Barbara M. Lynn

This case is a bankruptcy proceeding in which the liquidating trustee for Bruno's Supermarkets sued its former corporate parents (including Lone Star entities), affiliates, and individual officers and directors to recover alleged fraudulent transfers and preferences under the Bankruptcy Code and Alabama's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, as well as to assert breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims under Delaware law. The district court addressed multiple motions to dismiss, objections to exhibits, and a request for a more definite statement. It denied the motions filed by the Lone Star and BI-LO–Bruno's defendants, granted in part and denied in part the Bruno's Officer Defendants' motion (dismissing some claims for insufficient pleading while granting leave to amend), and granted in part the trustee's motion to strike exhibits. The core reasoning focused on whether the amended complaint's allegations of insolvency, lack of reasonably equivalent value, and intercompany payments satisfied Rule 8's notice-pleading standard and the substantive elements of the UFTA and Bankruptcy Code claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act and analogous state laws brought by a former social worker against hospice providers alleging they improperly enrolled ineligible patients for hospice care, failed to deliver required services, billed Medicare and Medicaid for unnecessary equipment, offered illegal kickbacks, and retaliated against the relator by demoting and firing her. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) after taking judicial notice of certain materials. The court determined that allegations concerning locations other than the relator's specific office lacked the particularity required by Rule 9(b), some state claims were barred because the states declined to intervene or due to statutes of limitations, and certain retaliation and specific false claims allegations could proceed.

healthcarecriminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned LifeCare's efforts to recover payment from two employer-sponsored health benefit plans administered by IMA for services provided to participants Wall and Evans after they were transferred to LifeCare facilities following acute medical events. IMA denied coverage, concluding that LifeCare operated skilled nursing facilities rather than hospitals under the plans' definitions, leading LifeCare to assert ERISA claims for benefits as well as state-law claims for breach of contract and deceptive practices. The court granted LifeCare summary judgment on its ERISA claims while granting the defendants summary judgment on the non-ERISA claims. The decision rested on review of the plan terms, the administrative record, and application of the abuse-of-discretion standard to the claims administrator's coverage determinations.

healthcarelabor & employment

In this case, homeowners Curtis and Jamie Marsh sued Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, a law firm, and substitute trustees in Texas state court, alleging breach of contract and fraud related to a denied loan modification agreement and an attempted foreclosure on their home. The bank defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the Texas-resident law firm and trustees were improperly joined. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the non-diverse defendants were properly named. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that there was no reasonable basis to predict liability against the law firm or trustees under Texas law, including the Texas Property Code provisions shielding trustees from certain claims when acting in that capacity. As a result, the case remains in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.

procedureproperty

This case involves a homeowner's dispute with the servicer and owner of his mortgage note and deed of trust over force-placed insurance charges, attempts to cure a payment default following a violent incident at the property, and communications regarding loan modification and foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiff asserted claims including breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act, and unreasonable collection efforts after defendants returned partial payments, declined to accept cure amounts, and pursued acceleration and foreclosure notices that were later rescinded. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, finding no genuine issues of material fact on certain claims while allowing others to proceed based on evidence of disputed charges, contract terms in the deed of trust, and debt collection practices.

propertybusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Cox v. Hilco Receivables, LLC, the plaintiff alleged that defendants Hilco and Central violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Texas Debt Collection Act by attempting to collect a vehicle loan deficiency balance that Hilco had purchased, because Hilco lacked the license required under Chapter 348 of the Texas Finance Code to hold or act as a holder of such motor vehicle retail installment contracts. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that no license was required, that the lack of a license alone did not violate the federal or state statutes, and that Hilco had no direct contact with the plaintiff. The court denied the motions in part and granted them in part. It reasoned that the statute and related administrative rules bar acquiring such debts without a license, making the debt unowed to Hilco, and that a 2009 statutory amendment clarifying the definition of "holder" does not apply retroactively absent explicit language.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a disabled plaintiff suing a school district under Title II of the ADA and related state laws, alleging that a ramp and parking spaces at an athletic field failed to comply with accessibility standards. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on the ramp issue but, upon reconsideration prompted by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Frame v. City of Arlington, reevaluated the claims. The court granted the defendant's motion for reconsideration and summary judgment, dismissing the claims as to both the ramp and parking spaces. The core reasoning was that, under Frame, a plaintiff lacks a private right of action to challenge noncompliant infrastructure unless it effectively denies meaningful access to the entity's services, programs, or activities, and the plaintiff here presented no evidence of such a denial.

civil rightsprocedure

In Greer v. Richardson Independent School District, plaintiff Leslie Greer, a wheelchair user, sued the school district under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination due to the lack of accessible seating at Berkner High School's football stadium bleachers, where she had attended her son's game and watched from an inaccessible walkway. The district court addressed multiple motions, including cross-motions for summary judgment, a motion to exclude expert testimony, and issues related to the defendant's undue burden defense. The court dismissed a portion of the claims for lack of standing but found that Greer had standing to seek injunctive relief based on her past visits and stated intentions to return to the stadium. It denied the motion to exclude expert testimony as moot in relevant part, granted the parties' summary judgment motions in part and denied them in part, and denied the motion for sanctions, while reserving decision on certain issues pending further filings.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute over mortgage insurance claims where plaintiff AHMSI sued defendant Triad for damages and declaratory relief after Triad refused to pay on certificates issued under certain Master Policies. Triad moved to stay or transfer the action under the first-to-file rule, citing its earlier-filed Delaware bankruptcy court adversary proceeding against related entities that challenges the validity of the same Master Policies and seeks rescission. The court granted a stay pending the Delaware court's resolution of the adversary proceeding. The core reasoning was that the cases substantially overlap on the threshold issue of the policies' validity, the first-to-file rule applies based on principles of comity even without identical parties, and efficiency favors resolving that common question in the earlier case before addressing AHMSI's claims.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Janice McCall, a Southwest Airlines pilot and union member, who was terminated for failing to deice an aircraft before a flight but later reinstated through a settlement between the airline and her union, SWAPA, that reduced the penalty to a 30-day suspension. McCall sued SWAPA and Southwest for breach of the duty of fair representation, breach of the collective bargaining agreement, retaliatory discharge, and defamation, alleging the union acted arbitrarily in approving the settlement without her consent. SWAPA moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust internal union remedies and failure to state a claim. The court denied the 12(b)(1) motion, finding that McCall was not required to exhaust internal remedies under the Clayton factors due to potential union hostility and inadequacy of procedures, and granted in part and denied in part the 12(b)(6) motion on the various claims. The core reasoning centered on hybrid actions under labor law allowing suits without full exhaustion when the union breaches its duty, along with standards for evaluating jurisdiction and pleading sufficiency.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Architettura, Inc., an architecture firm, and DBSI Cumberland at Granbury LP and related defendants over the use of architectural site plans created for an apartment complex project. Architettura claimed copyright infringement after providing initial plans and later demanding payment and ownership acknowledgment, which the defendants did not accept, and after another firm took over the project using similar plans. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The reasoning centered on the existence of an implied nonexclusive license granted to the defendants that permitted continued use of the work even after the offer to license was withdrawn, based on copyright law principles regarding termination of grants and derivative works.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a business dispute between plaintiff Eagle Metal Products (formerly VPT, Inc.), a manufacturer of steel connector plates, and defendant Keymark Enterprises, LLC, regarding a 2004 software license agreement for truss design programs used by plaintiff's customers. After a preliminary injunction and the filing of a third amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that individual defendant Keith Dietzen and competitor defendants Automatic Stamping, LLC and William H. Black, Jr. conspired to violate the agreement, misappropriate trade secrets, commit fraud, defamation, and related torts. Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that the Texas long-arm statute and due process permitted specific jurisdiction over certain claims based on minimum contacts and effects in Texas but not others.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves plaintiffs Resonant Sensors Inc. and Resonant Optics Inc., exclusive licensees of two University of Texas patents on guided-mode resonant sensors, suing defendant SRU Biosystems for alleged infringement of those patents through its BIND line of biosensor products, along with claims for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of SRU's patents and for tortious interference with business relations arising from SRU's communications with the university licensor. SRU moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, analyzing issues including standing to enforce the licensed patents, the sufficiency of infringement allegations under 35 U.S.C. § 271, personal jurisdiction, and whether the tortious interference claim could proceed without contractual privity.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a motion by Texas Capital Bank to transfer Weaver's declaratory judgment action to the bankruptcy court handling SL Management LLC's prior Chapter 11 case. Weaver sought a declaration that the bank's default judgment against him on personal guaranties violated the confirmed plan of reorganization, which had satisfied the underlying debt through conveyance of collateral. The court granted the transfer motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1412, finding the action at least "related to" the bankruptcy because its outcome turned on interpretation of the plan and confirmation order. Although the dispute was between non-debtors and would not affect the estate, the bankruptcy court was deemed best positioned to construe its own orders, consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent on bankruptcy jurisdiction and core proceedings.

procedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Russell Cates, indicted for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) after officers found a revolver during a warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving following his arrest on an outstanding burglary warrant. Cates moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court denied the motions to suppress, concluding that Cates lacked standing because he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the stolen vehicle. The court reasoned that the burden was on Cates to prove he innocently possessed the car without knowledge it was stolen, which he failed to do, and that possessors of stolen automobiles lack a reasonable expectation of privacy recognized by society under precedents like United States v. Lanford.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case is a wrongful death suit brought by the family of William Tobin, who suffered a fatal medical event after rushing between connecting flights at O'Hare Airport following a mechanical delay on an American Eagle flight. Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence in the gate agents' advice, failure to train employees on AED use and assisting disabled passengers, and negligence per se under the Air Carrier Access Act. The court applied Texas choice-of-law rules and addressed issues including proximate cause, federal preemption of state claims, and the scope of airline duties. It granted defendants' summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a Texas homeowner who sued his mortgage lender and an employee in state court to stop foreclosure after defaulting on payments, alleging breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The lender removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, arguing the employee was not a Texas resident and was fraudulently joined. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, determining that complete diversity existed because the employee had no viable state-law claims against her under Texas Property Code provisions protecting trustees, and she was domiciled in California.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves TrueBeginnings, LLC, operator of the True.com dating website, suing Spark Network Services, Inc. (owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,272,467) and its law firm NSHN after NSHN employees accessed the site using accounts under false names to investigate potential patent infringement by comparing the site's features to the patent claims. True alleged breach of the website's Terms of Use, negligent misrepresentation, violations of computer protection statutes, trespass, and related claims, seeking declaratory relief on the patent issues. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, denying True's motion for summary judgment, granting the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the non-patent claims, and staying the patent counts pending USPTO re-examination. The core reasoning was that the Terms of Use authorized general access to the site and did not prohibit investigative use for patent analysis, as they only restricted certain commercial activities or disclosure of personal information, and True failed to present admissible evidence of damages.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves eight related actions filed by Wells Fargo Bank in the Northern District of Texas against West Coast Life Insurance Company concerning the validity and potential rescission of multiple life insurance policies, after West Coast had earlier filed a declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of Florida on the same policies and issues. The court granted West Coast's motions to transfer the Texas cases to Florida under the first-to-file rule. The core reasoning was that the suits substantially overlap in the relief sought, the underlying policies and facts, the parties involved, and the legal questions regarding misrepresentations, fraud, and policy validity, warranting transfer to the first-filed court for determination of how the cases should proceed in the interests of judicial economy and comity. The court also consolidated the Texas cases for administrative purposes before transfer.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Rossi v. Wohl, plaintiff Cal Rossi, who had been acquitted in a prior criminal prosecution, sued his former criminal defense attorneys and their firm for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The claims alleged that the attorneys improperly entered agreements with expert consultants on his behalf, failed to forward or object to their invoices, and later represented those experts in collection suits against him that resulted in judgments on account-stated claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It held that Rossi's present claims constituted compulsory counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a) that had to be asserted, if at all, in the earlier New York actions, because they arose from the same transaction or occurrence and shared the same operative facts as the account-stated and related contract claims litigated there.

proceduretorts & liability