Landmark Amer v. Ins Unlimited of LA

Case: 25-30396 Document: 112-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED ____________ August 19, 2026 No. 25-30396 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Landmark American Insurance Company, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant—Appellant, versus Insurance Unlimited of Louisiana, L.L.C., Defendant/Counter-Claimant—Appellee, Valerie Muse, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:20-CV-1263 ______________________________ Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Ho and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * In 2020, Landmark American Insurance Company (“Landmark”) sued Insurance Unlimited of Louisiana (“IU”), IU employee Valerie Muse, and several IU customers in federal court. Landmark sought a declaratory Case: 25-30396 Document: 112-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2026

No. 25-30396 judgment that, under a professional liability insurance policy it issued to IU, it was not responsible for customer claims arising out of Muse’s misconduct.

IU asserted counterclaims seeking coverage under the policy. In 2021, an IU customer not involved in the federal case sued IU, Muse, and Landmark in state court. IU asserted crossclaims against Landmark that mirrored its federal counterclaims.

IU moved to stay the federal case under Colorado River 1 abstention doctrine, which may apply “when there are parallel proceedings pending in federal and state courts.” Brown v. Pac. Life Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 384, 395 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court granted the motion and stayed the federal case “pending the outcome of the parallel state proceeding.” Landmark appeals the stay order.

During the pendency of this appeal, a trial on the coverage issues proceeded in the state court, which entered judgment on the merits.

Landmark appealed the state judgment, but that appeal has since been dismissed. Because there is a final judgment in the state proceeding, its “outcome” has been revealed, meaning the district court’s stay has expired by its own terms. 2 Accordingly, this appeal is moot. 3 See Motient Corp. v.

Case: 25-30396 Document: 112-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2026

No. 25-30396

Dondero, 529 F.3d 532, 537 (5th Cir. 2008) (“[A]n appeal must be dismissed [as moot] when ‘an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party[.]’” (quoting Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992))). * * * This appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

_____________________ because “the state proceedings ended during the pendency of that appeal”); Wilcox v. Hi- Desert Mem’l Healthcare Dist., 593 F. App’x 736, 737 (9th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (“Plaintiff’s argument that the district court erred when it stayed this action pending the resolution of state proceedings is moot, because the state proceedings have concluded.”).