Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Law firms Campbell Harrison & Dagley, L.L.P. (CHD), and Calloway, Norris, Burdette & Weber, P.L.L.C. (CNBW) (collectively, the firms), challenged the district court’s partial vacatur of most of an arbitration award, rendered pursuant to a fee agreement (combining a high hourly-rate fee and a low-percentage contingency fee), which governed the firms’ representation of Albert G. Hill, III, and his wife, Erin Hill. After arbitrating a dispute over the requested payment to the firms under the fee agreement, the arbitrators awarded them approximately $28 million. Although the district court, inter alia, enforced the hourly-rate fee award, it vacated the contingency-fee award as unconscionable. In rejecting the arbitrators’ determinations regarding the uncertainty of recovery, the reasonableness of the total fee, and unconscionability, the Fifth Circuit concluded the district court “substitute[d] [its] judgment for that of the arbitrators merely because [it] would have reached a different decision”. As a result, it erred in vacating the contingency-fee-portion of the award and related awards (for the arbitration, the firms’ attorney’s fees, other fees, expenses, and arbitrators’ compensation; and pre-judgment interest on the contingency-fee portion). The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court with respect to the unconscionability issue, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court was affirmed in all other respects. View "Campbell Harrison & Dagley, et al v. Hill" on Justia Law

Noatex Corp. and Kohn Law Group, Inc. appealed two district court decisions in an interpleader action brought by Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc. (“APMM”) that named Noatex, King Construction of Houston, L.L.C., and Kohn as claimants. Appellants claimed that the district court erred in discharging APMM from the action, enjoining all parties from filing any proceedings relating to the interpleader fund without a court order, and in denying their motion to compel arbitration. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Fifth circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the discharge of APMM and its accompanying injunction, the denial of appellants' motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings pending arbitration. King Construction was dismissed from these appeals, and appellants' alternative motion to vacate the trial court's rulings was denied. View "Auto Parts Mfg MS, Inc. v. King Const of Houston,LLC" on Justia Law

BNSF filed suit against Alstom, seeking declaratory relief based on a Maintenance Agreement between the parties. The district court compelled arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in the Agreement. On appeal, Alstom challenged the district court's decision partially vacating the arbitration panel's final award in Alstom's favor. The court found that BNSF failed to show that the arbitration panel could not have been interpreting the Agreement when it concluded that Illinois law imposes a limitation on the right to terminate "without cause" based on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Further, errors in interpreting a contract is not grounds for setting aside an arbitrator's award. In this case, the arbitrators arguably interpreted the Agreement in reaching their award and in calculating Alstom's remedy. The court vacated the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings, with instructions to reinstate the arbitration panel's final award. View "BNSF Railway v. Alstom Transportation" on Justia Law

This suit arose out of an insurance policy SWEPCO, a public electric utility serving Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, purchased from Underwriters for coverage associated with the construction of a power plant in Louisiana. On appeal, SWEPCO challenged the district court's order granting Underwriters' motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the district court's order was not a final, appealable order within the meaning of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. 201-08, or the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1-16. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Southwestern Elec. Power Co., et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London" on Justia Law

After filing for bankruptcy, Houston Refining, L.P., suspended matching contributions to its employees' 401(k) plans. The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, acting on behalf of itself and its local unions (collectively "Union"), filed a grievance under the then-current collective bargaining agreement seeking resumption of the matching contributions. Houston Refining refused to process the grievance, claiming that the suspension was not a grievable issue. Months later, the Union commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court to compel Houston Refining to arbitrate the grievance under the CBA. Houston Refining agreed to submit the matter to arbitration. Following a two-day hearing, the arbitrator rendered an award in favor of the Union. Houston Refining filed suit in the district court seeking to vacate the arbitral award, and the Union counterclaimed to enforce the award. The district court found that because the Settlement Agreement evinced the parties’ clear agreement to have the arbitrator decide questions of arbitrability, its review of this issue would be deferential. On the merits, the district court upheld the arbitrator’s finding that Houston Refining violated portions of the CBA, but concluded that the arbitral award’s remedy was ambiguous in certain respects. The district court accordingly denied the company’s motion and granted the Union’s motion in part, but remanded to the arbitrator for clarification of the award’s monetary value, among other issues. Houston Refining appealed, arguing that the district court erred in deferring to the arbitrator’s determination of the grievance’s arbitrability. According to the company, because the parties never agreed in clear and unmistakable terms to give the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the district court was obligated to decide the issue independently. The Fifth Circuit found after review of the matter that "the party contending that an arbitrator has authority to decide arbitrability 'bears the burden of demonstrating clearly and unmistakably that the parties agreed to have the arbitrator decide that threshold question.'" In this case, the Union did not meet its burden, and therefore the district court erred in failing to decide arbitrability “just as it would decide any other question that the parties did not submit to arbitration, namely, independently.” The Court reversed and remanded this case to the district court to decide arbitrability issues raised by this opinion, "independently" without deference to the arbitral decision.View "Houston Refining, L.P. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, et al" on Justia Law

Nuance appealed the district court's order remanding this case back to the arbitration panel for clarification of the arbitration award concerning an alleged breach of a corporate merger agreement. The court dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction because a district court order remanding a case back to an arbitration panel for clarification is not a final order.View "Murchison Capital Partners, L.P., et al v. Nuance Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff briefly had a checking account with Union Planters Bank and had signed a signature card binding her to arbitration. Union Planters merged with Regions Bank. Years after closing her account, plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. The lawyer she retained allegedly embezzled plaintiff's portion of the settlement and she sued Trustmark Bank, where the lawyer maintained his accounts, for negligence and conversion. Regions moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement. Because the events leading to plaintiff's claim - a car accident, a settlement, and embezzlement of the funds through an account that a third party held with the bank - have nothing to do with her checking account opened years earlier for only a brief time, the notion that her claim falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement is "wholly groundless." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration.View "Douglas v. Trustmark National Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants over a dispute regarding various, separate contracts between ARPD and individual defendants. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration submitted by NOV Norway. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that there was an arbitration agreement and that NOV Norway could not be held responsible for the actions of its codefendants in this case. View "Al Rushaid, et al. v. National Oilwell Varco, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in Mississippi state court against defendants seeking damages and declarative injunctive relief. Plaintiffs asserted two claims: first, common-law trade-secret misappropriate and intentional interference with business relations; and second, violation of state law, which protects a patient's right to use any pharmacy of his choosing. After removing plaintiffs' suit to federal court, defendants moved to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims under the arbitration contracts to which all or most defendants were not signatories under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 3-4. The court concluded that the relevant Arizona law, made controlling by the Provider Agreement's choice-of-law clause, supported the non-signatory defendants' motion to enforce the agreement to arbitrate against plaintiffs based on state-law equitable estoppel doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration. The court recognized that the court's prior decisions applying federal common law, rather than state contract law, to decide such questions have been modified to conform with the Supreme Court's holding in Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle. View "Crawford Professional Drugs, et al. v. CVS Caremark Corp., et al." on Justia Law

The Bank sought to vacate an arbitration award in favor of 21st Century. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the Bank had actual or constructive notice of the arbitration; the record contained several communications showing that various bank organizers knew of the forthcoming proceedings; and because the Bank had actual or constructive notice and Bernstein Seawell & Kove v. Bosarge requires no more, the court did not need to decide whether 21st Century failed to comply with section 15.2 of the Agreement. The court also concluded that the contract did not expressly require senior management to engage in negotiations; even if senior management were required to engage in a second round of negotiations, the Agreement did not expressly condition the ability to arbitrate a dispute on failed senior management negotiations; and the record supported the district court's finding regarding good-faith negotiations on the operational level. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "21st Century Financial Services v. Manchester Financial Bank" on Justia Law