Court Opinion

ID: 9471982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:45:52.877455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:40.568689
License: Public Domain

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
with whom JOHNSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting:
The majority opinion has made amply clear that Texas cases, as we have noted continuously from the beginning of our writings in this case, can be, and are in fact, cited as authority for nearly any position one seeks to advance on the subject before us. The panel opinion recognized both this fact and the fact that this was a diversity case in which we had no authority “to decide policy or to plot a course for Texas corporate law. That job, it seems to us, is for the Texas courts.” Edwards Company, Inc. v. Monogram Industries, Inc., 713 F.2d 139, 140 (5th Cir.1983) on rehearing. The panel opinion was “carefully and deliberately restricted to its facts” and demonstrated Texas authority to support its conclusion.
On the other hand, the majority opinion here does not merely interpret Texas law, but in its dogmatic assertions decides doubtful legal questions which the Texas courts, for whatever reasons, have plainly avoided deciding.
In response to Part III of the majority opinion, I continue to adhere to my belief that when all was said and done, and when the record is read and weighed as a whole, Monotronics was nothing more than a piece of paper in a file cabinet in Santa Monica, California, and for all practical purposes existed in name only. It was, in my view, a mere conduit for Monogram.
There is no need, however, to fight battles which are clearly and decisively lost and Judge Randall’s able pen has commanded an impressive majority. It does not detract from her power and persuasiveness to say in closing that this diversity case, limited to its facts as it was, was hardly worth en banc consideration.