{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-20","fingerprint":"ewai:us:49b4aa","proof":"sha256:97f1b598909ff2450571d239111db60421ec98bfd4accfcae013187417767fec","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"for the Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"De Lois Phillips, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Estate of Fred Steven Phillips, Deceased; Amy Leanne","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Phillips; Laura Kylene Phillips Sublett; Kalli Janette","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Phillips Jackson; Stefanie Dene’ Phillips Feller,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Plaintiffs—Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"versus","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Incorporated,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Defendant—Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"consolidated with","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"_____________","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"_____________","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"De Lois Phillips, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Estate of Fred Steven Phillips, Deceased; Amy Leanne","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Phillips; Laura Kylene Phillips Sublett; Kalli Janette","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Phillips Jackson; Stefanie Dene’ Phillips Feller,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Plaintiffs—Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"versus","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"FILED","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"October 2, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Thomas B. Plunkett, III","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Clerk","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Johnson and Johnson Company, A New Jersey Corporation;","paragraph_id":"para_32","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Systems, Incorporated;","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Ethicon US, L.L.C.,","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Defendants—Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Appeals from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"for the Western District of Texas","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"USDC Nos. 1:23-CV-515, 1:24-CV-775","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Before Smith, Wiener, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"These are consolidated appeals of two related Texas products liability","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"cases. Both concern the same alleged breach of the implied warranty of","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"merchantability for a surgical stapler, resulting in a tragic death. After several","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"complications in the cases’ early procedural histories, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"dismissed both cases with prejudice. We AFFIRM.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"In September 2021, Fred Steven Phillips (“Phillips”) underwent","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"surgery to remove tissue from his colon at Hill Country Memorial Hospital","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"(“HCMH”), in Fredericksburg, Texas. Dr. Lance Love performed the","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"surgery, and during the procedure, he used a surgical stapler called the","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Ethicon Proximate Linear Cutter 75 (“the Stapler”) and staples called the","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"Stapler Linear 75 Reload Blue (“the Staples”) to connect two pieces of","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"Phillips’s large intestine, creating an anastomosis. Dr. Love documented that","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"there was “no evidence of tension, torsion, ischemia, or bleeding,” and he","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"believed the anastomosis was secure after the procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Phillips was discharged but was re-admitted a week later. Dr. Love","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"performed another surgery and discovered that feculent contents were","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"c/w No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"leaking from the anastomosis into Phillips’s abdominal cavity. Dr. Love","paragraph_id":"para_64","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"removed some tissue from the site, and Phillips was diagnosed with sepsis","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"and multisystem organ dysfunction. Another physician who examined the","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"removed tissue found a two-centimeter transmural defect—i.e., a hole—in","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"the staple line, which Plaintiffs allege was “caused by a failure of the staples.”","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"That defect allegedly caused Phillips’s sepsis, leading to months of treatment","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"and, ultimately, to his death in June 2022.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"The following year, Phillips’s widow, De Lois Phillips, and his four","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"children (together, “Plaintiffs”) sued (“Phillips I”). They first filed a","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"complaint against Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”), its subsidiary Ethicon, Inc.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"(“Ethicon”), and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (“EES”) (together, “the","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"Phillips I Defendants”) in the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs alleged","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"three Texas products liability causes of action, all relating to the Stapler and","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"the Staples: breach of the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"of the implied warranty of merchantability, and defective product design.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"The Phillips I Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and argued that the breach of","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"warranty claims failed for lack of presuit notice under Texas Business and","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"Commerce Code § 2.607(c)(1).","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"The parties proceeded with discovery while the motion to dismiss was","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"pending. In their responses to interrogatories, the Phillips I Defendants","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"asserted that EES was “the entity responsible for placing surgical stapler","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"devices into the stream of commerce.” With that information, Plaintiffs filed","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"an amended complaint against EES, dropping J&J and Ethicon from the suit","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"and reasserting only their two breach of warranty claims. That amended","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"complaint mooted the pending motion to dismiss. EES then moved to","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, again arguing that Plaintiffs failed to","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"state a claim and to provide EES with presuit notice.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"c/w No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"While EES’s motion was pending, the parties agreed to mediate but","paragraph_id":"para_96","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"still continued with discovery. During a deposition with HCMH’s risk","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"manager, Plaintiffs learned that J&J Healthcare Systems—not EES—had","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"sold the Stapler and Staples to HCMH, contrary to prior discovery responses","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"(and contrary to information defense counsel would later share). Plaintiffs’","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"counsel then raised with EES’s counsel the issue of amending their pleadings","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"to include additional sellers. EES’s counsel responded that amendment may","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"jeopardize the upcoming mediation. Aware that the scheduling order in place","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"permitted Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings for another month, Plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"chose not to file a new complaint to avoid compromising the mediation.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Before the scheduled mediation date, however, the magistrate judge","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"entered a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on EES’s motion to dismiss,","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"recommending that the breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"claim be dismissed with prejudice and the breach of implied warranty of","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"merchantability claim be dismissed without prejudice. First, the magistrate","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"judge found that Plaintiffs failed to allege that the Stapler and Staples were","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"used for a non-ordinary purpose, as required for an implied warranty of","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"fitness for a particular purpose claim. Second, the magistrate judge found","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"that Plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty of merchantability allegations were","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"too conclusory and rested only on an alleged product failure, rather than any","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"identified product defect. Third, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiffs’","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"warranty claims were also barred because Plaintiffs had not provided presuit","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"notice to EES. Finally, the magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiffs be","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"denied leave to amend their complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"15.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"Four days later, on June 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a new case in state","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"court (“Phillips II”) against J&J, EES, J&J Healthcare Systems, and HCMH","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"c/w No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"(“the Phillips II Defendants”). Plaintiffs pled that they had adequately","paragraph_id":"para_127","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"provided presuit notice to the Phillips II Defendants.","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"Then, on June 13, 2024, EES’s counsel notified Plaintiffs that it","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"intended to cancel the mediation and indicated that Ethicon US, LLC","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"(“Ethicon US”)—not J&J Healthcare Systems or EES—had actually sold","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"HCMH the Stapler and Staples.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"The next day, June 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion in Phillips I","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"asking the district court to enter an order adopting the R&R and to dismiss","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"the breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim without prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"Plaintiffs did not object to the R&R or otherwise challenge any of the","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"magistrate judge’s findings about their substantive allegations. They argued","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"only that they had made diligent efforts to comply with notice requirements","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"but ultimately submitted that the recommendation of dismissal without","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"prejudice for their breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim was","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"“correct.” They did not mention that they had already filed another suit.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"EES opposed the motion, asking the district court to dismiss Plaintiffs’","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim with prejudice because","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim and to provide presuit notice, and","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs did not file a reply.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"On July 10, 2024, the Phillips II Defendants removed the case to","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"federal court.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"The next day, the district court adopted in part the R&R in Phillips I","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"but dismissed both claims with prejudice and denied Plaintiffs leave to","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"denied.","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"c/w No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"The Phillips II Defendants then moved to dismiss on res judicata and","paragraph_id":"para_156","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"collateral estoppel grounds, based on the dismissal in Phillips I. Rather than","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"responding to that motion, Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint,","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"mooting the motion. The Phillips II Defendants then filed a second motion","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"to dismiss, again asserting that res judicata and collateral estoppel required","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"dismissal.","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"The magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"motion, finding that both preclusion doctrines applied. The district court","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"adopted the R&R over Plaintiffs’ objections and dismissed Phillips II with","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Plaintiffs appealed the final judgments from both Phillips I and Phillips","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"II, and we consolidated the cases.","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"Plaintiffs challenge three dispositions: (1) dismissal for failure to state","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"a claim in Phillips I, (2) dismissal with prejudice, together with denial of leave","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"to amend, in Phillips I, and (3) dismissal with prejudice in Phillips II, based on","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"the preclusive effects of dismissal with prejudice in Phillips I. We consider","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"each issue in turn and AFFIRM on all three grounds.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Plaintiffs first argue that the district court erred by dismissing Phillips I","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"for failure to state a claim. We review “a district court’s grant of a motion to","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"dismiss de novo.”1 Jack v. Evonik Corp., 79 F.4th 547, 561 (5th Cir. 2023).","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"1 Normally, “[w]hen a party who is warned of the requirement to file timely","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation fails to file any such","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"objections, and the magistrate judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions are accepted","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"by the district court, our review is for plain error.” Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs.,","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"c/w No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"“To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s complaint must contain","paragraph_id":"para_187","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"plausible on its face.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"A Texas breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim has four","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"elements: “1) the defendant sold or leased a product to the plaintiff; 2) the","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"product was unmerchantable; 3) the plaintiff notified the defendant of the","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"breach; and 4) the plaintiff suffered injury.” Polaris Indus., Inc. v. McDonald,","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"119 S.W.3d 331, 336 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003, no pet.); see also TEX. BUS.","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"& COM. CODE § 2.314. The third element requires presuit notice: “the","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"remedy.” TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.607(c)(1); McKay v. Novartis","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"Pharm. Corp., 751 F.3d 694, 706 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he notification","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"requirement must be satisfied before litigation.” (emphasis added)). “The","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"burden of alleging and proving proper notice is on the buyer.” Id. at 705","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"(cleaned up).","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"Plaintiffs admit they did not provide presuit notice to the only named","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"Defendant in the Phillips I amended complaint: EES.2 That concession","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). “When, however, the district court undertakes","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"an independent review of the record, our review is de novo, despite any lack of","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"objection.” Id. Here, the district court conducted a de novo review of the portions of the","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"R&R challenged in this appeal, even though Plaintiffs did not object to the R&R. Thus, we","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"also use a de novo standard.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"2 Plaintiffs do not renew their argument that post-filing notice to EES was","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"reasonable under the circumstances—the basis of their motion asking the district court to","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"adopt the R&R.","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"c/w No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"defeats their first argument. Lacking a vital element of their claim, Plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_219","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"have not shown that the district court erred in dismissing Phillips I.","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"Next, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by dismissing the","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"case with prejudice when Plaintiffs had acceded to the magistrate judge’s","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"recommendation of dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ arguments about","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"the impropriety of dismissal with prejudice are bound up with their","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"arguments about leave to amend and proceed in three inconsistent steps.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"First, Plaintiffs assert that dismissing Phillips I with prejudice was","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"impermissible because it left them without an opportunity to amend their","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"pleadings. Next, however, Plaintiffs admit that amendment would have been","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"futile because Plaintiffs could not have cured their presuit notice defect with","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"an amended complaint. Third and finally, what Plaintiffs really seek—and","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"what they had asked for at the district court—is dismissal without prejudice","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"in Phillips I, so they can provide presuit notice to the correct defendants and","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"file a new case (or, more practically, for us to reopen Phillips II).","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"We review a district court’s denial of leave to amend a complaint for","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"abuse of discretion.3 United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"Tex. Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff need not always file a","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"“formal motion” for leave to amend but must “set forth with particularity","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"3 The district court stated that amendment “would be futile” because Plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"“failed to explain how they could amend their complaint to present a viable claim.” While","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"we normally review denial of leave to amend based solely on futility grounds de novo,","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"mirroring the Rule 12(b)(6) standard used by the district court, see, e.g., City of Clinton v.","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148, 152 (5th Cir. 2010), this denial was for Plaintiffs’ failure","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"to provide any indication of how they could improve their pleadings. There are, therefore,","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"no proposed amended allegations to review for sufficiency using a Rule 12(b)(6) standard.","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Regardless, for the reasons outlined in this section, we would also affirm the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"decision looking at the record before it de novo.","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"c/w No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"the grounds for the amendment and the relief sought.” Id. at 387. Although","paragraph_id":"para_253","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"leave to amend should generally be freely given, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2),","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"it is “by no means automatic.” Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238,","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"254 (5th Cir. 2003) (affirming denial of leave to amend where “the plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"tacked on a general curative amendment request to the end of their response","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss” and did not provide any","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"facts that could have cured the defects in their pleading).","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"Similarly, whether to dismiss a claim with prejudice under Federal","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is within the district court’s discretion, so","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"we review a “district court’s decision to dismiss with or without prejudice”","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"for abuse of discretion. Foster v. Jesel, 164 F.4th 401, 404 (5th Cir. 2026) (per","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"curiam), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 11, 2026) (No. 25-7506).","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"Plaintiffs only requested permission to amend their complaint in a","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"single sentence at the end of their opposition to EES’s second motion to","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"dismiss: “[A]lternatively, should Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted,","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"Plaintiffs pray that they be granted leave to amend their First Amended","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"Original Complaint.” In the R&R recommending that EES’s motion be","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"granted, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court also deny","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"leave to amend. Plaintiffs did not object to that recommendation, did not","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"defend their factual allegations before the district court, and did not provide","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"any indication of valid grounds for amendment in their motion asking the","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"district court to dismiss their breach of implied warranty of merchantability","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"claim without prejudice. Moreover, on appeal, Plaintiffs concede—and","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"Defendants agree—that amendment would have been futile because they","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"could not cure their presuit notice defect with an amended complaint. Thus,","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"Plaintiffs did not provide the district court with any valid reason to grant leave","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"to amend. Without such a justification before it, the district court did not err","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"in denying leave to amend.","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"c/w No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"For similar reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in","paragraph_id":"para_285","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"dismissing Plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs accepted","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"the magistrate judge’s recommendation of dismissal without prejudice so","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"that they could cure their presuit notice defect and refile, but Plaintiffs did","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"not show the district court any new factual allegations that they would have","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"included in a new complaint, making refiling worthwhile. By choosing not to","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"object to the R&R on substantive grounds and to focus exclusively on notice","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"in their motion asking the district court to adopt the R&R, Plaintiffs failed to","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"demonstrate why dismissal without prejudice was appropriate. Additionally,","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"Plaintiffs had already amended their complaint once and elected not to","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"amend again after new revelations in discovery, leading the district court to","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"believe Plaintiffs had pled their best case.","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"Plaintiffs’ counsel made all of these choices despite their awareness of","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"additional relevant facts, which they had included in their Phillips II","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"complaint before they moved the district court to adopt the R&R in Phillips","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"I. The record does not show any attempt by Plaintiffs to notify the district","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"court of their filing Phillips II in state court, to share their new allegations with","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"the district court to avoid dismissal with prejudice, or to otherwise stay,","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"moot, or dismiss Phillips I before filing Phillips II. Because Plaintiffs’ counsel","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"opted not to explain what a new complaint would improve or remedy, the","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Phillips I with","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"C.","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"Finally, Plaintiffs do not challenge the substantive preclusion rulings","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"in Phillips II on appeal. They argue only that the Phillips II dismissal on","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"preclusion grounds was improper because the Phillips I dismissal with","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"prejudice was improper. As Defendants assert, without any briefing on the","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"preclusion analyses in Phillips II, Plaintiffs have forfeited any substantive","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"25-50116","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"c/w No. 25-50308","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"challenges to that ruling. See, e.g., Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393,","paragraph_id":"para_317","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"397 (5th Cir. 2021) (“A party forfeits an argument by . . . failing to adequately","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"brief the argument on appeal.”); Rodriguez v. City of Corpus Christi, 129 F.4th","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"890, 896 (5th Cir. 2025) (“An appellant’s failure to identify an error in the","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"district court’s analysis is the same as if she had not appealed the judgment","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"on that issue.”). Therefore, because we affirm the district court’s dismissal","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"with prejudice in Phillips I, we also affirm the district court’s dismissal with","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"prejudice on preclusion grounds in Phillips II.","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"Our sympathies are with Plaintiffs, who have suffered a horrible loss.","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"Given Plaintiffs’ concessions and forfeiture, we find that they have not shown","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"any reversible error in Phillips I or Phillips II. The district courts’ judgments","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"are AFFIRMED.","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"Case: 25-50116 Document: 94-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/02/2026","paragraph_id":"para_330"}],"word_count":2988,"cites":["556 U.S. 662","79 F.4th 547","751 F.3d 694","875 F.3d 243","336 F.3d 375","632 F.3d 148","340 F.3d 238","164 F.4th 401","8 F.4th 393","129 F.4th\n890"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"5cea75e016fd9da142f7ea19a314cf8d61fc714ce286578c2fc6f7e8e5ad59fb","source_url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50308-CV0.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-16T12:09:02.335+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca5-23-30454-2026-10-19","name":"United States v. Chaney","decided":"2026-10-19","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-23-30454-2026-10-19","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-23-30454-2026-10-19","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-23-30454-2026-10-19"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-30381-2026-10-16","name":"Banner v. Wright","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-30381-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-30381-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-30381-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-50879-2026-10-16","name":"GH America v. Fohn","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-50879-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-50879-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-50879-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-60663-2026-10-16","name":"McCain v. Mary Mahoney's","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-60663-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-60663-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-60663-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-60535-2026-10-15","name":"Consumers' Research v. FCC","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-60535-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-60535-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-60535-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca5-26-30021-2026-10-15","name":"Seacor Marine v. GOL","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-26-30021-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-26-30021-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-26-30021-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca5-26-20183-2026-10-13","name":"Civelli v. Mulacek","decided":"2026-10-13","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-26-20183-2026-10-13","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-26-20183-2026-10-13","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-26-20183-2026-10-13"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-30528-2026-10-12","name":"United States v. Tekippe","decided":"2026-10-12","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-30528-2026-10-12","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-30528-2026-10-12","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-30528-2026-10-12"},{"id":"us:ca5-26-10925-2026-10-10","name":"Gakou v. Warden","decided":"2026-10-10","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-26-10925-2026-10-10","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-26-10925-2026-10-10","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-26-10925-2026-10-10"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-50315-2026-10-09","name":"Hogan v. FCI, La Tuna Case Mgr","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-50315-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-50315-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-50315-2026-10-09"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"5cea75e016fd9da142f7ea19a314cf8d61fc714ce286578c2fc6f7e8e5ad59fb","recomputed_sha256":"5cea75e016fd9da142f7ea19a314cf8d61fc714ce286578c2fc6f7e8e5ad59fb","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-20T17:44:06.399Z"}},"hash":"sha256:97f1b598909ff2450571d239111db60421ec98bfd4accfcae013187417767fec","version":"legal-2026-10-20","expires":"2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T17:35:26","content_hash":"sha256:97f1b598909ff2450571d239111db60421ec98bfd4accfcae013187417767fec","revalidate_after":"2026-10-20T18:44:06.965Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca5-25-50308-2026-10-02","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-1c94d9129bf429ddae68809ffd37d893","response_hash":"sha256:97f1b598909ff2450571d239111db60421ec98bfd4accfcae013187417767fec"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T15:08:39.562Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca5-25-50308-2026-10-02&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":15216}}