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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion to vacate claims rendered moot by intervening legislation enacted after the court issued its judgment but before the time to appeal had expired. In this case, the appeal was mooted by actions of the Louisiana legislature, which was not a party to this suit; no "fault" in mooting the appeal was attributable to any of the defendants, even though some of them were officials of the State of Louisiana; and Plaintiff Hall was not subject to a money judgment or any injunctive relief as a result of the district court’s judgment. The court held that, under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Hall was not entitled to vacatur under Rule 60(b)(6). View "Hall v. Louisiana" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit based on forum non conveniens. The court held that Louisiana Revised Statute 22:868 does not evince a public policy against forum-selection clauses in insurance contracts. Therefore, the court found that the parties' insurance policy contained an enforceable forum-selection clause requiring litigation in New York state court. Furthermore, the public interest factors did not weigh in favor of keeping this case in Louisiana. View "Al Copeland Investments, LLC v. First Specialty Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

Itron alleged that misrepresentations by three of SmartSynch's corporate officers (defendants) caused it unknowingly to assume an unwanted $60 million contractual obligation to a third party, Consert. Itron eventually settled Consert's claims and then filed suit against defendants for negligent misrepresentation. The magistrate judge ordered Itron to produce, without qualification, materials that were shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. The Fifth Circuit granted Itron's petition for mandamus and vacated the magistrate judge's order, holding that the mere act of filing the lawsuit effected no waiver of any attorney-client privilege. The court remanded with instructions to reevaluate defendants' motion. View "In Re: Itron, Inc." on Justia Law

Nagravision, a Swedish company, filed suit against Gotech, a Chinese company, in the Southern District of Texas, alleging claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Federal Communications Act (FCA). Gotech ignored the lawsuit and the subsequent $100 million-plus default judgment. After Nagravision initiated enforcement proceedings and succeeded in freezing Gotech's assets, Gotech filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas for relief from default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion, holding that Nagravision had standing to bring its claims; the judgment was not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; service was proper; and Gotech failed to establish that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2). View "Nagravision SA v. Gotech International Technology Ltd." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action against Navig8 based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in resolving the issue of personal jurisdiction before establishing whether subject matter jurisdiction existed; plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction and Navig8 was not subject to general jurisdiction in Texas; and Navig8 was not subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas where plaintiff failed to allege sufficient contacts. Because the court affirmed on personal jurisdiction grounds, it declined to reach the district court's forum non conveniens analysis. View "Sangha v. Navig8 Ship Management Private Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Texas citizen, filed suit against defendants, Ohio citizens, in Texas court based on a breach of contract claim and a misrepresentation claim. The Fifth Circuit held that the breach of contract claim could not be tried in the Texas courts because the auction contract at issue was executed and performed solely in Ohio. The court held, however, that the fraud claim could be tried in Texas because defendants had the requisite minimum contacts with Texas. In this case, defendants should have reasonably anticipated being haled into Texas court as a result of reaching out to Texas via phone in order to garner business and make specific representations. Furthermore, the Texas district court was the proper venue for the fraud claim where the misrepresentations directed at Texas were a substantial part of the events giving rise to the alleged fraud. Therefore, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Center, Inc." on Justia Law

28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3)'s removal clock begins ticking upon receipt of the deposition transcript. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Murphy Oil's appeal of an order of remand under section 1446(b)(3), based on lack of jurisdiction. In this case, Murphy Oil itself had no right to be in federal court in the first place, and only Avondale, its codefendant, could invoke the federal officer removal statute. Had Avondale not chosen to remove, Murphy Oil could not have asserted officer jurisdiction on Avondale's behalf. The court held that Murphy Oil experienced no concrete and particularized injury sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of Article III standing. View "Morgan v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc." on Justia Law

Mobil Oil removed the underlying suits as a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). On interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Plaintiffs Bottley and Lester's respective motions to remand. The Fifth Circuit held that Mobil Oil was permitted to remove both plaintiffs' cases to federal court as a mass action under CAFA. In this case, the Bottley consolidation motion proposed a joint trial of 100 or more plaintiffs' claims, a mass action under CAFA. The court held that CAFA applied to Bottley and Lester even though Lester commenced prior to CAFA's effective date. Finally, the district court was permitted to order consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte. View "Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp." on Justia Law

Babin, employed by Quality, developed carpal tunnel syndrome and had several surgeries. Three months after he returned to work, his employment ended. Babin participated in Quality’s employee benefit plan, which provided short- and long-term disability benefits, governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Babin submitted a short-term disability benefits application to Standard, Quality’s insurer. In February 2013, Standard denied Babin’s claim because it had not received a necessary form from Quality. Babin alleges that he provided that form to Quality, which failed to complete it. In February 2014, Babin’s counsel asked Quality for disability plan documents. Babin claims that Quality did not send those documents before he filed suit, that he believed that the short-term plan provided six months of benefits, and, had he known that the plan only provides three months of benefits, he would have applied for long-term benefits; Quality’s failure to produce the documents caused him to miss the window for long-term benefits. Babin filed suit 20 months after requesting the documents, alleging failure to produce documents and failure to pay benefits. The parties settled the denial-of-benefits claim. The court held that Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period for delictual claims applies to 29 U.S.C. 1132(c) claims, so Babin’s claim was time-barred. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Babin’s argument that Louisiana’s 10-year prescriptive period for personal actions should govern his claim for failure to produce documents. View "Babin v. Quality Energy Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The district court held that when a minor's parents bring a lawsuit on his behalf as next friends, the statute of limitations for those claims is not tolled during his period of minority if they were aggressively litigated through the prior lawsuit. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court improperly created this exception to Texas's tolling provision to its statute of limitations, and thus reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to serious and sustained injuries he suffered while he was detained at a juvenile detention center. The court held that the district court erred by fashioning a rule of its own making to find that plaintiff forfeited the protection of Texas's tolling provision when his parents had brought suit as next friends. The court remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of res judicata and other issues presented. View "Clyce v. Butler" on Justia Law