Latest 3 Cases: Soaring Wind Energy, LLC v. Catic USA Inc. (Arbitration & Mediation), Williams v. Catoe (Criminal Law), Novick v. Shipcom ...

Is John Roberts a Closeted Never-Trumper? Reading Between the Lines of the Chief Justice’s Year-End Report

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf offers one interpretation of Chief Justice John Roberts’s annual year-end report on the federal judiciary—that the Chief Justice intends to serve as a modest counterbalance to President Trump. Dorf supports his interpretation with text and context of the year-end report but offers his cautious praise to the Chief Justice with a few important caveats as well.

Read More

Soaring Wind Energy, LLC v. Catic USA Inc.

Docket: 18-11192

Opinion Date: January 7, 2020

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation

Catic, a California corporation with Chinese corporate parentage, appealed the district court's confirmation of an adverse arbitral award. The arbitration panel awarded Soaring Wind Energy $62.9 million against Catic and ordered that Catic be divested of its shares in Soaring Wind Energy without compensation. The Fifth Circuit held that it had subject matter jurisdiction because this case related to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the NY Convention. In this case, a Chinese entity's actions on foreign soil could (and did) trigger breach for one of the Soaring Wind Energy's (domestic) members, and the arbitral award holds those Chinese affiliates jointly and severally liable for damages to the claimants. Therefore, such factors were enough for the agreement to bear a relation to China sufficient for federal jurisdiction under the NY Convention. The court held that whether Catic's non-signatory affiliates themselves be subject to the arbitration is irrelevant, because Catic assumed the obligation of its affiliates. Therefore, the district court did not err by confirming the award without first reviewing the arbitrators' power over Catic's Chinese affiliates. The court also held that the arbitration panel was not improperly constituted, and the award was not improper. The court rejected Catic's claims to the contrary and affirmed the arbitration award.

Williams v. Catoe

Docket: 18-40825

Opinion Date: January 7, 2020

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a district court's interlocutory order denying a motion for appointment of counsel is not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. The Fifth Circuit held that the panel opinion in Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1985), is overruled and dismissed this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that, even in the small percentage of cases in which the lack of counsel in the district court may restrain a section 1983 plaintiff in the assertion of his rights, the fact that a ruling may burden litigants in ways that are only imperfectly reparable by appellate reversal of a final judgment has never sufficed to breach the collateral-order doctrine.

Novick v. Shipcom Wireless, Inc.

Docket: 19-20056

Opinion Date: January 7, 2020

Judge: E. Grady Jolly

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment in an action brought by former Shipcom employees, alleging overtime claims under the Federal Labor Standards Act. After plaintiffs were awarded both actual and liquidated damages for unpaid overtime, Shipcom appealed. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shipcom's motion to open and close. In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by deciding that the jury should hear the beginning of the story first, even though the legal effect of the beginning was not in dispute. The court affirmed the district court's admission of evidence related to the internal audit and reclassification. Furthermore, even if the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the internal audit and reclassification, Shipcom has failed to demonstrate that the admission of this evidence affected its substantial rights.