Opinion ID: 70221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of Mandate on Remand

Text: Port Elevator contends that the district court disregarded this court’s mandate on remand. In 2002, the district court awarded summary judgment to Port Elevator for breach of contract and attorney’s fees and denied Vega summary judgment on her claims of negligence, fraud, conversion, and violations of the 4 No. 09-40493 Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. We affirmed the denial of Vega’s summary judgment motion but vacated the grant of Port Elevator’s motion and remanded “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Port Elevator Brownsville, L.C. v. Gutierrez, 198 F. App’x 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Port Elevator argues that the district court acted outside our mandate by entering a final judgment. “We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of our remand order, including whether the law-of-the-case doctrine or mandate rule forecloses any of the district court’s actions on remand.” United States v. Elizondo, 475 F.3d 692, 695 (5th Cir. 2007). The mandate court rule “forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court,” id. at 696 (quotation marks and citation omitted), but it does not prevent the district court from reaching a final judgment after resolution of the issues on remand. The ownership of the corn was at issue since the start of the litigation. After remand, the trial court named Vega as the owner of the corn; she was therefore the rightful owner of the proceeds of the corn sale. Her claim to the proceeds related back to her original complaint under rule 15. Once the jury had determined the value of Port Elevator’s services, it was within the district court’s powers to subtract that sum from the value of the proceeds and enter a final judgment. That action was not inconsistent with our opinion.