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

Greenwood filed a petition for damages in Louisiana state court, alleging that Chesapeake had damaged Greenwood's property where a mineral lease abutted land that Greenwood was developing into a subdivision. Sitting in diversity and applying Louisiana law, the district court granted summary judgment to Chesapeake, finding that the lease did not give Greenwood the right to recover consequential damages. The court found that the relevant provision of the lease was ambiguous and therefore vacated summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Greenwood 950, L.L.C. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 64 former employees of DuPont who worked at the company's manufacturing facility in La Porte, Texas, filed suit against DuPont alleging that they were fraudulently induced to terminate their employment with DuPont and accept employment with a wholly owned subsidiary. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims and entered a take-nothing final judgment in favor of DuPont. The court deferred to the Texas appellate courts and concluded that the 60 day termination clause at issue rendered the covered employees' employment with DuPont at-will for the purpose of Texas law. Accordingly, they could not bring fraud claims against DuPont for loss of their employment and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sawyer, et al. v. E I DuPont de Nemours & Co" on Justia Law

Ballard, successor in interest to Kilroy, sued Devon, successor in interest to Wise Oil, for breach of a provision in an American Association of Petroleum Land Men (AAPL) Model Form Operating Agreement (Operating Agreement) that was an exhibit to and incorporated by reference in a May 1971 Farmout Agreement (collectively, Joint Operating Agreement or JOA) between Kilroy and Wise Oil. Ballard's lawsuit turned on the interpretation of one sentence in the multi-paragraph "Area of Mutual Interest" (AMI) provision of the Operating Agreement. The court held that, because the entire AMI provision - including its acquisition provisions and its surrender provisions - expired before the claims asserted by Ballard arose, Devon had not breached its contract with Ballard, and the district court's summary judgment was proper. View "Ballard v. Devon Louisiana Corp." on Justia Law

In a consolidated appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in denying their motions to remand and in dismissing their workplace safety claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that Dresser failed to properly monitor and mitigate exposure to loud noise at Dresser's industrial facility and that these failures led to long-term hearing loss. The court concluded that Dresser owed plaintiffs duties under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and simultaneously owed non-negotiable, independent duties under Louisiana tort law. These duties formed the bases for two distinct types of claims - contract and tort - either of which plaintiffs could have brought before the district court. Plaintiffs chose to sue in tort, without reference to the CBA, and their claims could be adjudicated by sole resort to Louisiana tort law. Applying the Supreme Court's construction of section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), the district court was without jurisdiction and therefore erred in denying the motions to remand and in granting the motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remanded. View "McKnight v. Dresser, Inc.; Lachney v. Dresser, Inc.; Anderson, et al. v. Dresser, Inc." on Justia Law

Conoco appealed the district court's judgment confirming an arbitration award favorable to Rain. Conoco and Rain were parties to a long-term supply agreement, whereby Conoco agreed to sell all green anode coke produced at one of its refineries during a certain time period. The court held that, given the considerable deference afforded arbitration awards, Conoco's argument that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by failing to select only one proposal, which relied on paragraphs stricken from the final award in accordance with the Commercial Rules, must fail. The court also held that vacatur was no appropriate and the award must be enforced where the arbitrator laid out the facts, described the contentions of the parties, and decided which of the two proposals should prevail.

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's entry of judgment in favor of defendants on defendants' statute of frauds defense to plaintiffs' lawsuit demanding specific performance on three Purchase and Sale Agreements (PSAs) entered between the parties for the sale/purchase of certain oil and gas leases. The court held that the trial court erred in holding that the lack of finality prevented consideration of the exhibits attached to the PSAs as a part of the contract to convey the property. The exhibits were specifically incorporated into the contract, the exhibits contained a sufficient legal description to meet the statute of frauds, and thus, the PSAs were enforceable by specific performance.

In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding, Capco brought claims of fraud and various business torts against Ryder, Tana, TRT, and Tristone. The claims arose out of a transaction in which Capco purchased from Tana certain oil and gas reserves located in the Gulf of Mexico (the Properties). The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of Ryder, Tana, TRT, and Tristone and dismissed the claims. The court held that Capco failed to present evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact about whether Ryder was contracted to provide an independent reevaluation of the Properties and advice at the meeting regarding Capco's decision to close on the Properties. The court also held that because the purchase and sale agreement contained a clear intent to disclaim reliance, the lower courts correctly held that Capco was unable to claim fraudulent inducement based on the prior representations of Tana, TRT, and Tristone. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

In 2005, during plaintiff's employment, defendant issued an employee handbook, including a provision that all employment-related disputes, whether initiated by an employee or by defendant, would be "resolved only by an arbitrator through final and binding arbitration," that disputes under the Fair Labor Standards Act were among those subject to the arbitration policy, that disputes cannot be brought as class actions or in representative capacities, and that the Federal Arbitration Act was its governing authority. Plaintiff signed a receipt that reiterated the arbitration policy. After his employment ended, plaintiff filed a class action, alleging violation of the FLSA by failing to adequately compensate him and other similarly-situated employees for overtime work. The district court denied a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that the provision was illusory because the employer retained the right to terminate or modify the provision at any time. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, noting that under the provision the company could make amendments almost instantaneously.

Defendant (principal contractor) sub-contracted with Stevens for work on military personnel housing at the Army base at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Stevens retained plaintiff to perform re-roofing. Plaintiff completed satisfactory work at the instruction of defendant and Stevens, but was not paid in full. Plaintiff originally sued under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. 3133, which provides federal question jurisdiction Plaintiff conceded at trial that defendants failed to secure a bond as required under the Miller Act. The federal claim was dismissed. The district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff on a Louisiana-law breach of contract claims and allowed plaintiff to amend to allege diversity that existed at the time of the original complaint. The court declined to consider defendants' newly submitted evidence concerning diversity. The Fifth Circuit vacated. The district court may not have had proper subject-matter jurisdiction from the instant plaintiff filed; it incorrectly held that it had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, assuming that it had proper subject-matter jurisdiction under the Miller Act. The Miller Act claim was too attenuated to establish proper federal question jurisdiction and could not support supplemental jurisdiction.

This appeal was from the grant of summary judgment in a diversity case in which plaintiff was a limited partner in a partnership that received a loan from defendant. The dispute stemmed from a limited guaranty agreement between the Bank and plaintiffs, who became a guarantor of the loan received by the partnership. At issue was whether the guaranty agreement only required payment from the guarantor once the balance of the outstanding loan was $500,000 or less. The district court ruled that the payment was immediately due regardless of whether the balance of the loan had been reduced to $500,000. Because the court found the language of the guaranty agreement ambiguous, the court held that the district court erred by accepting the Bank's interpretation and granting summary judgment. Therefore, the court vacated the summary judgment and remanded to the district court. Further, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for leave to file a supplemental claim. Finally, the court vacated the order awarding attorney's fees.