As a matter of first impression, in Cheapside Mins., Ltd. v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P., No. 23-40591, 2024 WL 886951 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that an oil-and-gas royalties class action belongs in federal court based on its interpretation that the “principal injuries” prong of the CAFA local controversy

On March 11, 2024, Liskow lawyers Kathryn Gonski and Melanie Derefinko secured the denial of a motion to remand on improper joinder grounds and the dismissal of an intentional tort claim against Methanex, a major Louisiana plant owner, in Knight v. Turner Industries Group, L.L.C., et al., No. 23-469 (M.D. La.).  The court’s rulings

A federal appeals court has affirmed that a “greenwashing” lawsuit by the District of Columbia against several major energy companies should not be heard in federal court. In doing so, the court found itself “in accord with the other courts of appeals, which have unanimously found there is no federal jurisdiction where state or local governments have brought state-law actions against energy companies for conduct relating to climate change.” District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., No. 22-7163 (Dec. 19, 2023) (“D.C. v. Exxon”).
Continue Reading Climate-Related Lawsuits Continue to Return to State Courts: Understanding The Latest Ruling from District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

The Louisiana Third Circuit recently affirmed a trial court discovery ruling that allowed the defendant to design its own e-discovery protocol without input from plaintiffs. In doing so, the Third Circuit bolstered the longstanding principle that trial courts have considerable discretion over discovery issues.
Continue Reading E-Discovery Update: Louisiana Third Circuit Affirms Defendant’s Authority to Govern Its Own E-Discovery Protocols

On June 16, the Texas Supreme Court considered the award of noneconomic damages in the amount of just over $15 million in a wrongful death case arising from a trucking accident. In a plurality opinion, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the jury’s discretion to make an award is limited and that noneconomic damages must be supported by evidence of the nature, duration, and severity of the injury to support both the existence and the amount of compensable loss. Additionally, the Court held that unsubstantiated arguments to the jury, such as comparisons of mental anguish to the cost of a fighter jet, a work of art, or miles driven by a defendant’s vehicles, are improper.
Continue Reading “Juries cannot simply pick a number and put it in the blank.” – Texas Supreme Court Remands Case Involving $15 Million Jury Award for Noneconomic Damages Where Award was Unsupported and Arguments to the Jury Unsubstantiated

On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a district court’s order vacating the attachment of property under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty. The property at issue was seized in support of a time charterer’s claims pending in UK arbitration. The Third Circuit found that, in order to qualify as facially valid maritime claims for purposes of Rule B, the claims must be actually asserted and ready for adjudication. Applying English law to the claims, the Court held that while a claim for the breach of a charter party qualified, a claim for implied indemnity and a contingent breach of charter party claim did not.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Restores Rule B Attachment Based On Breach of Contract Claim Under English Law, Implied Indemnity Claim Not Enough