Melinda Harmon

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in the Chapter 11 proceeding of Demay International, LLC, concerning a dispute between the debtor's largest secured creditor GSL and electrical contractor McCaffety over Proof of Claim 67. The bankruptcy court overruled GSL's objection and directed payment of $337,279 to McCaffety from escrow proceeds of the sale of the debtor's assets, based on McCaffety's asserted mechanic's and materialman's lien under Texas Property Code for electrical equipment installed in the debtor's leased premises. The district court affirmed, finding no error in the lower court's analysis. The core reasoning was that the installed electrical components qualified as "removables" or trade fixtures under Texas law that were subject to a valid mechanic's lien, which attached to the leasehold interest and survived transfer to the sale proceeds even after the lease was rejected in bankruptcy.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Harris County filed a state-court condemnation action seeking a perpetual easement for a public at-grade railroad crossing across Union Pacific's right-of-way as part of a road-extension project serving a proposed development. Union Pacific removed the case to federal court, asserting complete preemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, and moved in the alternative to refer factual questions to the Surface Transportation Board; Harris County sought remand. The district court denied remand, holding that the ICCTA preempts the proceeding because the crossing would unreasonably burden or interfere with Union Pacific's use of the track as a train-staging area, distinguishing the facts from routine crossings that have been held not preempted. The court also denied the referral motion.

propertyfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) alleging unlawful reduction of pension benefits by United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast and its cash balance plan. The court had previously entered final summary judgment for the plaintiffs on December 9, 2010. In this opinion, the court denies the defendants' Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment or for reconsideration or a new trial, finding that the motion rehashes prior arguments without showing manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or other grounds for relief, and that the court stands by its earlier orders after review. The court also addresses the plaintiff's Rule 54 motion seeking common-fund attorneys' fees and costs for the full litigation period plus additional fees under ERISA § 502(g) for the period after April 22, 2008, and explains the applicable standards and documentation requirements for such awards.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerns Omni USA's allegations that Parker-Hannifin improperly designed, manufactured, marketed, and serviced defective industrial oil seals used in agricultural irrigation gearboxes, leading to claims for breach of express and implied warranties, breach of contract, violations of the Texas DTPA, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and attorney's fees. Parker moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6), 8, and 9(b), or alternatively for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). The court outlined pleading standards requiring factual allegations to state plausible claims under Rule 8 and heightened particularity for fraud under Rule 9(b), which extends to DTPA claims, fraud by nondisclosure, and intertwined negligent misrepresentation claims based on the same facts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a homeowner's lawsuit against his insurer, Nationwide, seeking full payment under a Texas homeowners' policy for extensive property damage caused by Hurricane Ike in 2008. The plaintiff alleged that the insurer's adjuster performed an inadequate inspection and undervalued the claim, leading to claims for violations of the Texas Insurance Code (unfair settlement practices and prompt payment requirements), common law fraud, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted the defendant's renewed motion for partial dismissal under Federal Rules 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6), finding that the amended complaint's allegations of misrepresentation, a pattern of undervaluation, and failure to conduct a reasonable investigation were vague, conclusory, and lacked specific factual support. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to plead with particularity any affirmative misrepresentations or facts showing the insurer's liability had become reasonably clear, and that a bona fide dispute over claim value does not support bad faith or fraud claims.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved SHS Investment's claims against Nationwide Mutual Insurance for breach of an insurance contract after nonpayment of benefits for property damage from Hurricane Ike, along with extra-contractual claims alleging unfair settlement practices, violations of the Texas Insurance Code and DTPA, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Nationwide moved for partial dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the original and amended complaints failed to meet federal pleading standards. The court reviewed the requirements of Rule 8(a) for plausible claims under Twombly and Iqbal, as well as the heightened particularity standard of Rule 9(b) that applies to fraud-based allegations in statutory claims like those under the Insurance Code and DTPA. It explained that conclusory statements and formulaic recitations of elements are insufficient, and that bad faith claims require factual allegations showing no reasonable basis for denial at the time of the decision, while noting that a bona fide coverage dispute alone does not constitute bad faith.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Hare v. Hosto and Buchan, PLLC, plaintiff Mary Hare sued the defendant law firm and attorney, who had represented a bank in attempting to confirm an arbitration award against her for credit card debt, claiming violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and related Texas laws because the confirmation suit was filed after the one-year limitations period under the Federal Arbitration Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the bona fide error defense, while the plaintiff sought partial summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion and denied the plaintiff's, reasoning that the limitations issue was unsettled in the Fifth Circuit with a circuit split, making it a good faith error to which the defense applies, and that applying the FDCPA to such lawsuits would lead to absurd results as established in Supreme Court precedents like Heintz and Jerman.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This product liability case arose from the deaths of three individuals due to carbon monoxide poisoning from operating a Black Max 6560 portable generator indoors after Hurricane Ike. Plaintiffs and an intervenor brought negligence, product defect, wrongful death, and survivorship claims against multiple defendants, including engine manufacturers and distributors Fuji Limited, Fuji USA, and Subaru-Robin, as well as Home Depot; some claims settled, and Home Depot asserted cross-claims for indemnification. The court denied Home Depot's motion for summary judgment on its cross-claims, dismissed those claims, and granted the Fuji defendants' motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs and intervenor, resulting in their dismissal from the case. The core reasoning was that the component parts doctrine shielded the engine manufacturer and distributor from liability because the engine itself was not defective and they did not substantially participate in integrating it into the generator, and alternatively, there was no duty to warn as the risks of operating an internal combustion engine in an enclosed space were open and obvious.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerns a claim by Erin Sanborn-Alder, individually and as executrix of her late husband Clifford Alder's estate, seeking recovery of $400,000 in voluntary life insurance benefits under ERISA after LINA denied the claim. The plaintiff alleged wrongful denial of benefits under an employer-sponsored plan originally issued through Continental Airlines. The court granted LINA's motion for summary judgment after reviewing the administrative record and policy terms, concluding there was no evidence that Mr. Alder had elected voluntary group term life coverage while an active employee and thus no such coverage existed to continue upon his disability. All other defendants were dismissed with prejudice.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns Prospect Energy Corporation's motion for partial summary judgment on counterclaims against Dallas Gas Partners, LP and individual defendants for breaching a Release and Covenant Not to Sue in an LLC Membership Interest Purchase Agreement by filing a lawsuit shortly after signing. The court applies summary judgment standards under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and the law of the case doctrine, finding no applicable exceptions, and examines evidence including multiple signatures on the agreement by sophisticated parties, the prominent placement of the release terms, and the defendants' subsequent consultations with counsel. The court determines there is no genuine issue of material fact on the breach claims and grants the motion, awarding related attorney's fees and expenses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs Westboro Properties LLC and Stonehurst Capital, Inc. alleging that Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. fraudulently induced them in 1999 and 2000 to buy beneficial ownership interests in the Osprey Trust, a special purpose entity holding assets from Enron that were allegedly worthless, as part of a conspiracy to manipulate Enron's financial statements. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Texas Securities Act, the federal Securities Act of 1933, and common-law theories including aiding and abetting fraud and civil conspiracy. The court granted Deutsche Bank's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The court reasoned that the allegations failed to meet the plausibility and particularity pleading standards established in cases like Twombly and Iqbal, did not sufficiently state claims under either Texas or New York law, and encountered barriers such as the statute of limitations under federal securities provisions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns Klein Independent School District’s appeal of a Texas Education Agency hearing officer’s ruling under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that the district failed to provide student Per Hovem with a free appropriate public education and must reimburse his parents for private residential school expenses in Massachusetts. After reviewing the administrative record, the district court found that the district’s individualized education program inadequately addressed Hovem’s writing and communication disabilities, resulting in a denial of FAPE. The court affirmed the hearing officer’s determination on the FAPE violation and ordered reimbursement limited to educational expenses at Landmark School but reversed the award of residential expenses. The decision rested on the preponderance of evidence showing the district’s program did not meet the student’s specific needs despite procedural compliance in some areas.

civil rightsprocedure

This case was a tort action brought by the State of Louisiana against Rowan Companies, Inc., an offshore drilling company, seeking damages for negligence, trespass, public nuisance, and unjust enrichment based on Rowan's violations of federal environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, through unauthorized discharges of pollutants and garbage from its rigs into U.S. waters between 2002 and 2004. Rowan had previously pleaded guilty in a related federal criminal prosecution and paid millions in fines. The court granted Rowan's motions for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The core reasoning was that Louisiana provided no evidence of actual harm, impoverishment, or specific damages to the state or its resources from the violations, which was required to establish the elements of the civil causes of action despite the criminal convictions.

environmentcriminal lawtorts & liability

This case arose from the arrest and judicial sale of the vessel M/V FASE in Houston after ED & F Man Biofuels Ltd. asserted a claim, with intervening banks holding a preferred ship mortgage lien on the vessel and Clariant asserting rights to its chemical cargo aboard. The banks' cross-claim alleged that Clariant's contaminated cargo and refusal to timely accept or remove it caused a three-month delay in the vessel's sale, increased custodia legis expenses, and other damages, asserting claims for tortious interference with contract, trespass to chattel, negligent misrepresentation, and equitable relief. Clariant moved to dismiss the cross-claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the tortious interference and trespass claims for failure to state a viable cause of action under applicable maritime and Texas law while allowing the negligent misrepresentation claim to proceed because questions of material fact remained regarding falsity, reasonable care, and justifiable reliance.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

Robert Woodard, an inmate on Texas death row convicted of capital murder during a 2000 robbery of a convenience store, filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and death sentence. Respondent Rick Thaler moved for summary judgment. The district court, after reviewing the pleadings, record, and law under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), concluded that Woodard had not shown entitlement to federal habeas relief. The court therefore granted the motion for summary judgment, denied the petition, and declined to certify any issues for appeal.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

Roger Wayne McGowen, a Texas inmate under a capital murder conviction and death sentence for a 1986 bar robbery shooting, filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging constitutional errors in both his trial and sentencing. The court granted relief on the sentencing claim, finding error in the punishment-phase jury instructions and ordering Texas to either commute the sentence to life imprisonment or hold a new sentencing hearing. Relief was denied as to the conviction, with the court concluding after reviewing the record and pleadings that no constitutional errors infected the guilt phase. The rulings rested on application of habeas standards to the trial evidence, including McGowen's confession and identification issues.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case, removed to federal court on diversity grounds, involves a dispute over payment for construction work performed on a parkway in a Texas master-planned community, with the plaintiff alleging violations of the Texas Prompt Pay Act and common-law breach of contract. The defendants filed counterclaims for breach of implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance, promissory estoppel, and indemnity. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on those counterclaims after reviewing the record and briefing. The core reasoning addressed whether an implied warranty applies to sophisticated commercial parties rather than homebuyers, whether promissory estoppel is barred by an express contract, and whether an indemnity clause satisfies Texas fair notice requirements, finding that genuine issues or legal barriers prevented summary disposition.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involves pro se plaintiff Jeffrey Williamson, a former Programmer Analyst at American National Insurance Company (ANICO), who alleged disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and related state-law claims under the ADA and Texas law after suffering a stroke, seizures, and impairments starting in 2004; he claimed ANICO forced a stressful transfer, assigned him unsuitable duties like floor captain, denied proper sick leave, harassed him, and ultimately terminated him in 2006. The court addressed ANICO's motion for summary judgment on these claims. It granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that Williamson failed to exhaust administrative remedies on some claims, the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of severe or pervasive harassment creating an abusive environment, ANICO provided requested time off and the department-wide transfer did not constitute an adverse action or failure to accommodate, and Williamson did not show he was otherwise qualified for the position or that additional accommodations were required without undue hardship.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Lopez v. Kempthorne, plaintiff Felicia Lopez, a Hispanic female auditor with the Department of the Interior, sued her federal employer alleging discrimination on the bases of race, gender, national origin, and disability, as well as hostile work environment and retaliation, under Title VII and the ADA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Lopez failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies and could not establish prima facie cases or pretext for her claims. After reviewing the pleadings, evidence, and applicable standards, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding some claims time-barred or unsupported while allowing others to proceed based on genuine issues of material fact regarding adverse actions and causation. The decision applied established precedents on exhaustion, prima facie elements, temporal proximity for retaliation, and the requirements for showing disability under the ADA.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case was a negligence action under the Federal Tort Claims Act brought by the aircraft's insurers and the pilots' surviving relatives against the United States, alleging that FAA air traffic controllers at Houston TRACON and Hobby Tower failed to adequately monitor and warn the Gulfstream jet N85VT during an ILS approach in fog, causing the crash. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the government and found no liability. The core reasoning was that controllers owed only a general duty of care and had no duty to intensively monitor the aircraft's altitude absent notice of a problem, that the pilots' descent below the minimum descent altitude without runway visibility was the proximate cause, and that any controller contribution was minimal compared to pilot error.

torts & liabilityfederal power