Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Appellants-attorneys Shawn Fitzpatrick and Timothy Flocos were sanctioned by the district court for certifying that their clients’ initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) were complete and correct even though the disclosures failed to mention evidence that Appellants later used during a deposition. Appellants appealed, asking the Fifth Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision and remit to them the monetary sanctions collected by the district court. Appellants argued that they used two recordings solely to impeach a witness' credibility; therefore, they were not required to disclose the recordings under Rule 26(a)(1). Appellants also argued that the district court failed to properly consider whether their decision to withhold the evidence at issue from the initial disclosures was substantially justified. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision to sanction appellants, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. View "Olivarez v. GEO Group, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

The Board appeals the district court's order doubling the compensation of Donald Massey, the part-time Court Compliance Officer (CCO). Massey monitors the integration efforts of the Tangipahoa Parish School System. The court concluded that it has jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). On the merits, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the information that Massey provided in calculating his salary, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by crediting Massey with time spent working as a CCO when many of the tasks that Massey reported to have performed were outside the scope of his duties and responsibilities as a CCO. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board" on Justia Law

These consolidated cases involve Antigua and its alleged involvement with the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Antigua, as a foreign nation, challenged the district court’s jurisdiction in each suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1604. The district court determined that it had jurisdiction over the suits under both the commercial activity and waiver exceptions of the FSIA. This appeal involves the third clause of the commercial activity exception. Because the court found that Antigua’s actions did not cause a “direct effect” in the United States, the court need not consider the other elements of the commercial activity exception’s third clause. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's holding that the commercial activity exception applies. Although Antigua contests the merits of the district court’s waiver ruling, Antigua does not contest the application of the commercial activity exception to OSIC’s breach of contract claims. As such, OSIC’s breach of contract claims will proceed under the commercial activity exception regardless of whether the court overturns the district court’s holding on the waiver exception. The court also concluded that the district court has already provided Antigua with the relief it seeks on appeal, and thus declined to further address the scope of the district court’s waiver ruling. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and remanded in part. View "Frank v. Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Christian Groenke, SGIC, and GRIL owned and operated numerous Burger King restaurants in Germany. These Burger King restaurants all operated under franchise agreements entered into with Defendant BKE. BKE is a Swiss corporation and the franchisor of Burger King restaurants in Germany. Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against BKE, claiming tortious interference and seeking a declaratory judgment regarding their rights under the relevant franchise agreements (the “Franchise Agreement Litigation”). The Franchise Agreement Litigation began on September 12, 2014. On April 17, 2014—five months prior to the start of the Franchise Agreement Litigation—BKE filed a separate suit against Groenke in the Northern District of Texas to recover franchise fees that Groenke allegedly owed BKE under the Personal Guarantee (the “Personal Guarantee Litigation”). The district court dismissed the Franchise Agreement Litigation on grounds of forum non conveniens based on the forum selection clause in the relevant franchise agreements. The court upheld the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. However, the court held that the district court abused its discretion when it denied as moot plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend without providing reasons for doing so, when the record also lacked “ample and obvious grounds” supporting its denial of the motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal, vacated the order denying the motion for leave to amend, and remanded for further proceedings. View "SGIC Strategic Global Inv. v. Burger King" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of the County, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, after they were reassigned, and later terminated, from their positions allegedly because they failed to support the sheriff's reelection. Plaintiffs also filed grievances with the Nueces County Civil Service Commission, alleging only that they were subjected to adverse employment actions in violation of county rules prohibiting such actions on grounds of participating or failing to participate in political activity. The state court affirmed the Commission's decision against plaintiffs. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on claim-preclusion grounds. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court applied the law of res judicata incorrectly, and that res judicata was inappropriate because plaintiffs had deliberately abstained from litigating their federal claims in state court. The court rejected plaintiffs' arguments and concluded that, because plaintiffs could and should have brought these claims in their state suit, their stated reasons for not doing so are inadequate to prevent res judicata. The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim of abstention. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cox v. Nueces County, TX" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of their suit against multiple defendants, including the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs seek to transfer this appeal to another circuit, contending that all of this court's judges are biased and, in the alternative, seeking an extension of time to file their brief. The court denied the transfer, concluding that the existence of qualified judges in other circuits does not undercut the applicability of the Rule of Necessity and does not require transferring the case where an appellant indiscriminately names all judges on a court or, as here, the court itself as defendants. The court also denied an extension of time to file plaintiffs' briefs, concluding that plaintiffs have not even attempted to make the required showing under Fifth Circuit Rule 31.4.1(a). View "Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Hispanic employees of Koch, a poultry processor, filed suit alleging harassment and abuse on the job. Koch claims that plaintiffs made up the allegations in order to benefit from the U-visa program. The U-visa program has offered temporary nonimmigrant status to victims of “substantial physical or mental abuse” resulting from certain offenses, including sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, extortion, and felonious assault. This appeal concerns Koch’s attempt to obtain concrete evidence of this malfeasance – namely, any and all records relating to plaintiffs' speculated U visa applications – through discovery. Confirming that it has jurisdiction, the court rejected Koch's waiver claim regarding plaintiffs' section 1367 claims. The court found the D.C. Circuit’s decision in In re England to be persuasive, where the D.C. Circuit construed a provision barring disclosure of certain military promotion records to any person not a member of the promotion board to forbid civil discovery of the records. In regard to section 1367's application to the EEOC, the court concluded that section 1367’s similar text and analogous purpose counsel the same result here as in England. However, section 1367 does not bar discovery of the records from the individual claimants. Their protection, if any, lies in the basic constraints of the discovery process. The court could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in finding U visa discovery relevant and potentially probative of fraud. However, the court concluded that the discovery the district court approved would impose an undue burden and must be redefined. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to devise an approach to U visa discovery that adequately protects the diverse and competing interests at stake. View "Cazorla v. Koch Foods of Mississippi, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging constitutional violations arising out of his incarceration in a TDCJ prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the dismissal of his suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this action pursuant to Rule 41(b), because the district court has the authority to order financial disclosures after a plaintiff withdraws his or her in forma pauperis (IFP) application in favor of paying the filing fee; the district court's inquiry into whether plaintiff's allegations of poverty were true was well within the district court's discretion; the court rejected plaintiff's argument that his noncompliance can be excused on the ground that the district court lacked the authority to require him to complete the questionnaire after he paid the filing fee; the district court had reason to suspect that plaintiff's IFP application contained false information as this was the third time he has withdrawn his IFP application after being pressed for additional information; and plaintiff's conduct demonstrates contumaciousness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Nottingham v. Warden" on Justia Law

In 1967, the district court entered an initial injunction against the School Board after this desegregation suit was filed. In 2015, a dispute arose concerning the Board’s selection of the newest Chief Desegregation Implementation Officer (CDIO). The Board moved in the district court for (1) approval of its candidate as CDIO, (2) elimination of the CDIO position, or (3) revision of the CDIO job description. The district court denied the motions and appointed plaintiffs’ candidate as CDIO. The Board then filed a timely notice of appeal. The court concluded that a timely notice of appeal divests the district court’s jurisdiction, meaning it cannot grant a party’s Rule 60(b) motion unless this court remands. Therefore, the court remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to rule on the matter identified in its indicative order. View "Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

Energy Coal, an Italian company, filed suit in Louisiana state court after Petroleo, a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company based in Venezuela, failed to pay for services. Instead of naming Petroleo as the defendant, Energy Coal sued a nonparty to the contracts: CITGO, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Houston. CITGO removed the suit to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The district court granted CITGO's motion to dismiss. The court agreed with the district court that Delaware law governs whether CITGO can be held liable for its affiliate’s breach. Because Energy Coal acknowledges that it cannot disregard the corporate form under Delaware law, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Energy Coal S. P. A. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp." on Justia Law