Nancy Friedman Atlas

In Knapik v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, the plaintiff sued to halt foreclosure proceedings on a multi-unit Galveston County property he used partly as a weekend home, alleging a violation of Texas Property Code section 51.002(d) notice requirements for residences, various estoppel and inequitable conduct claims, that the defendant lacked possession of the original note, and seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not in default. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the entire case. The court reasoned that the statute's extra notice protections apply only to a debtor's primary residence and not to weekend homes, following an Erie guess based on Texas appellate precedent; the estoppel claims lacked sufficient factual support or were otherwise nonviable; Texas law permits foreclosure by a mortgage servicer without holding the original note; and the declaratory judgment request depended on the dismissed substantive claims.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this foreclosure case, the Penrods sued Bank of New York Mellon (BONY) in state court, later removed to federal court, seeking to prevent foreclosure on their Texas home equity loan secured by a deed of trust; they alleged BONY was not the proper holder of the note, that required documents were not provided at closing, and that various notices and responses under federal and state statutes (including the Texas Constitution's home equity provisions, FDCPA, and RESPA) were deficient. BONY moved for summary judgment, arguing it held valid authority to foreclose following assignment of the note and deed of trust. The district court granted the motion, finding no genuine dispute of material fact because the Penrods offered no competent evidence to support their claims, many of which were abandoned or contradicted by the record, such as signed receipts and notices. The court applied the summary judgment standard under Rule 56, requiring the non-movant to designate specific facts rather than rely on allegations, and concluded BONY was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its foreclosure authority.

propertyprocedure

The case involves a contract dispute between Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T Texas and F. Cary Fitch d/b/a Affordable Telecom over alleged failures to pay amounts due under their 2007 Two-Way CMRS Interconnection Agreement, which governs the exchange of telecommunications traffic between their networks. AT&T Texas moved for summary judgment on its claims and Affordable's counterclaims, while Affordable moved for partial summary judgment; the court granted AT&T Texas's motion in part and denied it in part, and denied Affordable's motion in full. The core reasoning centered on the regulatory framework of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and related FCC rules, prior state commission arbitration decisions that limited Affordable to paging services only (not ISP traffic), and the specific payment and service terms of the 2007 Agreement, which the court interpreted to resolve issues of liability and damages based on the record evidence. The court also addressed procedural aspects of the motions and remaining counterclaims lacking evidentiary support.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a lawsuit by Deborah Patton against her former employer, eCardio Diagnostics LLC, alleging retaliation for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after her daughter was injured in a car accident. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that Patton did not qualify for FMLA leave because her adult daughter did not have a disability preventing self-care and that the termination was for legitimate performance reasons. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether Patton was caring for her daughter during her absence and whether the decision to terminate her was made before or because of the leave, based on the timing of hiring a replacement and lack of prior performance complaints.

labor & employment

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute arising from a construction defect lawsuit in which Concierge Care Nursing Centers, as the purported assignee of a general contractor, sought indemnity from multiple insurers after settling claims for water damage and mold at a nursing facility. The insurers moved for summary judgment based on anti-assignment provisions in their policies that barred the assignment of rights without consent. The court granted summary judgment to the insurers, concluding that an alleged breach of the duty to defend does not estop an insurer from enforcing a valid anti-assignment clause under Texas law. The core reasoning is that Texas courts consistently enforce such clauses post-loss without requiring a showing of prejudice, distinguish them from "no action" clauses that may be subject to estoppel arguments, and have no precedent supporting the estoppel defense here.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, former employee Warren Brooks sued his employer AAA Cooper Transportation for wrongful termination after he was fired following a random DOT-mandated drug test in which the testing facility reported issues with sample validity, an alleged admission of marijuana use, and failure to provide an observed specimen within the required timeframe. The employer had investigated the incident, terminated Brooks, and reported the results as required by federal regulations for commercial drivers. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, holding that the company was protected by qualified privilege in its communications about the test results, that Brooks failed to raise a genuine issue of malice, and that there was no private right of action under the relevant DOT drug-testing rules.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This ERISA case arose after plaintiff Pete Gonzales, an AutoZone employee, suffered a workplace injury, applied for benefits under the company's ERISA-governed occupational injury plan, and had his claim denied. Gonzales sued AutoZone and related defendants, asserting ERISA claims for declaratory and injunctive relief plus breach of fiduciary duty, along with state-law claims including breach of contract, negligence, and premises liability. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, while denying their motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. Core reasoning focused on ERISA's civil enforcement provisions and preemption of state claims, the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards requiring plausible factual allegations, and the limited scope of the plan's arbitration clause.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a Texas plaintiff insured under a policy from Lexington Insurance Company whose property was damaged by Hurricane Ike; the plaintiff sued Lexington along with Texas-based adjusters Cunningham Lindsey and several individual defendants, alleging violations of the Texas Insurance Code and related claims for improper claims handling and failure to pay policy benefits. Lexington removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the non-diverse Texas defendants were improperly joined. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Texas defendants were not improperly joined. The core reasoning was that there was no actual fraud in the pleadings and a reasonable basis existed to conclude the plaintiff might recover against the in-state defendants under Texas law, destroying complete diversity.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

In Caldwell v. Thaler, state inmate Robert Leslie Caldwell filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Texas robbery conviction, which stemmed from an incident where he stole two televisions from a Walmart and allegedly struck an employee. The district court considered the state court records, the respondent's motion for summary judgment, and Caldwell's reply, then granted the motion and dismissed the petition. The core reasoning was that Caldwell's claims, including issues related to juror impartiality, ineffective assistance of counsel, and procedural errors at trial, were either unexhausted, procedurally defaulted, waived, or lacked merit under applicable federal habeas standards and state court findings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Nanon McKewn Williams' 1995 capital murder conviction for a 1992 shooting death during a drug deal robbery, where the prosecution relied heavily on flawed forensic evidence and the testimony of co-participant Vaal Guevara. The court addressed whether trial counsel's failure to obtain expert assistance on ballistics and pathology issues constituted ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment. The court decided to vacate the conviction. The core reasoning was that post-trial evidence demonstrated significant flaws in the autopsy, bullet analysis, and the sequence of shots, which undermined the prosecution's theory that Williams fired the fatal shotgun blast and thereby prejudiced the defense.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which plaintiffs Mark Kuhrt, Gilbert Lopez, and R. Allen Stanford sought defense costs under Directors and Officers policies issued by Underwriters at Lloyd's and Arch Specialty Insurance Co. for criminal charges and SEC civil litigation arising from their roles at Stanford Financial Group entities. The court held a preliminary injunction hearing and granted the insurers' motion to vacate an existing injunction that had required them to advance defense costs. The core reasoning was that the insurers demonstrated a substantial likelihood the money laundering exclusion in the policies applied, based on forensic accounting evidence showing misappropriation of investor funds from Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit, inflated asset valuations, and related-party transactions inconsistent with representations to clients. The decision turned on findings that plaintiffs' conduct met the policy definition of money laundering, with the court noting the evidence would satisfy even higher standards of proof.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc. (HIT) against Helix Health, LLC and Steven Murphy, arising from a 2009 settlement agreement that resolved an earlier trademark infringement and cybersquatting lawsuit. Under the agreement, HIT paid $7,500 and withdrew its appeal, while Defendants agreed to abandon their trademark application, transfer certain domain names, cease using "Helix Health" identifiers (except for limited permitted variations), and change their corporate name by specified deadlines. After a bench trial on the remaining claims, the court found that Defendants breached the settlement by failing to meet these deadlines, as shown by evidence of continued use of prohibited marks on websites, blogs, and partnerships, and by untimely or incomplete compliance efforts. The court awarded HIT specific performance of the agreement terms, along with attorney's fees as damages, while rejecting Defendants' counterclaim under the Federal Wiretap Act for lack of supporting evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case centers on allegations that Duke Energy's former executives secretly formed a company to seize a corporate opportunity to buy a North Carolina power plant and partnered with the defendants to resell it to Duke at a substantially higher price, concealing the insiders' involvement. Duke brought claims including aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and related statutory violations against groups of defendants. The court conducted a choice-of-law analysis favoring North Carolina law and evaluated multiple motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), along with challenges to personal jurisdiction and venue. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing certain claims for insufficient pleading or lack of jurisdiction while allowing others to proceed based on the alleged facts supporting the existence of fiduciary duties and the defendants' participation.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case stems from a prior trademark infringement lawsuit between Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc. (HIT) and Helix Health, LLC along with its owner, which was resolved through a 2009 settlement agreement requiring HIT to make a payment, the defendants to abandon a trademark application and limit use of certain names like 'Helix Health of Connecticut,' and the transfer of domain names. HIT then filed this suit claiming breach of the settlement's cessation-of-use clause and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, while the defendants brought counterclaims for breach, invasion of privacy, and violations of federal wiretap and stored communications laws based on alleged email interception. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied HIT's motion in full and granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on key elements such as contract performance and likelihood of confusion that precluded judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a wage dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act in which two in-home appliance service technicians employed by Sears claimed they were entitled to pay for time spent commuting in company vans under the voluntary Home Dispatch Program and for brief morning activities at home such as logging into a laptop to receive assignments. The technicians argued that these periods constituted compensable work time rather than ordinary commuting. The court granted Sears' motions for summary judgment on all claims and denied the motion for class certification as moot. It reasoned that the first and last commutes were ordinary travel not made compensable by the minimal home activities, which were de minimis and not integral to the technicians' principal duties of servicing appliances. The court also rejected related state-law claims for the same reasons.

labor & employment

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Associated Automotive, Inc. (AAI) sued Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company, alleging breach of the duty to defend by failing to appeal a state-court judgment that held AAI jointly and severally liable for a worker's injury damages under a single-business-enterprise theory later invalidated by the Texas Supreme Court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment addressing whether AAI's claim was barred by res judicata or waiver from a prior federal coverage action and whether the policy required Acceptance to pursue an appeal. The court denied Acceptance's motion and granted in part and denied in part AAI's cross-motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This employment discrimination case was brought by two Black Jamaican plaintiffs, a married couple, against their former employer, a shipping company, alleging claims of race and national-origin discrimination and hostile work environment under Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; gender and pregnancy discrimination under the same statutes; FMLA interference and retaliation; and Texas state-law libel and fraud. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust certain claims, did not establish prima facie cases of discrimination or retaliation, produced no evidence that the employer's stated reasons for adverse actions (such as not sponsoring work visas or terminating employment) were pretextual, failed to show FMLA eligibility, and did not raise fact issues on the libel or fraud claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a civil rights lawsuit brought by Stephen Gilbert under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against police officers, the City of Bryan, two doctors, and St. Joseph Hospital. Gilbert alleged that after being shot by officers while fleeing an armed robbery, medical providers intentionally delayed administering pain medication at the hospital in order to allow police to question him without the influence of morphine. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants and dismissed the claims. It reasoned that there was no evidence of an agreement or conspiracy between law enforcement and the medical defendants to delay treatment, that the doctors and hospital did not act under color of state law, and that Gilbert failed to establish any constitutional violation by the City defendants.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcareprocedure

In Maldonado v. Thaler, a Texas death-row inmate convicted of capital murder during a robbery petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction and sentence after exhausting state remedies. The district court considered the state's motion for summary judgment, reviewed the full state court record including trial, appeal, and post-conviction proceedings, and applied the standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court granted summary judgment to the respondent, denying all claims for relief. Core reasoning centered on the deferential AEDPA framework, which limited federal review of state court decisions on issues such as ineffective assistance of counsel and trial errors, finding no grounds to overturn the conviction or sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Floyd v. CIBC World Markets, Inc., the Chapter 11 trustee for Seven Seas Petroleum sued CIBC for claims including aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation arising from CIBC's role as financial advisor and its issuance of a fairness opinion on a $45 million secured financing transaction with Chesapeake Energy and company insiders that allegedly contributed to Seven Seas' insolvency and bankruptcy. The court addressed CIBC's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). It granted the motion in part by dismissing all claims against CIBC World Markets, Inc. for failure to allege any direct involvement and dismissing certain tort claims against CIBC World Markets Corp. based on an exculpatory clause in the engagement letter limiting liability except for gross negligence or willful misconduct, while denying the motion as to other claims that met pleading standards under Rules 8 and 9(b). The reasoning centered on the absence of individualized allegations against one entity, the enforceability of contractual limitations on liability, and the sufficiency of facts pled for remaining causes of action.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability