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

Zaappaaz, an online retailer founded by Azim Makanojiya, sold personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. They advertised guaranteed same-day shipping and in-stock availability, but failed to deliver on these promises, leading to numerous customer complaints. Customers often did not receive their orders on time, even when paying extra for expedited shipping, and were told refunds were unavailable.The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Zaappaaz for deceptive trade practices under the FTC Act and related regulations. The FTC sought $37,549,472.14 in damages, representing revenue from late or undelivered PPE orders. The magistrate judge recommended partial summary judgment on liability but found factual disputes regarding damages and injunctive relief. The district court adopted this recommendation and later granted the FTC's motion to establish certain facts, including Zaappaaz's net revenue from undelivered and unrefunded PPE orders.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a bench trial and awarded the FTC $37,549,472.14 in damages. This included $12,241,035.69 for undelivered and unrefunded orders and $25,308,436.45 for late shipments. The court implemented a redress plan for the latter amount, allowing consumers to seek refunds from the FTC, with unclaimed funds returned to Zaappaaz after 120 days.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the $12,241,035.69 portion of the judgment, agreeing that the FTC had established this amount based on undisputed facts. However, it vacated the $25,308,436.45 portion, finding that the district court's award of full refunds for late shipments did not comply with the statutory requirement that the remedy be necessary to redress the injury and not punitive. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "FTC v. ZAAPPAAZ" on Justia Law

Mary Reyes sued Equifax Information Services, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for continuing to report a delinquent Citibank credit card account after she disputed the charges as fraudulent. Reyes received text messages about suspicious charges on her Citibank account, which she reported to Citibank. Citibank canceled her card and issued a new one, transferring the disputed charges to the new account. Reyes disputed the charges with Citibank and filed police reports, but Citibank maintained the charges were valid. Reyes stopped making payments, and Citibank reported the unpaid balance to credit reporting agencies, including Equifax.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Equifax, dismissing Reyes's claims. The court found that Reyes failed to present evidence showing that the information reported by Equifax was inaccurate, that Equifax failed to follow reasonable procedures or conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, and that Equifax caused her any damages. The court also concluded that Reyes's FCRA suit was an impermissible collateral attack on the validity of her debt with Citibank.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit held that inaccuracy is a threshold requirement for a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, and Reyes failed to show that the information reported by Equifax was inaccurate. The court also agreed that the FCRA does not provide a vehicle for challenging the legal validity of a debt by suing a credit reporting agency for accurately reporting that debt. The court concluded that consumer reporting agencies are not required to investigate the legal validity of disputed debts under the FCRA. View "Reyes v. Equifax" on Justia Law

John Doe was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) for an offense in Arlington County, Virginia, in 2014 and was committed to a state hospital in 2015. After his first job offer was rescinded due to his arrest and commitment, he changed his legal name and moved to Texas in 2020. In 2022, he was arrested based on a Virginia bench warrant for failure to appear but was released when Virginia declined extradition. In 2023, Doe received a job offer from Charter Communications, pending a background check by HireRight. HireRight reported that Doe had a criminal record and an active warrant, leading Charter to rescind the job offer.Doe filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Charter, HireRight, and Paul Ferguson, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed Doe’s claims, finding that his FCRA claim against Charter was barred as there is no private right of action against users of consumer reports, and his Fourteenth Amendment claim against Ferguson was duplicative of a previously litigated case in Virginia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that Doe’s constitutional claims against Ferguson were duplicative and therefore frivolous. It also upheld the dismissal of Doe’s FCRA claim against Charter, interpreting 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(h)(8) to bar private enforcement of section 1681m in its entirety. The court found that Doe’s FCRA claim against HireRight and ADA claim against Charter were based on the allegation that the warrant was unlawful or inaccurate, which had already been addressed in the Virginia litigation. View "Doe v. Charter Communications" on Justia Law

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