Cal-Tex v. LTM

── Cal-Tex v. LTM ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 04, 2026 Category: Private Civil Federal Case: 25-50854 Document: 70-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50854 FILED June 4, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Cal-Tex Compression Services, L.L.C., Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus LTM Consulting, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:25-CV-893 ______________________________ Before Smith, Willett, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Cal-Tex Compression Services, L.L.C. appeals from an order abstaining under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d) and remanding this case to state court. Because § 1334(d) bars appellate review of that order, LTM’s motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction is GRANTED, and Cal-Tex’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50854 Document: 70-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 No. 25-50854 I Cal-Tex sued LTM Consulting, L.L.C. in Bexar County, Texas, alleging breach of contract, usury, and tortious interference arising from a loan agreement that financed Cal-Tex’s purchase of oil and gas compressors. LTM counterclaimed against Cal-Tex and several affiliated parties, asserting breach of contract, fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, and other claims. The following year, Cal-Tex filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. In re Cal-Tex Compression Servs., LLC, No. 25-32180, Dkt. 1 (Apr. 22, 2025). Shortly thereafter, two third-party defendants filed a notice of removal in the bankruptcy court. Because § 1452(a) requires removal to the district court where the state action is pending, the bankruptcy court sua sponte transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). After transfer, LTM moved for abstention and remand, arguing that § 1334(c)(2) required the district court to abstain. LTM asserted that the case involved non-core, state-law claims between nondiverse parties and had no independent basis for federal jurisdiction apart from Cal-Tex’s bankruptcy. LTM served the motion electronically through the district court’s filing system on the attorneys listed for Cal-Tex on the docket. Cal-Tex did not respond. The district court granted LTM’s motion. It determined that abstention was mandatory because the removed action was: (1) subject to a timely abstention motion; (2) based on state law; (3) related to a bankruptcy case; (4) unsupported by any independent basis for federal jurisdiction; and (5) capable of timely adjudication in the pending state-court action. See In re Grober, 100 F.3d 1195, 1206 (5th Cir. 1996). Having found all five 2 Case: 25-50854 Document: 70-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 No. 25-5