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

This interlocutory appeal arose out of litigation between rival companies that specialize in highway toll collection technology. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of HTA's motion for summary judgment based on Texas's judicial proceedings privilege. Determining that it had jurisdiction over the appeal, the court proceeded to the merits. The court read Texas caselaw as signaling limits on which communications made prior to the initiation of litigation qualify as sufficiently related to the contemplated judicial proceeding identified by the defendant. In this case, the court agreed with the district court that these limits preclude application of the privilege here, most significantly, because of the disconnect between the purpose of the communications and HTA's later tortious interference litigation, as well as the circumstances of the third-party recipients. View "BancPass, Inc. v. Highway Toll Administration, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit pro se asserting a takings claim against the United States. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that, under the Tucker Act, plaintiff must pursue his claim in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC). The Tucker Act vests exclusive jurisdiction for takings claims over $10,000 in the CFC and plaintiff asserted that he was entitled to $900,000 in just compensation. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the claim based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Sammons v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Offshore under the Jones Act, alleging maritime claims for negligence and unseaworthiness arising out of an alleged injury he suffered. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor Offshore and remanded for reconsideration in light of the current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, including whether the particular material to which objection was lodged can or cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible at trial. In this case, the district court relied on a prior version of Rule 56 and cases thereunder to discount the signed but unsworn report of Captain James P. Jamison. View "Lee v. Offshore Logistical & Transport" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that, because the matter was not ripe at the time the district court entered judgment in this case, the district court's judgment was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment. The court explained that, even though subsequent intervening events have created a controversy that was now ripe, the court could not retroactively resurrect the district court's void judgment under the facts of this case. Nevertheless, because the basic underlying controversy, originally raised and pursued by these same parties, was now ripe, the court remanded the case to the district court for such orders and proceedings as the district court deemed necessary and appropriate. View "Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II LLC" on Justia Law

Brickhouse appealed a default judgment in a trademark dispute between the parties. The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction in this case because a motion to recall the mandate and a motion to reopen the case have the same effect; the clerk had the power to recall the mandate here; and its order reopening the case did recall the mandate. The court rejected Brickhouse's claim that service of process was invalid; held that service was unremarkable in this case; and affirmed the default judgment. View "BHTT Entertainment v. Brickhouse Cafe & Lounge" on Justia Law

Renegade Swish filed suit against Emily Wright in state court for breach of employment agreement-related claims, and Wright counter-claimed based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Renegade Swish nonsuited its claims without prejudice and moved to realign the parties in the state court. Renegade Swish then removed to federal court, and Wright moved for remand and attorney's fees. Even assuming arguendo that it use the abuse of discretion standard on review, the Fifth Circuit found that Renegade Swift did not have an objectively reasonable basis to remove to federal court, and the district court abused its discretion in finding otherwise. Renegade Swish has not identified an actual district court split as to whether removal is proper on the basis of federal counterclaims after a plaintiff nonsuits its claims. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Renegade Swish, LLC v. Wright" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was the computation of economic losses arising out of the BP oil spill and based on the BP Settlement Agreement. The district court approved a policy adopted by the Claims Administrator (Policy 495) that consists of five methodologies to calculate claimant compensation: one Annual Variable Margin Methodology (AVMM) and four Industry-Specific Methodologies (ISMs). The Fifth Circuit held that the AVMM was consistent with the text of the Settlement Agreement, but that the four ISMs were not. The district court erred in approving the ISMs because they required the Claims Administrator to move, smooth, or otherwise reallocate revenue in violation of the Settlement Agreement. However, the ISMs, also required the Claims Administrator to match all unmatched profit and loss statements. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to the AVMM, reversed as to the ISMs, and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, GE, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted GE's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, only to reopen it later to withdraw its prior order compelling the arbitration. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to withdraw its order compelling arbitration and reopen the case due to a default in the arbitral process. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings, noting that the district court's jurisdiction was limited to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate still existed and enforcing that agreement. View "Salas v. GE Oil & Gas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of BDO's request for a protective order, holding that BDO did not prove its prima facie case of attorney-client privilege as to all of the log entries at issue, and that a protective order was unwarranted. The EEOC brought a subpoena enforcement action against BDO, seeking production of information relating to an employment discrimination investigation and asserting that BDO's privilege log failed to establish that the attorney-client privilege protected the company's withheld documents. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the log had three types of deficiencies that prevent the court from determining the applicability of the privilege: (a) entries that are vague and/or incomplete, (b) entries that fail to distinguish between legal advice and business advice, and (c) entries that fail to establish that the communications were made in confidence and that confidentiality was not breached. Because the magistrate judge's incorrect application of the legal standard may have affected both her analysis of the allegedly disclosed communications and the breadth of the protections she imposed in her order, the Fifth Circuit remanded so that BDO's request for protection may be considered under the proper legal standard for determining privilege. View "EEOC v. BDO USA" on Justia Law

Wise Regional, a Texas municipal hospital authority, filed suit against Aetna, an insurance plan administrator, in state court over a dispute regarding medical insurance claims Wise Regional submitted on behalf of its patients. Aetna removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442, but the district court remanded to state court, awarding attorneys' fees. The court concluded that it had appellate jurisdiction over the remand order because Aetna relied upon the federal officer removal statute in its notice of removal; remand was proper because Aetna's notice of removal was untimely; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees where Aetna lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal of this action almost five months after expiration of the thirty-day deadline for removal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Decatur Hospital Authority v. Aetna Health, Inc." on Justia Law