Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from a settlement agreement entered into by BP and a class of parties harmed by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Claimants filed a “Motion for Authority to File Wetlands Claims” with the district court, invoking the district court’s supervisory authority over the interpretation and implementation of the settlement agreement. Claimants asked the district court to either determine that all seven of their claims were formally submitted in July 2012 before the six-month deadline had passed or excuse the missed six-month deadline and allow them to file claims anew. The district court denied the motion in a summary order. The court declined to deem claimants to have submitted claims on the parcels at issue in July 2012. The settlement agreement clearly designates the claim form as the manner in which claims should be submitted, and no claim forms were submitted for the two parcels at issue in July 2012, or at any time before the six-month window had closed. The court also declined to exercise any discretion it may have to excuse claimants’ failure to meet the six-month deadline. Finally, the court rejected claimants' due process claim as forfeited. Regardless, the enforcement of a properly noticed deadline generally does not effect a due process violation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from injuries sustained by a platform worker employed by Vertex. Continental appealed the district court's final judgment in favor of Tetra and Maritech, requiring Continental and its codefendant insured, Vertex, to indemnify them. The court concluded that the summary judgment record is inadequate to determine whether the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), requires the adoption of Louisiana law as surrogate federal law where the court cannot determine whether there is an OCSLA situs, the court cannot determine whether federal maritime law applies, and the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (LOIA), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:2780, is consistent with federal law. Accordingly, the court concluded that neither party is entitled to summary judgment as to whether LOIA must be adopted as surrogate federal law under OCSLA. The court remanded to the district court to determine the dispositive issue of whether Louisiana law must be adopted as surrogate federal law. View "Tetra Tech. v. Vertex Servs." on Justia Law

These two consolidated appeals stem from suits between Donald Cuba and Julia Pylant where Julia accused Cuba of rape and Cuba was later acquitted of the charge. In No. 15-10212, Cuba sued Julia and her parents (collectively “the Pylants”) for malicious prosecution, defamation, and tortious interference with contractual relations. In No. 15-10213, Julia sued Cuba for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), and Cuba counterclaimed with causes of action substantially identical to those in his suit. The Pylants moved, in both suits, to dismiss Cuba's claims under the Texas Citizens' Participation Act (Texas's anti-SLAPP statute), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 27.004. The district court eventually held that the TCPA motions were moot because they had already been denied by operation of law. The court agreed with the Pylants that, under the TCPA framework, the 30-day deadline before a motion is deemed denied by operation of law runs only from the date of the hearing on the motion. But, because no such hearing was held in these cases, the TCPA motion was not denied by operation of law. In this case, the appeals are timely where the operative date from which the 30-day clock under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ran was March 6, 2015, the date of the order denying the motion. On the merits, the court concluded that the TCPA applies in this case where, as Cuba concedes, all of the acts that the Pylants are being sued for are exercises of the right to petition as defined under the statute. The court further concluded that Cuba's claims of malicious prosecution and defamation are pleaded in sufficient detail. However, as to the defamation claim, the Pylants have established an affirmative defense as to certain of the communications at issue. Finally, Cuba’s tortious interference claim does not survive the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court vacated the orders from which these interlocutory appeals are taken, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cuba v. Pylant" on Justia Law

The court previously found that NOV Norway had a contractual right to arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The remaining defendants, nonsignatories to that agreement, contend that they are also entitled to arbitration. The district court found that NOV LP was contractually entitled to arbitration and ordered arbitration within the Southern District of Texas. The district court's order was interlocutory. Consistent with the purpose of Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 16(b)(3), and every circuit that has considered the issue, the court held that Section 16 forbids appellate review. The court also concluded that the court lacks jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Additionally, despite having nothing to appeal, NOV Norway was listed as an appellant within the defendants’ notice of appeal. The appeals brought by NOV LP and NOV Norway are dismissed. View "Al Rushaid v. National Oilwell Varco, Inc." on Justia Law

After plaintiff sustained injuries from a fall off a chair at a Home Depot, he filed suit in state court against Home Depot and the general manager of the store he was injured in. A month later, Home Depot removed to federal court. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, omitting the general manager and adding SMI as a defendant. After serving SMI, plaintiff learned that ASM, not SMI, was the distributor of the chair and therefore plaintiff filed a second amended complaint replacing SMI with ASM as defendant. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's order dismissing, without prejudice, Home Depot and ASM and requiring that any suits that plaintiff refiles against those parties be brought in the same court. The court agreed with plaintiff that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose the refiling restriction on ASM. The court also agreed with plaintiff that the district court erred in dismissing Home Depot, but concluded that the error, being without prejudice, was harmless. Finally, the court agreed with plaintiff that the imposition of the refiling restriction with respect to Home Depot was an abuse of discretion and therefore affirmed the judgment as modified to omit that condition. View "Bechuck v. Home Depot USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Luvata filed suit against Danfoss US, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent design. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the parties’ stipulation of dismissal without prejudice does not convert the district court’s non-final ruling into a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291. View "Luvata Grenada, L.L.C. v. Danfoss, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Akuna filed suit in federal court seeking dissolution of an oil and gas partnership and a determination of its ownership share. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Akuna and ultimately ordered termination of the partnership and awarded $213,354.01 in partnership profits to Akuna, plus attorneys’ fees. The court rejected Garrisons' claim that Akuna's suit was barred by res judicata, concluding that this federal court suit to terminate the partnership, damages for breach of which had been adjudicated only nine months before the filing of this suit, still involves a different transaction. The court also concluded that Garrison was not deprived of a trial where the records supports that the nature of the district court proceeding approximates a trial on the merits because that court conducted a factual inquiry, assessed credibility, and weighed the evidence. Finally, the court rejected Garrison's claim that it was entitled to present oral testimony on the valuation and ownership issues. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Akuna Matata v. Texas NOM Ltd." on Justia Law

Trinity filed an administrative claim in 2012 and a complaint in federal court in 2013 under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2680(h), alleging malicious prosecution. In 1999, Trinity was indicted for illegally storing hazardous waste without a permit and the charges were dismissed in 2003. The district court dismissed Trinity's claim as time barred. The principal issue on appeal is whether equitable tolling is applicable in this case where one of the federal agents investigating Trinity intentionally concealed his extramarital affair with another investigator. Under Louisiana law, a claim of malicious prosecution requires showing both an “absence of probable cause” and “the presence of malice.” Thus, the only evidentiary basis for a viable malicious-prosecution FTCA claim “well grounded in fact” would be evidence to support the allegations that federal law enforcement officers maliciously instigated the prosecution despite a lack of probable cause. The court held that the district court erred by failing to equitably toll the statute of limitations, determining that the Government has not met its burden of conclusively establishing that Trinity would have discovered evidence to support the allegations in the complaint through the exercise of reasonable diligence prior to 2011. In this case, neither the unsealed grand jury testimony nor the amended complaint conclusively establish that Trinity would have discovered evidence to verify the allegations that federal law enforcement officials maliciously instigated the case despite a lack of probable cause. Accordingly, the court reversed as to this issue. The court concluded, however, that collateral estoppel is not applicable in this case. The court affirmed as to this issue. View "Trinity Marine Products, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

HPTA filed suit challenging SafeClear, the freeway towing program run by the City of Houston, contending that the program is preempted by 49 U.S.C. 14501 and violates its commercial-speech rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the City. HPTA has filed two previous suits challenging the program. The court concluded that HPTA has not demonstrated that there has been a change in the relevant facts undergirding its claim of federal preemption since the last suit; the nucleus of operative facts remains the same; and the claim of federal preemption is barred by res judicata. Likewise, HPTA’s commercial-speech claim is barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Houston Prof'l Towing Ass'n v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

In this complex, multi-forum dispute over compensation between a German company (PACT) and its former CEO, the CEO appealed the district court's dismissal, without prejudice, based on forum nonconveniens (FNC). The court concluded that the forum selection clause in the contract at issue is mandatory and enforceable. Further, no overwhelming public interest requires retention in Texas. Given the Supreme Court’s strong admonitions in favor of dismissal and against retention save for extraordinary matters, the district court was well within the bounds of its considerable discretion in dismissing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Weber v. Pact XPP Techs." on Justia Law