Designated for publication
- International Energy Ventures Management, LLC v. United Energy Group, Ltd., 20-20221, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- Oldham, J. (Haynes, Higginson, Oldham), arbitration
- Reversing district court’s judgment compelling arbitration on a finding that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the plaintiff’s (which was the party moving to compel arbitration) litigation conduct during the previous several years of litigation on jurisdictional issues in state and federal court.
- Where the arbitration agreement was silent regarding whether the courts or an arbitrator should determine the issue of whether a party had waived its right to arbitrate through litigation conduct, the Court held that the presumption is that courts will decide the waiver issue. The “presumption that courts decide the consequences of litigation conduct best captures the intent of the typical contracting party.” The Court then held that broad “any controversies” language in the agreement did not constitute clear and unmistakable language to rebut this presumption. “The fact that language in an arbitration agreement is broad enough to cover a particular issue does not mean the language is clear and unmistakable.” Accordingly, the Court held that two prior arbitrator decisions on the litigation-conduct waiver issue exceeded those arbitrators’ authority, such that the Court must decide the issue.
- The Court noted that waiver is a disfavored finding, and that it turns on two elements–substantial invocation of the judicial process and prejudice to the non-invoking part. The Court held that this case easily satisfied the substantial invocation element where the plaintiff had initiated suit in state court without any mention of the arbitration clause, and only reversed course in the rehearing of the appeal from the motion to remand and motion to dismiss in federal court.
- As to the prejudice element, the Court held that “[w]hether a party has been prejudiced is a fact-dependent inquiry that asks if the party suffered delay, expense, or damage to [its] legal position because of an opposing party’s pursuit of litigation.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As to delay, the Court observed that “[m]ore than three years had passed since IEVM first filed suit, and nearly two-and-a-half years had passed since the first arbitration concluded. That far surpasses the 10- and 18-month delays that concerned us in prior cases. In short, [IEVM] was aware of its right to compel arbitration [from] the beginning … but chose instead to resolve as much of the case as possible [in] … court.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court then held that the defendant easily satisfied the prejudice prong, which merely requires a showing of substantial amounts of time and money being expended to defend itself in the juridicial proceeding. The Court found that the district court’s contrary finding on prejudice was not subject to clear-error deference because it was conclusory and contained little by way of fact-finding to which to defer. “And there can be little doubt that IEVM’s litigation conduct resulted in significant delay and expense to UEG. … That the delay and expense stemmed from a jurisdictional dispute instead of a ‘merits’ one is beside the point. … A three-year dispute over personal and subject-matter jurisdiction spanning three courts, two arbitrators, and hundreds of pages of briefing generates prejudice—regardless of the amount of discovery.”
Unpublished
- U.S. v. Garcia-Salinas, 19-20562, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Cantu-Rios, 19-20866, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Colorado-Cuero, 19-40124, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Tejada-Reyes v. Garland, 19-60895, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (Smith, Haynes, Wilson), immigration
- Denying Guatemalan citizen’s petition to review BIA order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen.
- U.S. v. Lopez-Lopez, 20-10067, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Hernandez-Serrano, 20-10485, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jones, Costa, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming 60-month sentence on guilty plea to illegal reentry.
- U.S. v. Calzadilla, 20-10584, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Ungu, 20-10665, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Dennis, Costa, Engelhardt), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Chesser, 20-10900, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Roddy, 20-11133, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Dennis, Costa, Engelhardt), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Dansby, 20-11215, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Dennis, Costa, Engelhardt), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Harris, 20-30029, appeal from M.D. La.
- per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- GATX Third Aircraft Corp. v. Collins, 20-30277, appeal from E.D. La.
- per curiam (Jones, Costa, Duncan), maritime law, Rule 60(b)(6)
- Holding that claimants had standing to file Rule 60(b)(6) motion from approval of settlement in limitation of liability action, though they had not been parties to the limitation action; but that the claimants failed to satisfy the hurdle for 60(b)(6) relief; and affirming district court’s denial of Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
- U.S. v. Baker, 20-40018, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Sorriano-Torres, 20-40073, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Garcia-Navarette, 20-40774, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Haynes, Oldham), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. McCoy, 20-50877, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jolly, Elrod, Graves), criminal, appellate jurisdiction
- Dismissing appeal from magistrate recommendation on sentence for revocation of supervised release, for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Take the Fifth 