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

Charles and Yvette Whittier sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Merscorp, and Mortgage Electronic Registration System to prevent the foreclosure of their home mortgage loan. The parties reached a settlement and notified the district court, which issued an interim order of dismissal pending final documentation. The parties then filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and a proposed Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, which stated that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. However, the court's dismissal order did not explicitly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms.The Whittiers later filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and sought attorneys' fees. The defendants argued that the court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. A magistrate judge recommended enjoining foreclosure proceedings, and the district judge adopted this recommendation, issuing an injunction in April 2020. Over two years later, PHH and Deutsche Bank moved to reopen the case and dissolve the injunction, claiming the Whittiers were in default. A different magistrate judge found that the court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and recommended dissolving the injunction. The district judge agreed, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the suit with prejudice in May 2024, explicitly declining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement because the dismissal order did not expressly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms. The court affirmed the district court's decision to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. View "Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing" on Justia Law

Sterling Senechal submitted a claim to Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company for water damage caused by a broken water heater. Allstate issued three payments totaling $12,410.48. After a dispute over the loss amount, an appraisal determined the actual cash value to be $58,396.58, which Allstate paid minus the deductible and prior payments. Senechal then filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, violations of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA), bad faith claims under Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code, and breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. Allstate removed the case to federal court and paid what it calculated as the maximum potential interest owed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate on all claims. Senechal conceded the breach of contract claim but opposed summary judgment on the other claims. The district court ruled that Allstate's payment of the appraisal award and interest defeated Senechal's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment on Senechal's bad faith claims under Chapter 541 and common law, citing the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, which held that payment of an appraisal award and interest precludes recovery for bad faith claims unless there is an independent injury. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on Senechal's TPPCA claims, noting that payment of an appraisal award and interest does not automatically absolve an insurer of TPPCA liability. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Allstate's initial payment "roughly corresponds" with the appraisal award and whether Allstate is liable under the TPPCA. View "Senechal v. Allstate" on Justia Law

The National Automobile Dealers Association and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association challenged the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (CARS Rule). They argued that the FTC violated its own regulations by not issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), failed to provide a reasoned basis for the rule, and conducted an arbitrary and capricious cost-benefit analysis. Alternatively, they requested a remand for additional evidence consideration.The FTC published the CARS Rule without an ANPRM, which led to the petitioners seeking judicial review. The rule aimed to address deceptive practices in the auto sales industry, including misrepresentations, mandatory disclosures, prohibitions on valueless add-ons, and requirements for consumer consent. The FTC received over 27,000 comments during the rulemaking process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the FTC violated its own regulations by not issuing an ANPRM, which is required under subpart B procedures for rules promulgated under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act. The court determined that the Dodd-Frank Act did not grant the FTC independent substantive authority to bypass the ANPRM requirement. The court also rejected the FTC's argument for deference under Auer v. Robbins and Kisor v. Wilkie, finding no relevant ambiguity in the regulations.The court concluded that the FTC's failure to issue an ANPRM was not harmless error, as it deprived the petitioners of a procedural benefit that could have influenced the final rule. Consequently, the court granted the petition for review and vacated the CARS Rule, without addressing the petitioners' remaining substantive challenges. View "National Automobile Assoc v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Steven Andrew Clem, the former owner of a defunct homebuilding company, appealed a judgment regarding the nondischargeability of a debt incurred from a failed home construction project. An arbitration panel had found Clem personally liable to LaDainian and LaTorsha Tomlinson for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). Clem subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and the Tomlinsons initiated an adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court determined that Clem had obtained over $660,000 from the Tomlinsons through false representation or false pretenses, making the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).The bankruptcy court's decision was based on findings that Clem had committed fraud by nondisclosure during the performance of the contract, including failing to inform the Tomlinsons about the switch from concrete piers to helical steel piers, failing to disclose the puncturing of a water line, and misrepresenting the purchase of a Builder’s Risk insurance policy. The court also found that Clem failed to provide proper accounting for the Tomlinsons' funds. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred in not applying collateral estoppel to the arbitration findings, which had already determined that Clem's actions did not constitute knowing violations of the DTPA or fraud. The appellate court found that the issues of fraudulent misrepresentation and nondisclosure had been fully litigated in the arbitration, and the arbitration panel had explicitly found no fraud or knowing DTPA violations.The Fifth Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Clem, holding that the Tomlinsons were collaterally estopped from relitigating the fraud claims and that Clem's conduct did not meet the criteria for nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(2)(A). View "Clem v. Tomlinson" on Justia Law

Ryan Haygood, a dentist in Louisiana, faced an investigation by the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, which led to the revocation of his dental license in 2010. Haygood alleged that competing dentists conspired with Board members to drive him out of business by fabricating complaints and manipulating the Board's proceedings. In 2012, a Louisiana appellate court vacated the Board's revocation of Haygood's license, citing due process violations. Haygood then entered a consent decree with the Board, allowing him to keep his license.Haygood filed a civil action in state court in 2011, alleging due process violations and unfair competition. In 2013, he filed a similar federal lawsuit, claiming violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA). The federal district court dismissed the federal complaint, ruling that the § 1983 claim was time-barred and the LUTPA claim was not plausible. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants, deeming both claims frivolous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to award attorney’s fees for the frivolous § 1983 claim, agreeing that it was clearly time-barred. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in calculating the fee amount. The district court had properly calculated $98,666.50 for the defendants' private attorneys but improperly awarded $11,594.66 for the Louisiana Attorney General’s office without using the lodestar method. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit remitted the fee award to $98,666.50 while affirming the decision to award fees. View "Haygood v. Morrison" on Justia Law

The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a Rule on April 30, 2024, requiring airlines to disclose ancillary service fees, such as baggage and change fees, during the booking process. The Rule aims to protect consumers from surprise charges and is expected to provide significant societal and consumer benefits. The Rule took effect on July 1, 2024, with compliance deadlines for airlines and third-party ticket agents set for later dates. Various airlines and airline associations challenged the Rule, arguing it exceeds DOT’s authority, is arbitrary and capricious, and bypassed the required notice and comment process.The airlines and associations first sought a stay from the DOT, which was denied. They then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for a stay pending review. The petitioners argued that the Rule exceeds DOT’s statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. § 41712(a), which allows the DOT Secretary to investigate and adjudicate unfair or deceptive practices but does not authorize the creation of detailed legislative rules. The petitioners also claimed that the Rule imposes significant compliance costs that would cause irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the stay, finding that the petitioners made a strong showing that the Rule likely exceeds DOT’s authority. The court noted that the Rule mandates specific disclosure practices without the adjudicatory process required by the statute. The court also found that the petitioners would suffer irreparable harm due to the nonrecoverable compliance costs. The court concluded that there is no public interest in perpetuating unlawful agency action and expedited the petition for review to the next available oral argument panel. View "Airlines for America v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

John Craig First purchased an agricultural combine from Rolling Plains Implement Company, which was manufactured by AGCO Corporation. First was told the combine was part of AGCO’s Certified Pre-Owned Program, had roughly 400 hours of use, and had never been to the field. However, these representations were false; the combine was not certified and had over 1,200 hours of use. After experiencing numerous issues with the combine, First discovered in 2019 that it had an extensive repair history and over 900 hours of use. He then filed a lawsuit against Rolling Plains, AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, AGCO Finance, and other related entities.Initially, First filed his lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma County, but it was removed to federal court in Oklahoma, which dismissed the case without prejudice and transferred it to the Northern District of Texas. First amended his complaint multiple times, asserting claims of fraud, breach of warranty, and failure of essential purpose. The district court dismissed the fraud claims against AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, and AGCO Finance for lack of particularity and granted summary judgment in favor of AGCO Finance on the warranty claims. The case proceeded to trial on the remaining claims, where the jury found that First knew or should have known of the fraud by April 13, 2017, and awarded him $96,000 in damages. However, the district court entered judgment in favor of Rolling Plains based on the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It vacated the district court’s judgment as a matter of law in favor of Rolling Plains, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury’s selected date for the statute of limitations. The case was remanded for retrial on when First’s cause of action accrued. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of fraud claims against AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, and AGCO Finance, and upheld the summary judgment in favor of AGCO Finance on the warranty claims. View "First v. Rolling Plains Implement Co." on Justia Law

A group of business associations, including the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, challenged a new Final Rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) regarding credit card late fees. The plaintiffs argued that the district court had abused its discretion by transferring their challenge to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The case had a complex procedural history, with the district court transferring venue twice under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The first transfer was reversed by a different panel because the district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case while the plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of its preliminary-injunction motion was pending.The district court in the Northern District of Texas had initially transferred the case to the District of Columbia, but this decision was challenged by the plaintiffs. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously issued a writ of mandamus because the district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case while the plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of its preliminary-injunction motion was pending. The district court then transferred the case again, this time under § 1404(a), which allows for transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the district court had misapplied the controlling § 1404(a) standard for transferring cases and that the transfer order was a clear abuse of discretion. The court granted the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the district court to vacate its transfer order. The court found that the district court had erred in considering the convenience of counsel and in finding that D.C. residents had a localized interest in the case. The court also noted that the district court's familiarity with the case due to a preliminary injunction did not lessen the weight of the court congestion factor in favor of transfer. View "In Re: Chamber of Commerce" 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

A group of business associations, including the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB). The plaintiffs challenged a new Final Rule issued by the CFPB regarding credit card late fees and sought a preliminary injunction against the rule. The plaintiffs requested expedited briefing and review due to the imminent effect of the rule and the substantial compliance it required.The district court, instead of ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction, considered whether venue was appropriate in the Northern District of Texas and invited the CFPB to file a motion to transfer the case. The CFPB complied, and the district court granted its motion, transferring the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs then petitioned for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by transferring the case while their appeal was pending and, alternatively, lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the district court acted without jurisdiction. The court explained that once a party properly appeals something a district court has done, in this case, the effective denial of a preliminary injunction, the district court has no jurisdiction to do anything that alters the case’s status. The court clarified that its decision was not about the correctness of the district court’s transfer order but rather about whether the court had jurisdiction to enter it. The court concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction to transfer the case.The court granted the petition for mandamus, vacated the district court’s transfer order, and ordered the district court to reopen the case. The court also instructed the district court to notify the District of Columbia that its transfer was without jurisdiction and should be disregarded. View "In re: Chamber of Commerce" on Justia Law