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

After a series of chemical explosions at an industrial plant in Crosby, Texas, following Hurricane Harvey, property owners and lessees in the affected area experienced contamination and property damage. These individuals, including the appellants, initially participated in a federal class action seeking both injunctive and monetary relief for the harm caused by the explosions. The federal district court certified a class for injunctive relief but declined to certify a class for monetary damages. Subsequently, a class settlement addressed only injunctive relief, leaving monetary claims unresolved.Following the settlement, nearly 800 class members, including the appellants, filed individual lawsuits in Texas state court seeking monetary damages for their property-related claims. The appellants acknowledged that their claims accrued in September 2017 and were subject to a two-year statute of limitations, but argued that the pendency of the federal class action tolled the limitations period under Texas law. Arkema, the defendant, removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and moved to dismiss, asserting that Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling—meaning a federal class action does not toll the state statute of limitations. The district court consolidated the cases and dismissed the claims as untimely, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that, under its binding precedent, Texas law does not permit cross-jurisdictional tolling of statutes of limitations based on the pendency of a federal class action. The court rejected the appellants’ arguments for exceptions to this rule and found no intervening Texas authority to the contrary. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the appellants’ claims as time-barred. View "Ackerman v. Arkema" on Justia Law

Three individuals, two of whom were former insureds of an insurance company, financed their insurance premiums through a separate premium finance company. Under the financing agreements, the finance company paid the full premium to the insurer and the insureds made monthly payments to the finance company. Each agreement authorized the finance company to cancel the insurance policy if the insured defaulted on payments. After defaults occurred, the finance company initiated cancellation of the policies. The plaintiffs alleged that the insurer’s procedures for cancellation did not comply with Louisiana law, resulting in ineffective cancellation and breach of good faith.The plaintiffs initially filed a class action in Louisiana state court against the insurer and the finance company, claiming that the insurer had not properly cancelled their policies and had failed to act in good faith. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Both sides moved for summary judgment on whether the insurer’s cancellation procedures satisfied Louisiana statutory requirements. The district court granted summary judgment for the insurer, finding that its procedures complied with state law, and dismissed all claims with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the insurer’s procedures strictly adhered to Louisiana law governing cancellation of financed insurance policies. The court held that Louisiana law does not require a signature on the notice of cancellation sent by the premium finance company to the insurer, and that the insurer’s receipt of notice via its computer system satisfied the statutory requirement of “receipt.” The court declined to certify questions of statutory interpretation to the Louisiana Supreme Court and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Williams v. GoAuto Insurance" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Cynthia Wilson, Erin Angelo, and Nicholas Angelo, filed a class action lawsuit against Centene Management Company, L.L.C., Celtic Insurance Company, Superior HealthPlan, Inc., and Centene Company of Texas, L.P. They alleged that the defendants provided materially inaccurate provider lists for their health insurance plans, causing the plaintiffs and proposed class members to pay inflated premiums. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the inaccuracies in the provider directories led to overcharges for access to healthcare providers who were not actually available.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied class certification, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to establish an injury-in-fact. The court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately demonstrate that they had reasonable expectations regarding the size of the provider network and that the premiums they paid were inflated due to discrepancies between the promised and actual network sizes. The court also questioned the plaintiffs' expert report, which attempted to show a correlation between network size and premium prices, stating that it only showed correlation, not causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred by not considering the appropriate test for determining standing at the class-certification stage. The Fifth Circuit adopted the class-certification approach, which requires only that the named plaintiffs demonstrate individual standing before addressing class certification under Rule 23. The appellate court found that the district court improperly engaged in a merits-based evaluation of the plaintiffs' expert testimony when determining standing. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Wilson v. Centene Management" on Justia Law

In 2008, a class action was filed against officials from the City of Tenaha and Shelby County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs claimed that the officials had an illegal practice of targeting and seizing property from racial or ethnic minorities. A settlement agreement, including a consent decree, was reached, requiring the defendants to follow specific procedures to prevent future illegal stops. The decree also included a court-appointed monitor to ensure compliance. The consent decree was initially entered in 2013, amended in 2019, and expired in July 2020. Plaintiffs' motion to extend the decree was denied, and the County Defendants settled, leaving only the City Defendants in the case.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas handled the case, where class counsel filed four motions for attorney fees. The first three motions were granted, totaling $324,773.90. The fourth motion requested $88,553.33 for fees from April to December 2020. Initially denied as untimely, the decision was vacated and remanded by the appellate court. On reconsideration, the district court awarded $16,020, reducing the hourly rates and the hours deemed reasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court failed to provide class-wide notice of the attorney-fee motion as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). This failure deprived class members of the opportunity to object to the fee motion. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by not enforcing the notice requirement and vacated the fee award, remanding the case for further proceedings to ensure compliance with Rule 23(h). View "Morrow v. Jones" on Justia Law

Three Coast Guard servicemembers, Eric Jackson, Alaric Stone, and Michael Marcenelle, objected to a COVID-19 vaccination mandate issued by the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security. Their requests for religious accommodations were denied, and they faced reprimands for refusing the vaccination. They filed a class action lawsuit against the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Assistant Commandant for Human Resources, alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case as moot after the Department of Defense rescinded its vaccination mandate, and the Coast Guard followed suit. The Plaintiffs' motion for relief from final judgment was also denied, leading to their appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal de novo. The appellate court found that the case was not moot because the Coast Guard had not issued policies protecting unvaccinated servicemembers from discrimination, unlike the Navy, which had implemented such protections. The court noted that the Plaintiffs could still face adverse actions based on their vaccination status and that a court order could provide effective relief. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Noem" on Justia Law

In this case, inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) filed a class action lawsuit in 2015 against the warden, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and other officials. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court bifurcated the case into liability and remedy phases. After an eleven-day bench trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs on all claims. Subsequently, a ten-day trial on remedies concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to permanent injunctive relief, but the court did not specify the relief in its judgment.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana entered a "Judgment" in favor of the plaintiffs and a "Remedial Order" outlining the appointment of special masters to develop remedial plans. The defendants appealed, arguing that the district court's judgment and remedial order were final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or, alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court had not entered a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor had it entered an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The appellate court determined that the district court's actions were not final because they contemplated further proceedings, including the appointment of special masters and the development of remedial plans. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and vacated the stay of the remedial order. View "Parker v. Hooper" on Justia Law

Robert Anthony Zaragoza, a former brakeman and train conductor for Union Pacific Railroad Company, was terminated in 2015 after testing positive for cocaine but was later reinstated. In 2016, he failed a color vision test and subsequent retests, leading to his removal from service and denial of recertification as a conductor. Zaragoza contested these results, submitting medical reports attesting to his adequate color vision, but was not reinstated.Zaragoza argued that his claims were tolled from 2016 to 2020 due to his inclusion in a class action against Union Pacific, Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. The district court for the Western District of Texas dismissed his claims as untimely, finding that the tolling ended with the class certification order in February 2019, and the statute of limitations expired before Zaragoza filed his EEOC charge in March 2020.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Zaragoza was included in both the putative and certified class definitions in the Harris class action. The court held that the statute of limitations for Zaragoza's claims was tolled during the pendency of the Harris class action, from the time his claims accrued until the Eighth Circuit decertified the class in March 2020. Consequently, Zaragoza's claims were timely when he filed his EEOC charge.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Zaragoza's disability discrimination claims and remanded the case for further proceedings, declining to address Union Pacific's alternate grounds for summary judgment. View "Zaragoza v. Union Pacific Railroad" on Justia Law

Christa Taylor purchased an automobile insurance policy from Root Insurance Company. After her vehicle was damaged in a hailstorm, Root determined it to be a total loss and paid Taylor the vehicle's actual cash value of $22,750. However, Root did not include an amount representing the sales tax in this payment. Taylor argued that the policy required Root to pay the applicable sales tax in addition to the actual cash value and filed a putative class action for breach of contract and violation of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the case. Root moved to dismiss Taylor's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge recommended granting Root's motion and denying Taylor's request for leave to amend her complaint. The district court conducted a de novo review, agreed with the magistrate judge, and dismissed the suit. Taylor then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the insurance policy's language required Root to pay only the "applicable sales tax," and since a total-loss settlement is not considered a sale under Texas law, no sales tax was applicable. The court also noted that actual cash value does not include taxes and fees payable to purchase a replacement vehicle under Texas law. Consequently, Root did not breach the policy, nor did it violate the TPPCA. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Taylor's claims. View "Taylor v. Root Insurance" on Justia Law

Joseph Work, a former employee of Intertek, filed a collective action against the company for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and relief for the collective class. Intertek objected to the judicial forum and requested arbitration. The dispute centered on whether the agreed-upon Arbitration Agreement provided for individual or class arbitration. Work sought class arbitration, while Intertek sought individual arbitration. Intertek filed a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration, arguing that the Arbitration Agreement did not contain an express delegation clause and was silent on class arbitration.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the issue of class arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator. The court held that the Arbitration Agreement incorporated certain JAMS Rules by reference, which delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the question of class arbitrability. The district court granted Work’s motion to dismiss and denied Intertek’s motion to compel individual arbitration.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Intertek argued that consent to class arbitration was absent and that the language in the Arbitration Agreement was not clear. The court rejected both arguments, affirming the district court's decision. The court held that the Arbitration Agreement was not ambiguous and that it clearly incorporated the JAMS Rules by reference. The court concluded that the language in the Arbitration Agreement was "clear and unmistakable" in its incorporation of the JAMS Rules, which provide that the arbitrator decides the question of arbitrability. View "Work v. Intertek" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a data privacy dispute involving Pebbles Martin and LCMC Health Holdings and Louisiana Children’s Medical Center (collectively, “LCMC”). Martin filed a class action suit alleging that LCMC violated Louisiana law by embedding tracking pixels onto its website that shared her private health information with third-party websites. The question before the court was not to determine the merits of Martin’s claims, but instead to determine which forum—state or federal—is proper to hear this dispute. LCMC argued that the suit should proceed in federal court because it acted under the direction of a federal officer when it allegedly violated Louisiana law. Martin, however, argued that the suit should remain in state court because LCMC fails to show a basis for federal jurisdiction.LCMC had removed the case to federal court, invoking the federal officer removal statute as the basis for jurisdiction. Martin moved to remand to state court, and the district court granted Martin’s motion, holding that LCMC did not act under the direction of a federal officer when it disclosed private health information to third-party websites. LCMC appealed the remand order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that LCMC did not act under the direction of a federal officer when it embedded tracking pixels onto its website. The court noted that a hospital does not act under the direction of the federal government when it maintains an online patient portal that utilizes tracking pixels. Therefore, the federal officer removal statute does not provide jurisdiction for this case to be heard in federal court. The court affirmed the district court’s order remanding this case to state court. View "Martin v. LCMC Health Holdings" on Justia Law