Fuentes v. DIRECTV, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40145
Summary Calendar
ROBI FUENTES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DIRECTV, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(7:02-CV-146)
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robi Fuentes appeals the district court’s enjoining her small-
claims-court action and imposing sanctions against her attorney.
In July 2000, Fuentes filed in Texas state court a putative
class action related to a DIRECTV $4.20 late-payment fee. The
court granted DIRECTV’s motion to stay and compel arbitration,
pursuant to the Customer Agreement, in which the parties had agreed
to mandatory arbitration if informal resolution of a dispute
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
failed. In April 2002, the arbitrator found Fuentes’ claim moot
because the late fee had been reversed and credited to her account.
Subsequently, Fuentes filed in Texas small-claims court and
then in district court, in her amended complaint, the same late-
payment-fee claim raised in the earlier state-court action.
In July 2002, the district court enjoined Fuentes and her
attorney from proceeding with the state small-claims-court action
and compelled arbitration. The arbitrator dismissed Fuentes’
claims in February 2004. Shortly thereafter, Fuentes moved in
state court to vacate the arbitrator’s ruling. In September 2005,
the district court confirmed the 2004 arbitration award, dismissed
the action, and imposed sanctions against Fuentes and her attorney
for $10,791.89, a portion of DIRECTV’s attorney’s fees and
expenses. By order dated 10 September 2006, the sanctions were
amended to be against Fuentes’ attorney only.
Ruling an injunction may issue as an exception to the Anti-
Injunction Act is a question of law reviewed de novo. E.g.,
Regions Bank of La. v. Rivet, 224 F.3d 483, 488 (5th Cir. 2000).
Pursuant to the Act, “[a] court of the United States may not grant
an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as
expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid
of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments”.
28 U.S.C. § 2283.
2
“[S]ome federal injunctive relief may be necessary to prevent
a state court from so interfering with a federal court’s
consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the
federal court’s flexibility and authority to decide that case”.
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398
U.S. 281, 295 (1970). The Act’s exception for protecting or
effectuating a federal-court judgment “‘prevents multiple
litigation of the same cause of action and ... assures the winner
in a federal court that he will not be deprived of the fruits of
his victory by a later contrary state judgment which the Supreme
Court may or may not decide to review’”. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers v. Nix, 512 F.2d 125, 130-31 (5th Cir. 1975)
(quoting Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of Am.,
438 F.2d 1286, 1312 (5th Cir. 1971)).
Needless to say, enjoining the state small-claims-court action
was necessary to protect the district court’s order compelling
arbitration of Fuentes’ late-fee-payment claim. Otherwise, the
determination that arbitration was the contractually-agreed-upon
method for resolving that claim would be undermined.
As noted, the district court issued two sanctions orders:
one, on 30 September 2005, against Fuentes and her attorney; and
another, on 10 September 2006, amending the first, to sanction only
Fuentes’ attorney. On 28 October 2005, Fuentes filed a notice of
appeal of the order of dismissal. Because the sanctions order was
3
not final, it could not be appealed at that time. Along that line,
on 11 November 2006, Fuentes withdrew her amended notice of appeal
for the 10 September 2006 amended sanctions order. Accordingly,
this court lacks jurisdiction over the issue. E.g., Burnley v.
City of San Antonio, 470 F.3d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 2006) (proper
filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional).
Fuentes also appeals a constructive injunction she claims was
entered against her attorney prohibiting the filing of new actions
against DIRECTV. Apparently, the sanctions orders are construed to
enjoin such filings. Because Fuentes did not file a notice of
appeal for the sanctions, we lack jurisdiction for this issue as
well.
AFFIRMED
4