of the appeal.” No. 21-30505 (Aug. 17, 2022).

The well-known poem Antigonish begins:

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away.

In that general spirit, in recent days, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District at Dallas had close en banc votes involving questions of arbitrability, as to a party who “wasn’t there”–who had not signed an arbitration agreement, but was nevertheless potentially subject to it. (The Dallas case is discussed here; the Fifth Circuit’s, here.)

Whether the timing is an example of synchronicity I will leave to others. The courts’ difficulty with these issues shows the strong feelings provoked by the issue of court access, even among very sophisticated jurists, in an area of the law with well-developed case law on many key points.

In CAE integrated, LLC v. Moov Techs., aoLtd., the plaintiff (CAE) sought a preliminary injunction, alleging that a former employee (Meissner) improperly took confidential information about customers to his new employer (Moov). The district court found otherwise and the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the record presented, noting:

1. “Meissner’s knowledge of whom he worked with while at CAE, absent other evidence, is insufficient to support a finding that he misappropriated trade secrets.”
2. “CAE has not identified a single contact whose information was not publicly available or ascertainable through proper means. Semiconductor industry participants are available in third-party directories, meet at conventions and trade shows, and can be found through online searches.”

The Court also noted that the employee had lost access to the relevant Google Drive some time before the injunction hearing. No. 22-50034 (Aug. 9, 2022).

By an 8-8 vote over a dissent, the full Fifth Circuit declined to review Newman v. Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P., a case about a court’s power to determine arbitrability when a nonsignatory seeks to enforce an arbitration clause. The breakdown of votes was as follows (Senior Judge King was the third panel member):

The plaintiff in Beatriz Ball, L.L.C. v. Barballago Co. alleged that a competitor’s line of tableware infringed on the plaintiff’s unregistered trade dress for its Organic Pearl, products.

After a 3-day bench trial, the trial court ruled for the defendant. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. The key Lanham Act issue was whether the plaintiff’s trade dress had acquired secondary meaning. Of the seven relevant factors, three required additional scrutiny on remand:

• Volume of sales. “Beatriz Ball offered evidence of the exact volume of sales attributable to the Organic Pearl collection. … [W]hether this multimillion-dollar volume of sales ultimately weighs for or against secondary meaning should be reconsidered. No current circuit precedent expressly addresses a $6.6 million volume, but two cases uphold much higher volumes and one rejects a much lower volume as indicia of secondary meaning.”
• Nature of use in newspapers and magazines. “In its analysis of the ‘newspaper and magazines’ factor, the district court observed that ‘very few of the advertisements reference the collection by name and just as many advertisements highlight Beatriz Ball pieces from other collections.’ As Beatriz Ball points out, however, ‘[t]his is not a suit over rights to a name; it’s a suit over rights to product designs.'” 
• Defendant’s intent. “Beatriz Ball’s trade dress claim is not confined to products that include a pearl rim or that might include some distortions in the product’s shape. As described, the trade dress exhibits a unique combination of features pertaining to the individuality of each piece, the irregular and unpredictable size and shape of the pearls, the undulated shape of the body, the metallic shine, and the overall, accurate impression that each piece was handmade with artisanal quality. None of the products presented at trial incorporated these elements holistically like the Pampa Bay products.” 

No. 21-30029 (July 12, 2022).

In a change from the constitutional issues that have plagued the SEC in court of late, in SEC v. World Tree Financial, LLC, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a securities-fraud judgment based on “a fraudulent ‘cherry-picking’ scheme, in which [defendants] allocated favorable trades to themselves and favored clients and unfavorable trades to disfavored clients.” Proof of this scheme required sophisticated statistical analysis, summarized as follows:

To analyze World Tree’s allocation data, [the SEC’s expert] divided the client accounts into three categories: (1) accounts controlled by Perkins, Gilmore, or both (“Favored-Perkins accounts”); (2) accounts owned by World Tree clients other than Matthew LeBlanc and his business Delcambre Cellular (“Favored-Client accounts”); and (3) accounts owned by LeBlanc and Delcambre (“Disfavored accounts”). She then measured several performance measures and subsets of trades: most and least profitable trades, day trades, average first-day returns, earnings-day trades, overlapping stocks, and trades after LeBlanc complained to Perkins about his accounts’ poor performance. According to her analysis, from July 2012 to July 2015, Perkins methodically allocated trades with favorable first-day returns to the FavoredPerkins and Favored-Client accounts, while allocating trades with unfavorable first-day returns to the Disfavored accounts.

[She] opined that the “evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Perkins engaged in cherry-picking.” Though she acknowledged at trial that the data reflected only a pattern and that she did not “have the ability to identify individual trades that may or may not be improper,” the data in the aggregate showed a “one in one million chance that these patterns could have occurred if allocations were being made without regard to first-day return.”

No. 21-30063 (Aug. 4, 2022).

Beatriz Ball, L.L.C. v. Barballago Co., No. 21-30029 (July 12, 2022), a trade-dress case under the Lanham Act, produced a thorough concurrence by soon-to-depart Judge Costa about the distinctions between review of bench trials, and review of jury verdicts. He began by observing:

“I write separately to remark on how our remand of the trade dress claim reveals a paradox that has perplexed me about bench trials: We give a trial judge’s detailed and intensive factfinding less deference than a jury’s unexplained verdict.

If a jury had rejected Beatriz Ball’s trade dress claim—giving no more  explanation than a simple ‘No’ on the verdict form—we would presumably affirm. After all, we do not hold that Beatriz Ball is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim. Instead, we remand for the district court to reassess the trade dress claim because of some errors in its 33 pages explaining why it found no protectable trade dress.”

And he concluded after a review of history and social-science research: “It turns out, then, that there is good reason for the seeming anomaly of giving less deference to bench trials: Larger and more representative groups are the ones more likely to reach the correct outcome.”

In its analysis, the concurrence notes one commentator’s observation that “while the Seventh Amendment does not compel the backwards-seeming rule giving less deference to judges’ findings, it does explain it. ‘[O]ur traditional and constitutionalized reverence for jury trial’ is why we trust juries more.” An element of that “traditional reverence” may well include some indifference to whether a jury in fact reaches a “correct” result, as the mere existence of a jury has a powerful symbolic value in its own right. See generally Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 90 (1986) (“In view of the heterogeneous population of our Nation, public respect for our criminal justice system and the rule of law will be strengthened if we ensure that no citizen is disqualified from jury service because of his race.”).

The Fifth Circuit found that the federal courts had “related to” jurisdiction because of the relationship between litigation and a bankruptcy plan:

“In Zale, the dispute between NUFIC and Cigna risked disrupting Zale’s reorganization by threatening Zale’s recovery from and access to the Cigna policy funds. Here, NFC’s claims risked the same disruptions: GenMa had pledged to pay the Lessors lots of money and to keep specified cash reserves as part of a global settlement between several parties to GenOn’s restructuring. By threatening GenMa’s ability to fulfill those commitments, NFC’s claims pertained to ‘the implementation and execution’ of that crucial settlement, which was part of GenOn’s plan. Craig’s Stores, 266 F.3d at 390. So we have related-to jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).”

Natixis Funding Corp. v. Gen-On Mid-Atlantic, LLC, No. 21-20557 (July 29, 2022).

The panel majority in E.T. v. Paxton held that a group of students lacked standing (based on their concerns about catching COVID-19) to challenge Governor Abbott’s order prohibiting school mask mandates, noting:

“This circuit does not ‘recognize the concept of probabilistic standing based on a non-particularized increased risk—that is, an increased risk that equally affects the general public.’ And even where increased-risk claims are particularized, they generally ‘cannot satisfy the actual or imminent requirement,’ which necessitates ‘evidence of a certainly impending harm or substantial risk of harm.’ That’s because ‘[m]uch government regulation slightly increases a citizen’s risk of injury—or insufficiently decreases the risk compared to what some citizens might prefer.'”

But cf. Sambrano v. United Airlines, No. 21-11159 (Feb. 17, 2022) (unpublished) (finding standing in a COVID vaccine-mandate case when: “Plaintiffs are several United employees who requested religious or medical accommodations from United. Those requesting religious accommodations did so out of concern that aborted fetal tissue was used to develop or test the COVID-19 vaccines.”).

My colleague Kyle Gardner and I wrote this article for the most recent Headnotes about two cases–one federal, one state–that summarize basic personal-jurisdiction principles for Texas in business cases.

   The Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to breach and cease performing executory contracts if the bankruptcy court approves. We thus have held that debtors may “reject” regulated energy contracts even if the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) would not like them to.  A sister circuit agrees, and we confirmed our view mere months ago[.]

     Nevertheless, FERC persisted. Anticipating the petitioner’s insolvency, FERC issued four orders purporting to bind the petitioner to continue performing its gas transit contracts even if it rejected them during bankruptcy. The petitioner asks us to vacate those orders. Because FERC cannot countermand a debtor’s bankruptcy-law rights or the bankruptcy court’s powers, we grant the petitions for review and vacate the orders.

Gulfport Energy Corp. v. FERC, No. 21-60017 (July 19, 2022) (citations omitted).

The holding of Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. City of Palestine may be of interest only to the parties, but the backstory is a sprawling drama about westward expansion and the legal framework that followed it: “Union Pacific Railroad Company seeks to end its operations in Palestine, Texas, but has been unable to do so because a 1954 Agreement between its predecessor and Defendants City of Palestine and Anderson County, Texas has prevented it from leaving. Because the 1954 Agreement is preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, Union Pacific is free to leave. … The background of this case spans 150 years, and we have discussed much of it in prior opinions. We nonetheless recount it here to illuminate the intersection between the parties’ purported contractual agreements and increased federal regulation of the railroad system.” No. 21-40445 (July 22, 2022) (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

A sweeping analysis of different types of disgorgement led to this conclusion about the securities laws in SEC v. Hallam: “[W]e conclude that Sections 78u(d)(3) and (d)(7) authorize legal ‘disgorgement’ apart from the equitable ‘disgorgement’ permitted by Liu. That answers the question which ‘soil,’ came with the ‘term of art,’ that Congress used.” No. 21-10222 (July 19, 2022) (citations omitted). While focused on a precise issue about the most recent amendments to federal securities law, Hallam offers a detailed history and summary of approaches to disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, in both law and equity.

“[T]he oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the federal courts will not give advisory opinions.” E.g., In re: Franchise Servcs. of N. Am., 891 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 2018). That said, not all statements of legal rules are the same (as detailed in this Pepperdine Law Review article that I co-authored several years ago). Illustrating that point:

• In Leonard v. Martin, the panel majority in a discovery-order mandamus observed in a footnote: “In mandamus cases, this court often holds ‘that a district court erred, despite stopping short of issuing a writ of mandamus.'” (citation omitted) No. 21-30475 (June 30, 2022).
• In SEC v. Novinger, the concurrence in a case resolved on procedural grounds about Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) observed: “If you want to settle, SEC’s policy says, ‘Hold your tongue, and don’t say anything truthful—ever’—or get bankrupted by having to continue litigating with the SEC. A more effective prior restraint is hard to imagine. … Given the agency’s current activism, I think it will not be long before the courts are called on to fully consider this policy.” No. 21-10985 (July 12, 2022).
• And in SEC v. Hallam, a case about the kind of disgorgement available as a remedy under the securities laws, the Court observed: “… if we are confronted with an appeal from a request for an award of that nature, we may need to decide whether it could be equitable disgorgement consistent with Liu’s constraining those awards to ‘net profits[.]” And that may also require us to resolve Hallam’s contention that the SEC is required strictly to trace the ill-gotten gains, and the profits on them, into assets still held by the defendant.” No. 21-10222 (July 19, 2022) (citations omitted).

Louisiana Indep. Pharmacies Ass’n v. Express Scripts, Inc. “presents a novel issue concerning the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction in cases brought by organizations on behalf of their members.” An association of Louisiana pharmacists sought a declaration about their appropriate Medicare reimbursement, and while the total value of all their claims exceeded $75,000, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the law required that “at least one pharmacy would have to allege that Express Scripts shortchanged it on the provider fee for over 750,000 Medicare Part D prescriptions.” Accordingly, it dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No. 21-30331 (July 20, 2022).

Despite a contrary view of the case by a motions panel, a majority of the the panel that received the merits briefing denied the petitions for review in Wages & White Lions Investments LLC v. FDA, a case about the regulation of “vaping” products: “Petitioners advance two primary arguments: (1) FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by pulling a ‘surprise switcheroo‘ on Petitioners and failing to consider important aspects of the PMTAs; and (2) FDA lacks statutory authority to impose a comparative efficacy requirement. We are unpersuaded by either argument.” 

A dissent saw matters otherwise: “In a mockery of ‘reasoned’ administrative decision making, FDA (1) changed the rules for private entities in the middle of their marketing application process, (2) failed to notify the public of the changes in time for compliance, and then (3) rubber-stamped the denial of their marketing applications because of the hitherto unknown requirements.” A petition for en banc rehearing seems a near certainty. No. 21-60766 (July 18, 2022).

My friend Walter Woodruff and I have picked our “Top Five Cases to Know” from the Fifth Circuit for the first half of 2022 – we agreed on 3/5 – the Bar Association for the Fifth Federal Circuit has been Tweeting them out the last few days!

Preble-Rich, a Haitian company, had a contract with a Haitian government agency to deliver fuel. A payment dispute developed and Preble-Rich started an arbitration in New York, pursuant to a broad clause in the parties’ contract (“In the event of a dispute between the [Parties] under this Contract, the dispute shall be submitted by either party to arbitration in New York. … The decision of the arbitrators shall be final, conclusive and binding on all Parties. Judgment upon such award may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.”). 

Preble-Rich obtained “a partial final award of security” from the arbitration panel requiring the posting of $23 million in security. Litigation to enforce that award led to Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 22-20221, which held that the above clause was not an explicit waiver of immunity from attachment as required by the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1610(d). “The arbitration clause is relevant to whether BMPAD waived its sovereign immunity from suit generally, but a waiver of immunity from suit has ‘no bearing upon the question of immunity from prejudgment attachment.’” (citation omitted).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fifth Circuit has set for rehearing en banc:

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

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