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

After Buyers purchased two care facilities from Sellers, Buyers filed suit alleging that Sellers made fraudulent or, at best, negligent misrepresentations in the parties' sale agreements. Buyers also brought claims against Sellers' representatives in their individual capacities.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Buyers' claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court held that the district court properly dismissed Buyers' non-fraud claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contractual representations and warranties because these claims were subject to arbitration. In regard to the remaining claims, the court held that Buyers have not adequately pleaded a misrepresentation with respect to both facilities and thus they failed to meet the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Therefore, because there was no misrepresentation, there was no fraud. View "Colonial Oaks Assisted Living Lafayette, LLC v. Hannie Development, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the efforts of New Jersey's Attorney General and others to thwart plaintiffs' distribution of materials related to the 3D printing of firearms, alleging infringement of plaintiffs' First Amendment rights and state law claims. The district court granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, relying on Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2008).The Fifth Circuit held that the Attorney General has established sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to subject him to the jurisdiction of Texas' courts. The court held that Stroman is distinguishable from this case in at least two key respects: first, many of plaintiffs' claims are based on the Attorney General's cease-and-desist letter; and second, the Attorney General's assertion of legal authority is much broader than the public official in Stroman. Furthermore, the Attorney General failed to timely raise arguments regarding whether judgment in plaintiffs favor would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The court applied the principles discussed in Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1999), and Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S. Ct. 1482 (1984), and held that jurisdiction over the Attorney General is proper. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Defense Distributed v. Grewal" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees incurred at trial and during the first appeal to this court. This appeal arose from a bench trial where plaintiff, a former Austin city councilman, prevailed on some but not all of his First Amendment claims against the City of Austin.As a preliminary matter, the court held that the district court's ancillary enforcement jurisdiction covered the "collateral issue" of plaintiff's attorney fee request. On the merits, the court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's fee request because plaintiff waived his right to request fees incurred at trial. Even if the district court had discretion to excuse the delay in filing, no error occurred by failing to exercise the discretion. Furthermore, the district court did not err when it denied plaintiff's request for fees incurred on appeal where he made no request within the 14-day time period after the district court entered its initial judgment, and there also was no new judgment entered following a reversal or remand from this court. View "Zimmerman v. City of Austin" on Justia Law

A group of Louisiana Parishes filed suit in state court seeking relief from various oil companies under the Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (SLCRMA), alleging that the oil companies were liable for acts they committed during World War II. For a second time, the oil companies sought to remove all forty-two cases to federal court, contending that an expert report makes clear for the first time that they are being sued for activities they took during World War II while acting under the authority of a federal wartime agency and making the case removable under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442. The oil companies also contend that the report demonstrates that the Parishes' claims implicate federal question jurisdiction. Both the Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana granted the Parishes' motion to remand the cases to state court.The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the remand was appropriate because the companies filed their notices of removal too late. The court held that the information disclosed in the expert report did not provide new information previously unavailable to the companies, warranting removal. Rather, the report simply repeated information from a 1980 Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that the Parishes filed before the oil companies' first removal attempt in 2013; the FEIS discusses many of the specific wells involved in this litigation by referring to their unique serial numbers; and those serial numbers refer to wells the companies drilled before or during World War II. View "The Parish of Plaquemines v. Chevron USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Envoy in state court, alleging both disparate treatment and disparate impact based on age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the district court for the northern district erred: by sua sponte transferring this action to the western district instead of remanding it to state court; and, if remand was not required, by dismissing their Texas Labor Code claim with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) instead of without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction).The Fifth Circuit rejected both claims and held that removal to the incorrect judicial district is procedural error and does not divest the district court of jurisdiction over a removed action. Accordingly, plaintiffs' challenge to the district court for the northern district's transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631 is moot, given the district court for the western district's transfer back to the northern district. The court also held that Texas Labor Code 21.202's 180-day filing requirement is mandatory but not jurisdictional. In light of this analysis, the court held that the district court, after concluding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege exhaustion of their mandatory administrative remedies, did not err by dismissing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Furthermore, the district court did not err by dismissing with prejudice. View "Hinkley v. Envoy Air, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a citizen suit against Exxon, seeking to recover from more than 16,000 Clean Air Act violations arising from the Baytown, Texas complex.The Fifth Circuit held that Clean Air Act plaintiffs must prove standing for each violation in support of their claims. The court held that the evidence supports the district court's findings of injury, traceability, and redressability for a number of the violations. However, a limited remand is needed for the district court to determine what other violations could have contributed to plaintiffs' members' injuries and then to tabulate its findings. The court noted that it does not require line-by-line findings, but that the district court may group violations. Furthermore, plaintiffs have standing for at least some of the violations that Exxon asserts affirmative defenses against. The court remanded for findings on whether Exxon proved its Act of God defense for the relatively small number of violations occurring during Hurricane Ike. The court affirmed the district court's rejection of Exxon's Rule 52(b) motion, because Exxon failed to meet its burden in supporting its no-fault defenses by failing to identify evidence establishing that it met the relevant criteria for each individual emissions event. Because the court remanded for the district court to determine the number of violations for which plaintiffs have standing, as well as whether Exxon proved its Act of God defense for any violations, the court will also have to reassess the penalties. View "Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of an action against NAMB for intentional interference with business relationships, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court cited the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and found that it would need to resolve ecclesiastical questions in order to resolve plaintiff's claims. The court held that, at this time, it is not certain that resolution of plaintiff's claims will require the district court to interfere with matters of church government, matters of faith, or matters of doctrine. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "McRaney v. The North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging that she used defendants' prescription chemotherapy drug and now suffers from permanent hair loss. As a plaintiff in this multidistrict litigation (MDL), plaintiff was required to serve defendants with a completed fact sheet disclosing details of her personal and medical history soon after filing her short form complaint. She failed to do so in this case.The court applied the Deepwater Horizon two-factor test to the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's case and held that the district court was not required to make specific factual findings on each of the Deepwater Horizon prongs before dismissing plaintiff's case. The court explained that plaintiff exhibited a clear record of delay sufficient to meet the first prong in the Deepwater Horizon test, and lesser sanctions would not have served the best interests of justice. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. View "Kuykendall v. Accord Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

After Acadian entered into two contracts with QT to perform lab testing, Acadian filed suit alleging that QT breached both agreements. The jury ultimately awarded Acadian damages for QT's breach of both agreements and both parties appealed.In regard to QT's contentions, the court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on QT's liability for breaching the agreements and the district court did not err by excluding evidence about Acadian's business dealings. The court also held that Acadian's request for the entry of judgment of a higher damages figure is meritless. The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide several ways for a federal litigant to seek a different damages figure than that which the jury awards, and Acadian chose exactly none of them. Therefore, by failing to file any motions in the district court, Acadian forfeited its ability to seek appellate review of the jury verdict. View "Acadian Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC v. Quality Toxicology, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of Louisiana pension funds, filed suit against various defendants for their alleged involvement in a Ponzi scheme. The district court later entered summary judgment for a set of defendants—the Citco Group and various related entities. The Funds then voluntarily dismissed one defendant without prejudice and then resolved all remaining claims either by settlement or default judgment.The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction, holding that Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., 958 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), was controlling in this case. In Williams, the court held that there is no final decision if a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a defendant without prejudice, because the plaintiff is entitled to bring a later suit on the same cause of action. Furthermore, under Rule 54(b), in a suit against multiple defendants, there is no final decision as to one defendant until there is a final decision as to all defendants. In this case, the only difference between this case and Williams is the order of dismissals after the adverse decision. The Funds voluntarily dismissed one defendant without prejudice and then adjudicated their claims against other defendants. The court explained that that is a distinction without a difference. View "Firefighters' Retirement System v. Citco Group, Ltd." on Justia Law