Fontenot v. McCraw
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1055
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Fontenot alleged the City of Houston misreported a conviction for failure to produce a license as unlicensed driving, causing DPS surcharges under the Texas Driver Responsibility Program.
- DPS relied on third-party reports to identify drivers who violated the relevant code sections, collecting surcharges annually for three years and remitting them to the Comptroller.
- Plaintiffs1 brought a §1983 suit against the City, two private vendors, and Texas officials McCraw and Combs, seeking record-correction and refund relief, with class action allegations added later.
- The district court granted some dismissals based on sovereign immunity and standing, but denied others, and McCraw appealed the denial of a jurisdictional challenge.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding several jurisdictional defects—standing, mootness, and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity—bar federal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek record correction | Fontenot has standing to request record correction; Miller and Zamarron have standing for all claims. | Fontenot lacks standing for correction; Miller and Zamarron lack standing for some claims due to mootness. | Fontenot lacks standing for correction; Miller and Zamarron have standing for their claims. |
| Mootness of record-correction claims | As long as any live controversy remains, the class claims should proceed. | DPS corrected Miller's and Zamarron's records, destroying live disputes; voluntary cessation does not preserve moot claims. | The record-correction claims are moot; the class claims are moot and nonjusticiable. |
| Relation back to preserve class claims | Relation back should preserve class viability under Sosna/Geraghty principles. | No pending or filed class certification motion existed when records were corrected; Zeidman does not apply here. | Relation-back exceptions do not preserve the class action; mootness governs. |
| Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and refunds | Refunds are permissible under Ex parte Young as prospective relief. | Refund relief is retroactive monetary relief barred by Eleventh Amendment; cannot be ancillary to prospective relief. | Refund claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; district court must dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction. |
| Overall jurisdiction and dismissal | Federal jurisdiction remains on some assertive federal questions and standing. | Multiple jurisdictional defects destroy federal jurisdiction. | The district court order is vacated and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (class-action mootness with certification timing concerns)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (relation back and mootness in class actions; substantive claims focus)
- Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981) (early relation-back extending class action mootness after certification)
- Murray v. Fidelity Nat. Fin., Inc., 594 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2010) (no Zeidman extension when no pending certification motion)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (ancillary effects of prospective relief cannot violate state sovereign immunity)