MK Mall Holdings v. Underwriters at Lloyds

Opinion

Case: 25-30704 Document: 67-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-30704 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 4, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce

MK Mall Holdings, L.L.C., Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Underwriters at Lloyds of London; Indian Harbor Insurance Company; QBE Specialty Insurance Company; Steadfast Insurance Company; General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona; United Specialty Insurance Company; Lexington Insurance Company; HDI Global Specialty SE, formerly known as International Insurance Company of Hannover SE; Old Republic Union Insurance Company; Safety Specialty Insurance Company,

Defendants—Appellants.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:23-CV-1455

______________________________

Before Willett, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Case: 25-30704 Document: 67-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2026

No. 25-30704

Per Curiam: * This case concerns an insurance dispute that arose in the wake of Hurricane Ida. After having its coverage claims denied, MK Mall Holdings (MK Mall) brought this action in state court against its insurers, both domestic and foreign (collectively, the Insurers). The Insurers removed the case, and the district court subsequently compelled arbitration and stayed the litigation. Eighteen months later, the district court entered an order setting a deadline for the parties to complete arbitration and laying out a schedule for a settlement conference and evidentiary hearing in the event they failed to do so. The Insurers appealed that order, asking this court to vacate the district court’s order and to require the district court to adhere to its earlier order compelling arbitration and staying the litigation, in accord with this court’s opinion in Crescent City Surgical Operating Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., No. 25-30044, 2026 WL 1091579 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2026).

While this appeal was pending, MK Mall filed a renewed motion in the district court to reopen proceedings and reconsider its earlier order compelling arbitration and granting a stay of proceedings. Before the district court ruled on that motion, this court issued its opinion in Crescent City, 2026 WL 1091579. On April 28, 2026, the district court entered an order applying Crescent City and denying MK Mall’s renewed motion; maintaining the stay of litigation; and administratively closing the matter.

This court then vacated the district court’s April 28, 2026 order because that court lacked jurisdiction to enter it pending this appeal. Treating the district court’s order as an indicative ruling, we remanded this case for the limited purpose of allowing the court to re-enter its order. MK

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

3

Case: 25-30704 Document: 67-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/04/2026

No. 25-30704

Mall Holdings, L.L.C. v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, No. 25-30704, 2026 WL 2086138 (5th Cir. July 20, 2026). It did so on July 22, 2026.

MK Mall contends that the district court’s ruling mooted the appeal because it superseded the order on appeal. The Insurers counter that this court should expressly direct the district court to adopt Crescent City, and they urge us not to dismiss the appeal as moot, though they concede the issues on appeal have “narrowed.”

Indeed, with one jurisdictional issue corrected, there arises another:

This appeal is moot. The district court’s July 22, 2026 order applied Crescent City, and it also stayed and administratively closed the case pending arbitration. No deadlines, settlement conferences, or hearings are currently set. Accordingly, “there is no remedy we can provide” the Insurers and any opinion ruling on the merits of this appeal “would be merely advisory.” Smith v. Edwards, 88 F.4th 1119, 1126 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Blast Energy Servs., Inc., 593 F.3d 418, 423 (5th Cir. 2010)). To the extent the Insurers argue for application of the mootness exception for issues capable of repetition but that will evade review, this “argument fails out of the gate because [the Insurers] have not shown that any similar future [district court action] will evade review.” Id. at 1125.

Based on the foregoing, we DISMISS this appeal as moot.