The case arose from the 2008 death of Nalan Graniczny, who fell from the roof of a school building in El Paso while being arrested by police officers for spray-painting graffiti; his estate and another plaintiff sued the officers under federal civil rights law, alleging improper pursuit, physical strikes, and inadequate safety measures during the rooftop detention. The district court granted the officers' motions for summary judgment after reviewing the record, including disputed facts about whether Graniczny was chased onto the roof, struck while handcuffed, or given a chance to descend voluntarily. The court excluded certain plaintiff evidence as inadmissible under Rules 404, 406, 608, and 403 and concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the facts, even when viewed favorably to the plaintiffs, did not show a violation of clearly established constitutional rights. Core reasoning focused on the absence of competent evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding excessive force or deliberate indifference, supported by timelines, witness statements, and precedents on summary judgment and immunity.
In this case, plaintiff David Rivera, a federal correctional officer, sued Attorney General Eric Holder alleging retaliation under Title VII for assisting a coworker with an EEOC complaint, specifically claiming unfair performance evaluation and improper AWOL status. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on judicial estoppel. The reasoning was that Rivera failed to disclose his pending EEOC claim in his bankruptcy filing, despite having knowledge of it, and had a motive to conceal it from creditors, which estops him from pursuing the claim now.
This case involved a products liability suit brought by the parents of an infant who allegedly fell from a Bumbo Baby Sitter seat purchased at a Target store in Texas, resulting in head injuries. The plaintiffs sued Target for strict products liability, negligence, and related claims under Texas law. The court granted Target’s motion for summary judgment, holding that as a non-manufacturing seller, Target is generally shielded from liability under Chapter 82 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. The court found no evidence that Target had actual knowledge of any defect in the product at the time of sale or that any other exception was met, and the plaintiffs had stipulated to dismissing their misrepresentation claims.
Michael C. Smart, a veteran, sued the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and several officials after being denied benefits under the HUD-VASH housing program, alleging that the VA incorrectly determined he did not qualify as homeless and that this denial violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and due process protections in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court held that § 1983 does not apply to federal actors and that district courts lack jurisdiction over individualized challenges to VA benefits decisions, which are reserved exclusively for the Board of Veterans' Appeals under 38 U.S.C. § 511(a), even when framed as constitutional claims.
In Herrera v. NBS, Inc., plaintiff Alfonso Herrera, a Mexican citizen of Hispanic/Mexican national origin, sued his former employer for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of Title VII and the Texas Labor Code based on alleged national origin discrimination and retaliation in commission payments, account assignments, and termination. Defendant moved for partial dismissal of the discrimination and retaliation claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Title VII and the Texas Labor Code do not cover non-citizens employed outside the United States and claiming plaintiff worked in Mexico. Plaintiff responded that he worked in El Paso, Texas, bringing him within the statutes' protections. The court denied the motion, holding that the jurisdictional challenge was factual and intertwined with the merits of whether plaintiff was employed within the United States, so the proper standard was Rule 12(b)(6) rather than 12(b)(1) dismissal, and the claims could not be resolved on the motion as presented.
This case involved a relator's False Claims Act qui tam suit against Fresenius Medical Care and individual defendants alleging improper billing to the government, consolidated with a retaliation claim under the FCA and state torts; the government declined to intervene, and the underlying claims were dismissed after extensive discovery, expert exclusions, and partial trial proceedings. The court addressed multiple bills of costs and motions for attorneys' fees and sanctions under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. It sustained in part and denied in part the relator's objections to the defendants' bills of costs, granted in part and denied in part Fresenius's motion for fees related to defending the retaliation complaint due to counsel's vexatious multiplication of proceedings after the claims became meritless, and denied Chavez's sanctions motion entirely. The core reasoning centered on statutory standards for taxing costs as prevailing parties and imposing fees only for clearly frivolous or bad-faith conduct, distinguishing between the FCA claims and the retaliation portion while finding insufficient basis for full sanctions against either defendant.