The Appellate Record : Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney Kendall Gray for Fifth Circuit & Supreme Court Appeals

When counting your blessings, do not neglect to mention Judge Per Curiam at the Supreme Court of Texas. On Friday, Judge Per Curiam threw out a life line to rescue an appeal.

The lower courts had held that a pre-judgment motion for JNOV did not extend the appellate time table. Judge Per Curiam, kind and soft-hearted chap that he/she is, held that it was close enough.

The prejudgment NOV motion did extend the appellate time table, making the notice of appeal timely. To prove it, Judge Per Curiam took a jaunt through the rules governing appellate time tables in a manner befitting someone sitting for the board certification exam (*ahem*).

In this case, a number of overlapping procedural rules apply. Under Rule 26.1, the normal filing deadline for a notice of appeal is thirty days. That deadline is extended to ninety days “if any party timely files: (1) a motion for new trial; [or] (2) a motion to modify the judgment.” TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1)–(2). Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b states that a motion for new trial is timely if filed “prior to or within thirty days after the judgment . . . complained of is signed.” TEX. R.CIV. P. 329b(a) (emphasis added). This “prior to” language is supplemented and clarified by civil rule 306c, which provides that “[n]o motion for new trial . . . shall be held ineffective because prematurely filed; but every such motion shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of but subsequent to the time of signing of the judgment the motion assails.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 306c. The Rules of Appellate Procedure echo this concept in Rule 27.2, under which “[t]he appellate court may treat actions taken before an appealable order is signed as relating to an appeal of that order and give them effect as if they had been taken after the order was signed.” TEX. R.APP. P. 27.2. Finally, civil rule 329b(g) states that a “motion to modify . . . shall be filed and determined . . . and shall extend . . . the time for perfecting an appeal in the same manner as a motion for new trial.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g). Thus, the premature filing rules in civil rule 306c and appellate rule 27.2 apply equally to motions for new trial or to modify the judgment. Under these overlapping procedural rules, the filing of a motion for new trial or to modify the judgment, before the judgment is signed or within thirty days after, extends the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to ninety days.

Just about the only unpardonable sin in appellate practice is failing to get the notice of appeal filed on time. So much so that one of my unalterable life goals is to complete my appellate career without having to "make" any law on appellate jurisdiction.

Way too scary.

But if you do have to make jurisdictional law, it is probably Judge Per Curiam -- not the intermediate courts -- who will grant you mercy. 

Judge Per Curiam, full of grace.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Remember when George H.W. Bush was the 41st President of the United States? Back when the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the U.S.S.R. became the Commonwealth of Independent States? Back when Pan Am ceased flying?

Well, I do.

(No snarky questions professing ignorance about the Warsaw Pact, if you please.)

I was in my first year at Baylor Law School and trying to master the complexities of Civil Procedure, including the mysteries of International Shoe and "minimum contacts."

And just about the time I thought I had it, Professor Trail smiled that mischievous smile of his and came straight at us with something about a "Stream of Commerce" and Asahi Metal Inustry v. Superior Court. As best I can recall, we were either supposed to elucidate what the law of personal jurisdiction actually was in the wake of Asahi, or else predict who would prevail in a cage match between Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice William Brennan.

The result was predictable confusion--confusion that reached down the ages.

Until today. Professors and law nerds everywhere had the vapors because the Supreme Court of the United States had a chance to clear it all up in J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro. After the break, a few words on how end-of-term alphabet soup begat "Son of Asahi."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The statute creating removal jurisdiction allows a "Defendant" to remove a claim to federal court. But what about an intervenor who later has claims asserted against it? Isn't that kind of like being a defendant?

Maybe, but that's not good enough. The Fifth Circuit released In re Crystal Power Company, Ltd. on Monday, granting mandamus relief to address the district court's refusal to grant a motion to remand such a case. Judge Higginbotham  wrote the court's opinion.

The court found the intervenor's status indistinguishable from that of a state court plaintiff who later tries to remove federal counterclaims -- a procedural posture that the Supreme Court refused to allow 70 years ago in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets. Judge Higginbotham wrote:

Although this case involves a cross-claim rather than a counter-claim, the answer is the same. The controlling legal principle from Shamrock is that “the plaintiff, having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the state court, [is] not entitled to avail himself of a right of removal conferred only on a defendant who has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction.” If the [intervenor] wished for a federal forum, it was required to pursue a separate action in federal court. Having chosen to intervene as a plaintiff in state court, the firm forfeited its right to removal.

Congress meant what it said and said what it meant. "Defendant" means Defendant, one hundred percent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday, the Fifth Circuit released Jacskon v. Tanfoglio Giuseppe S.R.L. (pdf) affirming the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over the affiliate of a defunct Italian firearms manufacturer. Judge Garza wrote the court’s opinion.

It only took three appeals to finally result in the district court's dismissal of an affiliate that did not manufacture any part of the allegedly defective firearm. Along the way, the Court held:

• There was no general jurisdiction based upon two unrelated trade show visits, untargeted national advertising and shipment of components (for other than the firearm in question) to Florida for assembly;
• There was no specific jurisdiction based upon the stream of commerce theory principally because the defendant did not start manufacturing the model of firearm at issue until after the decedent’s accident; and
• The jurisdictional contacts of the defunct affiliate that manufactured the firearm could not be attributed to the defendant because they were not alter egos or a single enterprise--the companies had maintained all the corporate formalities required by Italian law and had properly liquidated the failed manufacturer under Italian law.

Also of interest on Monday was Combo Maritime, Inc. v. U.S. United Bulk Terminal (pdf), which deals with settlement, contribution issues, and presumptions in maritime collision cases. It gets an honorable mention just for citing a really really old admiralty doctrine deriving from the Laws of Oleron in the 12th century. 

Evidentiary presumptions and 12th century law from the Consolato del Mare.* It just doesn’t get any better than this.

*According to the History of Law website, The Consolato del Mare inspired the second great code of maritime regulation, the Laws of Oleron, which are supposed to have been compiled about A.D. 1150. It is generally understood that we owe them to a woman, Eleanor, Duchess of Guienne, Queen first of Louis VII of France, who procured a divorce from her, and afterwards of Henry II of England, the first of the Plantagenets.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit released Choice Health Care Inc. v. Kaiser Health Plan of Colorado (pdf) in which it upheld the dismissal of a foreign health insurer/HMO for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court rejected an attempted extension of the "stream of commerce" theory of minimum contacts in an opinion written by Circuit Judge Davis. 

After the break, analysis and details of the opinion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit released Willow Bend v. Downtown ABQ Partners, a personal jurisdiction case that will be of interest to commercial practitioners.  The contractual and breach of fiduciary duty claims arose out of a Louisiana real property transaction.  The Court affirmed a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction as to a non-signatory individual (Garcia) and the partnership for which that person was the managing partner (Downtown ABQ).   Judge Higginbotham wrote the Court's opinion. 

Determining minimum contacts can sometimes be like trying to nail jello to a tree.  But Judge Higginbotham (in characteristic fashion) gives the analysis some structure. 

Judge Higginbotham's take on minimum contacts requires a nexus between:

• the forum;
• a particular party; and
• a substantive legal duty actually pertaining to that specific party. 

The nexus was present with regard to the company that actually entered into the contract.  It did not exist for Garcia, nor for the partnership managed by Garcia.  The reason: the duties alleged were tethered to the contract to which they were not a party and did not apply to them.

This paragraph from the opinion sums it up:

[The] written agreement is no throwaway: in fact, it is the critical forum contact in this case, and the linchpin of the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Blue Dot. Willow Bend’s winning breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Blue Dot arose out of and resulted from Blue Dot’s primary contact with the state of Louisiana—its contract with Willow Bend. Without a contract tying the non-signatories Garcia and Downtown ABQ to Willow Bend’s claims against them, however, those claims share an inadequate nexus to the forum: . . .  Willow Bend sued for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, after all, and a defendant cannot be said to have breached a contract it never made or to have skirted a duty it never assumed. . . . Willow Bend contracted with Blue Dot—and Blue Dot alone—and it is with Blue Dot that its claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty must lie.

Thus, jurisdiction and the merits are enmeshed because jurisdiction is "claim specific." Had the breach of a different legal duty that applied to the non-signatories been alleged (e.g., fraud) a different result might have obtained. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

That incredibly geeky sound you heard over the weekend was the sound of delight as civil procedure profs and appellate lawyers thrilled over the new Fifth Circuit opinions.  What could be better than federal subject matter jurisdiction involving alienage, diversity and removal?

•  In Halmekangas v. State Farm the defendant removed a case to federal court that had no independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it was related to a Katrina coverage case already pending in federal court and would fall under the court's "supplemental jurisdiction" (28 U.S.C. 1367).  The Fifth Circuit said, "Interesting argument, but no. Every case must have its own basis for federal jurisdiction before non-federal claims may hitch a ride."  Judge Higginbotham wrote the opinion. 
• Berik Stiftung v. Plains Marketing involved the wonderfully arcane question of how a Lichtensteinian entity ought to be treated for determining diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.  Berik Stiftung argued that it was like a trust under U.S. law and the court should consider only the citizenship of its beneficiaries (i.e., Florida v. Canada and Texas).  Plains argued that Berik Stiftung was more like a corporate person so that the court should consider the state of its incorporation (i.e. Lichtenstein v. Canada and Texas).   This would mean damn foreigners on both sides of the "v," no diversity of citizenship and no federal jurisdiction. 

Plains won.  Judge DeMoss wrote the opinion and got to use the words "res nova" and  “juristische Person.”  Nice touch, that.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It was forum shopping day at the Supreme Court of Texas.  The Court released two mandamuses mandamii mandamae opinions granting petitions for writ of mandamus in which choice of forum was key.

• In re United Services Automobile Association (pdf) involves the question of whether limitations ought to have been tolled (it was not) where the plaintiff's claim exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the county court at law where he chose to file it.  Tolling depends upon whether the filing was made in "intentional disregard of proper jurisdiction" (it was).  Chief Justice Jefferson wrote the Court's opinion.
• In re Liabe Corporation (pdf) involves application of a forum selection clause to commercial actors complaining about equipment that did not work right.  The court only had to resolve fairly pedestrian contract formation questions about whether the plaintiff really really really agreed to bring suit in Indiana (it did) and whether The Hoosier State was really really really inconvenient (it was not).  As a result, the prolific Justice Per Curiam wrote the opinion.

I want to read United Services in more detail this weekend and perhaps write more.  It is certainly a new candidate to be added to the Practice Court reading list at Baylor Law School, highlighting as it does the complexity of trial court jurisdiction in Texas.  Fodder for Socratic torture questioning that is.  United Services also includes some important new wrinkles to the "inadequate remedy by appeal" standard given that denial of summary judgment is ordinarily not a subject for mandamus relief.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link