Schwartz, et al v. TXU Corp, et al

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-11030
_____________________
RICHARD SCHWARTZ, Etc.; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
TXU CORP.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
TXU CORP.; ERLE NYE;
MICHAEL J. MCNALLY,
Defendants - Appellees,
versus
MARK L. ROTH, Individually, and as Trustee of the Mark L.
Roth, CPA, Money Purchase Plan & Trust, and Trustee of the
Mark Lawrence Roth Trust; JOCELYN K. ROTH, Individually, and
as Trustee of the Mark L. Roth, CPA, Money Purchase Plan & Trust,
Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Currently before us is an interlocutory appeal involving the
validity of an injunctive order issued by the district court. This
appeal was argued before the above panel on May 12, 2005. The

-- 1 of 3 --

2
panel was advised, however, that the parties had reached a
settlement that had been presented to the district court for
approval. Because that settlement would probably moot this
interlocutory appeal, we have, with the understanding of the
parties, held opinion pending approval of the settlement by the
district court. The district court, however, did not approve the
settlement of the federal action until November 8, 2005. See
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, No. 3:02-CV-2243, Nov. 8,
2005 (approving settlement and dismissing the action with
prejudice). This final judgment has been appealed.
In view of these changed circumstances, particularly that the
case has terminated in the district court, we REMAND to the
district court for the limited purpose of further consideration of
its injunctive order in the light of the changed circumstances.
The parties should address whether there is any further necessity
for the injunctive relief. The district court should determine
whether the injunction now should be dismissed, reinstated, or
modified under these changed circumstances and enter an order as it
determines appropriate, with some explanation for its order.
This panel retains control over any appeal that may result
from the injunctive order of the district court. We hereby notify
the parties that should appeal from the district court order be
deemed necessary, a new notice of appeal should be filed, which
will then be consolidated with this appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Furthermore, we request that, once the district court has
entered its new order, it forward a copy of the same to the clerk
of this court.
The case is REMANDED for the limited and specific purpose
stated.

-- 3 of 3 --