John H. McBryde

The case involved four retired Fort Worth police officers who sued the City of Fort Worth under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging they were owed overtime pay for off-duty security work performed at city facilities rented to third-party licensees when their combined on-duty and off-duty hours exceeded forty per week. The city moved for summary judgment on the ground that the FLSA's special detail exemption applied because the off-duty assignments were made to separate and independent employers. The court granted the motion after reviewing the undisputed facts, which showed that the licensees were legally distinct entities with separate payrolls, budgets, and operations; that officers voluntarily accepted or rejected assignments without reprisal; and that the licensees, not the city, controlled the terms and conditions of the off-duty employment.

labor & employment

In this case, plaintiff Mike Plumlee, a firefighter lieutenant employed by the City of Kennedale, sued the city alleging retaliation under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after he complained about racially discriminatory statements made by the fire chief regarding hiring an African-American applicant. The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plumlee could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation, could not show that the city's stated reasons for its actions (including documented insubordination) were pretextual, and that the city was immune from punitive damages. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding that the undisputed facts showed legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the city's disciplinary actions and that Plumlee failed to raise a fact issue on pretext. The court also noted that claims under both statutes are analyzed similarly to Title VII retaliation claims and that additional grounds supported dismissal of the § 1981 claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Melania Kate Sweeney challenging the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits, claiming errors in the ALJ's evaluation of her mental impairments, severity findings, evidence consideration, residual functional capacity, and step-five job availability determination. The magistrate judge recommended reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding for further proceedings, but the district court rejected that recommendation. The court affirmed the Commissioner's ruling that Sweeney was not disabled, concluding that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and applied proper legal standards, including the Stone severity standard.

federal powerhealthcare

This case concerns a patent infringement claim by Textron Innovations, Inc. against American Eurocopter Corporation and Eurocopter regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,462,242, which covers an improved replacement landing-gear assembly for helicopters. Textron alleged that the defendants infringed the patent by making, selling, or importing EC120 helicopters and related parts with landing gear that met the patent's claim limitations on straps, crosstubes, brackets, and built-in stresses. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. It reasoned that the patent claims, as limited by their language and prosecution history, apply only to replacement assemblies rather than original equipment sold with new helicopters, and that the defendants' products did not satisfy other claim elements either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved retired and current police officers suing the City of Fort Worth under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation related to work at the Fort Worth Convention Center. The plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to notify and include other current or former officers who had worked overtime at the Convention Center or Will Rogers Memorial Center. The court applied the Lusardi two-stage approach to determine whether potential plaintiffs were similarly situated. It denied the motion for collective action certification, finding that the plaintiffs had not met their burden to show that other employees would actually opt in, as their evidence consisted only of their own declarations and those of two additional officers despite references to 200 others. The court allowed the two additional officers to file consents to join individually but dismissed the request for broader notice and certification.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Cox v. City of Ft. Worth, plaintiffs Tommy and Caitlin Cox sued police officer Patrick Moore, the City of Fort Worth, and Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital Fort Worth after an incident at the hospital emergency department where Moore, working off-duty security, allegedly grabbed Caitlin by the hair, punched her, and dragged her during a confrontation involving family visitors. The claims included § 1983 civil rights violations, negligence, assault and battery, and related state-law theories against the hospital for hiring and policy enforcement. The court granted summary judgment to the City on all claims, finding no municipal policy or custom causing constitutional harm and sovereign immunity barring state claims; granted Texas Health summary judgment, concluding Moore acted in his official police capacity so the hospital had no vicarious liability and no evidence supported negligent hiring or policy claims; dismissed all state-law claims against Moore under the Texas Tort Claims Act; and dismissed Tommy's claims against Moore while allowing Caitlin's § 1983 claim against Moore to proceed past summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a patent dispute between helicopter distributors Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and Textron Innovations Inc. as plaintiffs and Eurocopter (a French company) and its U.S. affiliate American Eurocopter as defendants, concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,860,621 (assigned to Eurocopter) and U.S. Patent No. 5,462,242 (assigned to Bell). Bell sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the '621 Patent, while both plaintiffs alleged infringement of the '242 Patent by the defendants. The court granted the defendants' motions in part by dismissing the declaratory judgment counts against Eurocopter for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient minimum contacts with Texas related to patent enforcement, dismissing Bell from the infringement count for lack of standing because it was not the patent assignee, and dismissing one paragraph of the complaint for failure to state a claim; the remaining issues were denied as moot, leaving only Textron's infringement claim against both defendants to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a declaratory judgment action in which the Individual Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are co-inventors and co-owners of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 7,316,614 B2, along with state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion arising from development of a sweepstakes gaming system and formation of EMT. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion, dismissing those claims with prejudice, while denying summary judgment on the breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims. The court reasoned that the dismissed claims lacked sufficient evidence of required elements such as duty, reliance, or identifiable chattel for conversion, or were barred by limitations or the statute of frauds, whereas genuine issues of material fact remained regarding contract and inventorship/ownership issues.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between home builder David Lewis Builders, Inc. and its insurer Mid-Continent Casualty Company over whether a commercial general liability policy covered claims by homeowners Gary and Malisa Blake for damage to their house caused by subsurface water issues during construction. Lewis sued for damages after Mid-Continent denied coverage and refused to defend against the Blakes' suit; Mid-Continent counterclaimed seeking a declaration of no coverage. The court granted Mid-Continent's motion for summary judgment, holding that multiple policy exclusions applied, including those for contractual liability, damage to the insured's work product, and property that must be restored due to faulty work. As a result, the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify, and Lewis recovered nothing. The decision rested on Texas law interpreting the policy language and allocating burdens of proof for coverage and exclusions.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a hospice care provider, Lion Health Services, challenging Medicare overpayment determinations for 2006 and 2007 that were calculated using a federal regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 418.309(b)(1), which the plaintiff argued conflicted with the statutory method in 42 U.S.C. § 1395f(i)(2)(A) and (C) for prorating the annual hospice cap based on the number of days of care provided. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, declaring the regulation invalid, setting aside the overpayment determinations, and ordering related relief including return of amounts paid. The core reasoning was that the regulation was contrary to the plain language of the statute, which requires the cap to be calculated by multiplying the per-beneficiary amount by a fraction representing the portion of care received in the accounting year. The court rejected the Secretary's arguments on jurisdiction and standing, finding that the Provider Reimbursement Review Board's expedited review determination conferred authority to decide the legal question.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case was a putative class action brought by plaintiff Thomas Dickson against American Airlines under the Montreal Convention, seeking damages for over 2,000 passengers allegedly confined to aircraft for more than three hours due to weather-related diversions and delays on December 29, 2006. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the Convention's two-year statute of repose barred the claims, that no tolling applied from prior class actions like Harper v. American Airlines, and that certain categories of damages were not recoverable. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the repose period, which began on December 30, 2006, had expired by the time the complaint was filed on December 17, 2009, and that principles of tolling or piggyback class actions could not extend it under the Convention. The court further denied leave to amend, finding no worthwhile basis to do so.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved property owners who sued a labor organization and its director in Texas state court, alleging trespass, private nuisance, violations of state labor laws, and tortious interference stemming from picketing and protests at their office buildings over a claimed labor dispute with a subcontractor. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that federal labor statutes including the LMRA and NLRA completely preempted the state claims and created federal question jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the claims arose under state law and that any preemption under the federal labor laws was merely a potential defense rather than a basis for complete preemption that would support removal. The court reasoned that defendants failed to show the statutes at issue had the same complete preemptive effect as Section 301 of the LMRA, and no Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit precedent supported removal on these grounds.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

The case involved plaintiffs suing their former attorneys for state-law claims of legal malpractice, professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty after the attorneys allegedly made errors in filing and prosecuting a patent application for a roof venting technique, resulting in its abandonment and the loss of patent rights. With no diversity of citizenship, the sole issue was whether the action arose under federal patent law to confer subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). The court held that it did not, as the claims did not necessarily raise a substantial, disputed federal patent issue, and exercising jurisdiction would disrupt the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities under the standard from Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing. The core facts centered on missed deadlines and failures to communicate rather than any interpretation of patent law, distinguishing the case from precedents like Air Measurement Technologies and leading to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case was a securities class action brought by Truk International Fund LP against Cano Petroleum, its officers and directors, and the underwriters of a secondary public offering, alleging violations of sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on material misstatements and omissions in the offering documents regarding the company's proved oil and gas reserves at three properties. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the offering documents contained adequate disclosures and warnings that the reserve estimates as of June 30, 2007, could prove inaccurate or be subject to later revision, making any alleged misrepresentations immaterial as a matter of law, and that the plaintiff had not adequately pled facts supporting its claims under applicable pleading standards.

business & regulatory

This case consolidated four Social Security appeals in which attorney Elizabeth B. Dunlap represented plaintiffs seeking review of adverse decisions by the Commissioner of Social Security. After the district court reversed and remanded each case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Dunlap filed motions for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The court dismissed the fee requests, holding that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the statutory requirement that fees be “incurred” by the prevailing party, that an attorney rather than the party was not the proper recipient, and that related assignments violated the Anti-Assignment Act. It granted the requests for costs but dismissed the expenses requests, citing lack of jurisdiction over the fee claims and referencing similar issues decided in prior cases such as Murkeldove v. Astrue.

procedurefederal power

In Jones v. LaHood, plaintiff Kennedy Jones sued the FAA after it denied his application to become a Designated Engineering Representative, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 stemming from his prior FAA employment and EEO activities. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the claims were inescapably intertwined with the FAA's certification decision, which is subject to specific administrative review processes rather than direct federal court adjudication. The court further determined that Title VII did not apply because Jones was no longer an FAA employee when his application was denied and rejected the motion for summary judgment as moot.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

This case involved a debtor suing a debt purchaser for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Texas Debt Collection Act, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, based on statements in two prior state-court collection lawsuits that the plaintiff claimed misrepresented the existence of a contract, the authenticity of records, and the amount of damages. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice, holding that the challenged representations in the state-court pleadings were not false or misleading when evaluated under the least-sophisticated-consumer standard and that an assignee of the debt could lawfully pursue collection. Because dismissal of the FDCPA claims left only state-law claims, the court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs Aerotech Holdings, Inc. and Aerotech Engineering, Inc. bringing claims against multiple defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, unfair competition, trade dress infringement, civil conspiracy, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, arising from alleged misuse of confidential information and infringement of parts designations. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident parties. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after applying the standards for specific jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause, including the minimum contacts requirement, the effects test from Calder v. Jones, and analysis of forum-related activities such as shipments and communications directed at Texas. The reasoning focused on whether each defendant's affirmative contacts with the forum state were sufficient to support jurisdiction over the categorized "confidential information claims" and "infringement claims" without offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves twenty-one truck drivers suing their employers, including a staff leasing company and trucking firms, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay overtime wages despite working more than forty hours per week. The defendants asserted an affirmative defense that the plaintiffs qualified for the Motor Carrier Act exemption from FLSA overtime rules. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motion. It determined that the exemption applied because the drivers transported construction materials in interstate commerce or worked for companies engaged in such activities, as shown by records of cross-state hauls, DOT authorizations, and compliance with federal motor carrier regulations.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned plaintiff McClenon Murkeldove, Jr.'s action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. After the court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of § 405(g), Murkeldove's attorneys filed an application for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The court denied the application and a supplemental request, concluding that the statutory prerequisites for an EAJA award were not met because the remand judgment did not entitle the claimant to past-due benefits by reason of a favorable court judgment as required for fee eligibility.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare