Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Movant is the sole shareholder of Exquisite Designs, a company that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009. On appeal, movant challenges the denial of his motion to intervene in a lawsuit between the Chapter 7 Trustee of Exquisite Designs and Bank of America. Movant also appeals the order granting the stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed by those parties. Because the order granting the stipulation of dismissal was filed well over thirty days after the order granting the stipulation of dismissal, the court has no jurisdiction to review that order even though movant's objections go to the district court’s jurisdiction; because movant's initial brief on appeal advances no argument as to why the district court erred in denying permissive intervention, that issue has been waived; and the district court rightly denied intervention as of right because movant's motion was untimely where he knew of his alleged interest in the case long before he filed his motion and the denial of intervention would not prejudice movant. Accordingly, the court disposed of movant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Sommers v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

The Association, a trade group representing holders of permits allowing liquor retailing in the state of Texas, seek to intervene in a lawsuit between Wal-Mart and the Commission. In the suit, Wal-Mart alleges that the regulatory system administered by the Commission operates exclusively for the benefit of the Association’s members in violation of the Equal Protection, Commerce, and Comity Clauses of the United States Constitution. The district court denied the Association’s motion to intervene. The court concluded that the Association has a protectable interest that may be impaired or injured by the outcome of the lawsuit between Wal-Mart and the Commission, and that the Association has shown that the Commission may not adequately represent its interests. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s denial of the Association’s motion to intervene. View "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Chevron and Edison in Texas state court after he was captured by pirates and tortured. Chevron removed to federal court and the district court subsequently granted Chevron's motion for summary judgment, denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the notice plaintiff gave of his intent to amend his complaint was sufficient under circuit precedent, and plaintiff's amended claims would not have been futile. View "Thomas v. Chevron" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against DyncCorp, alleging that the company failed to give him all of the pay and benefits he was owed for work he did in Kuwait. DynCorp moved to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing that the Foreign Service Agreement’s forum-selection clause mandates that the action be litigated in Kuwait. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the forum-selection clause is valid, enforceable, and requires dismissal under Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court. Under either federal law or Texas’s choice-of-law rules, the court concluded that plaintiff can prevail only if enforcing the parties’ choice of Kuwaiti law and a Kuwaiti forum would contravene a “strong” or “fundamental” public policy of Texas. Because the court concluded that it would not, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Barnett v. Dyncorp Int'l, LLC" on Justia Law

This case arose from a suit filed by plaintiff against defendants, alleging civil rights violations. The court held that a notice of appeal of a district court’s judgment is timely filed when it is docketed in a district court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system and a notice of electronic filing of that appeal is sent to counsel. In this case, notice of electronic filing received by plaintiff reflected that her appeal was filed one day late. Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Sudduth v. TX Health & Human Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Holmes filed a claim for damages with the Court Supervised Settlement Program and alleged that it qualified as a "Start Up Business." On appeal, Holmes challenges the district court's decision declining to review the Claims Administrator's reclassification of Holmes as a general business claimant. The court concluded that the Claims Administrator’s decision did not misapply the Settlement Agreement, and that Holmes’s argument that the district court was required to grant review of its particular claim is unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Holmes Motors v. BP Exploration" on Justia Law

Texas filed suit seeking a declaration that an Enforcement Guidance document from the EEOC regarding the hiring of persons with criminal backgrounds violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701–06. On appeal, the State challenged the district court’s order dismissing the action under FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that Texas has constitutional standing to challenge the Enforcement Guidance under the APA where Texas is an object of the Guidance and, taking the complaint’s allegations as true, has alleged a sufficient injury in fact - the Guidance forces Texas to alter its hiring policies or incur significant costs; the “flexible” and “pragmatic” approach to assessing the finality of agency action, leads to the conclusion that the Guidance is “final agency action” under section 704 of the APA; the EEOC erred in relying on AT&T Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to suggest that agency actions are “final” under the APA only when federal courts are later bound to give deference to the agency’s interpretation of the statute at issue; and it is also sufficient that the Enforcement Guidance has the immediate effect of altering the rights and obligations of the “regulated community” by offering them a detailed and conclusive means to avoid an adverse EEOC finding, and, by extension, agency referral and a government-backed enforcement action. The Guidance is an agency determination in its final form and is applicable to all employers nation-wide; it is not an intermediate step in a specific enforcement action that may or may not lead to concrete injury. Because the district court erred in dismissing this action on justiciability and subject matter jurisdiction grounds, the court reversed and remanded. View "State of Texas v. EEOC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that they were injured in a vehicle collision with Thomas Lee Atkinson, an employee of CFC. The district court granted summary judgment for CFC and its insurer, Amerisure. However, Atkinson remains in the litigation. The court held that, absent Rule 54(b) certification, either service or appearance by a named party will defeat appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 if the claims involving that party are not addressed in the final judgment or prior order. Accordingly, although Atkinson has never appeared in this litigation, if he has been served, this court would lack jurisdiction under section 1291. Because it is unclear from the record whether Atkinson was ever served, the court remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Atkinson has been served and entering an order stating its findings and conclusions as to service. View "Charles v. Atkinson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen working for Blue Offshore, allegedly sustained a knee injury while working on board a Luxembourg-flagged vessel that was located off the coast of Russia. Plaintiff filed suit against Blue Offshore and two other companies, Aker Solutions and FMC Technologies, alleging negligence. Plaintiff later amended his complaint and added more defendants, including FMC Kongsberg and FMC Eurasia. After completion of the jurisdictional discovery, the district court found that neither specific nor general personal jurisdiction existed over Aker Subsea or FMC Kongsberg. Therefore, the district court dismissed these parties from the suit. At issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing Aker Subsea under Rule 12(b)(2). The court concluded that exercising general personal jurisdiction over Aker Subsea would be inappropriate where Aker Subsea’s limited contacts with the United States - eleven secondment agreements - are insufficient to satisfy due process concerns. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Patterson v. Aker Solutions Inc." on Justia Law

This case stems from an investigation into improprieties in the Court-Supervised Settlement Program (CSSP) responsible for a class of claims related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Movants Glen Lerner and Jonathan Andry appeal the district court’s sanction order disqualifying them from further participation in the CSSP related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and Andry Lerner, L.L.C. appeals the denial of its motion to alter or amend the restrictions imposed on related attorneys’ fees that were escrowed in connection with the sanction. The district court found that Andry and Lerner had violated multiple rules under the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct. The court affirmed the district court's sanction order because that court acted within its inherent authority to supervise the settlement program and did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction. The court held that, in light of the Special Master’s representation that the parties intend to agree to appropriate amendments to the restrictions on the escrowed fees, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Andry Lerner, L.L.C.’s motion to alter or amend. The court left open to the district court the possibility of amending its orders upon submission of a properly supported motion. View "Lake Eugenie Land & Dev. v. BP" on Justia Law