Fire Protc Svc v. Survitec ( 2022 )

Case: 21-20145 Document: 00516487923 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 28, 2022
No. 21-20145 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Fire Protection Service, Incorporated,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Survitec Survival Products, Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-2162
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Fire Protection Service, Inc. sued Survitec Survival Products, Inc.,
alleging that Survitec’s decision to terminate its open-ended oral agreement
with Fire Protection without good cause or notice violated the Fair Practices
of Equipment Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers, and Dealers Act.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-20145 Document: 00516487923 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
No. 21-20145
Act of May 27, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 1039, §§ 1-5, 2011 Tex. Gen.
Laws 2646-59. In relevant part, the Act prohibits equipment suppliers like
Survitec from ending dealer agreements without good cause and notice, and
it requires those suppliers to buy back unsold inventory from dealers like Fire
Protection when they do so. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 57.202,
57.204, 57.355(a).
After removing the case to federal court based on the diversity of the
parties, Survitec asserted that the Act violated the Texas Constitution’s
prohibition on “retroactive law[s].” See Tex. Const. art. I, § 16 (“No bill
of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the
obligation of contracts, shall be made.”). The district court agreed with
Survitec and granted Survitec’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c)
motion for judgment on partial findings. It held that the Act was
unconstitutional because it retroactively amended the oral agreement
between the parties; therefore, Fire Protection could not maintain the suit.
Fire Protection appealed, raising two issues: (1) whether the district
court erred in granting Survitec’s Rule 52(c) motion based on its
determination that the retroactivity clause of the Texas Constitution
precluded application of the Act to the agreement between Survitec and Fire
Protection; and (2) whether the district court erred in finding that Fire
Protection did not present evidence that Survitec refused to buy back its
inventory after terminating the dealer agreement.
We review a district court’s legal conclusions de novo. Samson v.
Apollo Res., Inc., 242 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir. 2001). A movant is entitled to a
judgment on partial findings “[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue
during a nonjury trial and the court finds against the party on that issue . . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c). Because our resolution of Fire Protection’s first
issue is dispositive of this appeal, we do not address its second issue.
2
Case: 21-20145 Document: 00516487923 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
No. 21-20145
Texas law governs in this diversity suit, and to determine Texas law,
we look first to the final decisions of the Supreme Court of Texas. Austin v.
Kroger Tex. L.P., 746 F.3d 191, 196 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam), certified
question answered, 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015). “When no decision gives
enough guidance, rather than make an Erie guess at the answer, we
sometimes ask the Supreme Court of Texas to answer the question for us”—
something we did in this case. Fire Protection Servs., Inc. v. Survitec Survival
Prod., 18 F.4th 802, 805 (5th Cir. 2021), certified question answered, No. 21-
1088, 2022 WL 1815046 (Tex. June 3, 2022), reh’g denied (Sept. 2, 2022).
Specifically, we asked: “Does the application of the Texas Dealers Act to the
parties’ agreement violate the retroactivity clause in article I, section 16 of
the Texas Constitution?” Id.The Supreme Court of Texas accepted our certification and answered
that the application of the Act in this case did not violate the constitutional
prohibition against retroactive laws in article I, section 16 of the Texas
Constitution. Fire Protection Servs., 2022 WL 1815046, at *1. Based on the
guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Texas, the district court erred in
concluding otherwise and in granting Survitec’s Rule 52(c) motion.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment on partial findings
and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3