Terry R. Means

This case involved claims by chicken growers Larry and Eva Harden against Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (PPC) after PPC rejected their broiler-grower contracts during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Hardens alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), seeking damages from the contract terminations. The district court granted PPC’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice. The court reasoned that the Hardens were independent contractors rather than employees under the hybrid economic-realities/common-law-control test, so the ADEA did not apply. It further held that the PSA claims failed because the statute prohibits certain unfair practices in livestock dealings but did not support liability on the facts alleged.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned motions to stay proceedings in a bankruptcy matter where chicken growers Larry and Eva Harden asserted claims against Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (PPC) for age discrimination under the ADEA and violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act after PPC rejected their grower contracts during its chapter 11 reorganization. PPC moved to stay the case pending resolution of its summary-judgment motion in the bankruptcy court, while the Hardens sought a stay until they exhausted administrative remedies, including obtaining an EEOC right-to-sue letter and completing a USDA investigation. The court granted PPC’s motion to stay and denied the Hardens’ motion. It reasoned that PPC had waived any failure-to-exhaust defense, the Hardens had satisfied ADEA prerequisites by timely filing an EEOC charge and waiting sixty days before suit, and no primary-jurisdiction or other administrative barriers prevented advancement of the PSA claims, thereby conserving judicial and party resources.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedurefederal power

This case involved copyright owners suing the owner of a sports bar for unauthorized public performances of their songs, including "Mr. Roboto" and "Jump," through a DJ and karaoke services. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendant infringed the copyrights by allowing the performances without obtaining the required ASCAP license despite repeated notices. The decision was based on undisputed evidence that the songs were performed at the bar and the defendant had failed to secure a license after multiple opportunities to do so. As a result, the court issued an injunction against future unlicensed performances, awarded $50,000 in statutory damages, and granted attorneys' fees and costs.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In CRG Partners, LLC v. United States Trustee, the district court reviewed a bankruptcy court's denial of a $1 million fee enhancement to a restructuring firm that had assisted a Chapter 11 debtor in achieving full creditor payment. The bankruptcy court had applied the standard from the Supreme Court's Perdue decision in a civil rights fee-shifting case to reject the enhancement request. The district court reversed, holding that Perdue does not govern fee enhancements in bankruptcy proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 330, which instead use the lodestar method adjusted by Johnson factors only in rare and exceptional circumstances. The case was remanded for the bankruptcy court to apply the correct legal standard.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from grievances filed by the Office and Professional Employees International Union on behalf of pilot Craig Hilton against his former employer CareFlite, a medical air-transport company, after CareFlite denied an extension for Hilton to obtain an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate and then terminated him for lacking the certification. CareFlite sued for a declaratory judgment that the grievances were not arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, leading to prior rulings that one grievance was arbitrable while the other was not, and remanding the question of whether the union and Hilton had independent state or federal claims outside the CBA. The court granted CareFlite partial summary judgment, holding that the Railway Labor Act's mandatory arbitration mechanism preempts the portion of Count II before the court because it requires interpretation of the CBA. However, the court denied summary judgment on Count III, concluding that the RLA does not preclude independent claims of retaliation under RLA section 2, Third and Fourth, as those do not depend on CBA interpretation and raise genuine factual disputes about anti-union animus versus legitimate business reasons.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a bankruptcy trustee's claims that payments made by Mirant Corporation and its subsidiaries to various banks under financing agreements for European power-generation facilities were fraudulent transfers avoidable under federal or state law. After Mirant filed for Chapter 11 protection, the debtor-in-possession and later its successor, MC Asset Recovery, sued the lender and investor banks alleging the transactions lacked reasonably equivalent value. The district court conducted a de novo review of the bankruptcy court's proposed findings, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted their converted motion for summary judgment. The court determined that Georgia's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act did not apply, that the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act was inapplicable because there was no debt owed to the United States, and that New York law governed the participation agreements, under which no viable fraudulent-transfer claim existed. It further held that the reorganized creditors had not been paid in full and that any avoidance actions were properly vested in the plaintiff, but ultimately concluded the claims failed as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by insurer Markel Insurance Company against its insured S.T.C.G., Inc., a cheerleading and gymnastics facility, and an injured employee, Carriel Collins. Collins had sued S.T.C.G. in state court under Texas Labor Code section 406.033 for injuries sustained on the job that left him quadriplegic, after S.T.C.G. opted out of the workers' compensation system, and also pursued products-liability claims against equipment manufacturers. Markel sought a ruling that its commercial general-liability policy provided no duty to defend or indemnify S.T.C.G. in that suit. The court granted Markel's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy's workers'-compensation exclusion applied because Collins's claim sought to impose liability under workers'-compensation law, and that a separate medical-expenses exclusion also barred coverage for medical costs. The court further granted default judgment against Collins, binding him to the coverage rulings.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involves Vinewood Capital, LLC suing the law firm Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP and related defendants over claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty arising from prior Texas litigation, a settlement agreement, and a subsequent Mudaraba investment agreement with entities affiliated with Dar Al-Maal Al-Islami Trust. The court denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the fraud claims but granted their motion to dismiss the fraud and fiduciary duty claims, granted a co-defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granted a motion for sanctions. As a result, the court dismissed the entire case, citing the lack of support in the governing agreements for the alleged business arrangements, the history of related litigation, and improper conduct by Vinewood and its counsel. Sanctions under Rule 11 were imposed as an alternative basis for dismissal, with an award of attorneys' fees to the defendants.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved the United States Trustee's appeal of a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to dismiss debtor Cindy Ann Hilmes's chapter 7 petition for abuse under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3), citing her above-median income, substantial retirement contributions, luxury vehicle leases, oversized home mortgage, and other discretionary spending. The district court reversed and remanded, ruling that the bankruptcy court had applied an erroneous legal standard by requiring proof of "substantial" abuse rather than simple abuse and had not considered the full range of factors raised by the Trustee, such as the debtor's ability to repay creditors through a chapter 13 plan. The court further held that the bankruptcy court should have separately analyzed the Trustee's arguments for dismissal based on bad faith under § 707(b)(3)(A). The opinion clarified that the totality of the debtor's financial circumstances determines abuse and that post-BAPCPA changes removed any substantial-abuse threshold.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned the imposition of sanctions on attorneys representing defendant Allcare in a patent infringement suit brought by Highmark under U.S. Patent No. 5,301,105, where the court had previously found the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarded fees. The sanctioned attorneys moved for reconsideration, arguing that the original sanctions violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11's requirements for a separate motion and an order to show cause. After granting reconsideration and issuing a show-cause order, the court reviewed the attorneys' conduct and responses, concluding that procedural deficiencies existed and that most attorneys had reasonably relied on lead counsel's representations about claim investigations. As a result, the court vacated the sanctions against all the attorneys and their firms while leaving the exceptional-case finding against Allcare intact.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Nickols v. Morris, inmate plaintiff DeAnna Blair Nickols asserted claims against defendants Gary Morris and Patrick Dean Smith for unlawful seizure and excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, arising from events during an arrest. The defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, supported by an appendix including video evidence from an in-car camera. Although Nickols filed a late response and various related motions after viewing the video, the court resolved those motions by granting an extension to consider her response while striking certain exhibits and denying other requests. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, determining based on the video and applicable legal standards that no constitutional violations occurred and qualified immunity applied.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

This case involves three consolidated federal lawsuits filed by XTO shareholders challenging a proposed stock-for-stock merger with ExxonMobil. The plaintiffs alleged that XTO's officers and directors breached fiduciary duties by undervaluing the company and failing to disclose material information, while one group of plaintiffs also claimed violations of federal securities laws through a misleading proxy statement. The court denied the defendants' motion to stay or dismiss under Colorado River abstention for the securities-law action, finding it was not parallel to related state-court proceedings. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the other two actions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaints failed to adequately allege that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 as required for diversity jurisdiction. The rulings were based on the absence of parallel state litigation for abstention purposes and deficiencies in the plaintiffs' jurisdictional pleadings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a patent dispute in which Highmark sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,301,105 after Allcare accused Highmark's healthcare information-management system of infringement and threatened litigation to obtain licensing fees. The court granted Highmark's motion, finding the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and imposing sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which resulted in an award of attorney fees and expenses to Highmark. The court's decision rested on Allcare's conduct throughout the litigation, including using industry surveys to target potential licensees, failing to conduct adequate pre-filing investigations of infringement claims, and engaging in other questionable tactics while pursuing enforcement of the patent.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involved students Clayton Smith and John Schwertz Jr., members of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, who planned empty-holster protests on Tarrant County College District campuses to advocate for allowing licensed concealed firearms on campus, including wearing empty holsters and distributing leaflets. The students challenged TCC policies that confined such activities to a free-speech zone requiring 24-hour advance approval, banned empty holsters as disruptive, and restricted speech under a co-sponsorship rule, claiming violations of their First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that some claims were not justiciable but that the disruptive-activities provision as applied to empty holsters and the co-sponsorship provision on its face violated the First Amendment, issuing a permanent injunction against enforcing those restrictions on campus streets, sidewalks, and common areas. The core reasoning was that the policies imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint, were overbroad in prohibiting substantial protected speech, and lacked sufficient justification for limiting traditional public forums on campus.

free speechguns

This case arose from disputes over several life insurance policies purchased by Wells Fargo as trustee for investment purposes and held in trusts; the insurers, American General and West Coast, sought to rescind the policies on grounds of fraud and lack of insurable interest in applications. After West Coast removed the Texas state-court suit to federal court, plaintiffs added claims and parties, including a non-diverse defendant. The court determined that complete diversity was lacking due to the presence of that defendant and that severing claims against one insurer would not create diversity jurisdiction. It therefore granted the motion to remand the case to state court, denied the motion to sever, and declined to address the motion to amend for lack of jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved two students at Tarrant County College who sought to protest Texas law and campus policy banning concealed handguns by wearing empty holsters, related t-shirts, and distributing pamphlets as part of a national demonstration, but faced the college's permit requirements limiting such activities to designated free-speech zones. The students requested a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, arguing that the restrictions violated their First Amendment rights to symbolic speech in public forums. The court granted the motion in part after determining that the students showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for activities in traditional public-forum areas such as sidewalks and common spaces, where the expression would be understood in context, but found they had not met the standard for wearing holsters inside classrooms and hallways due to risks of educational disruption. The court therefore enjoined the college from barring the protests in public-forum areas while denying relief for classroom settings, with the order to take effect upon posting of security and to expire on November 23, 2009.

gunsfree speech

The case arose from a chemical spill during rail transport of hazardous material from Los Angeles to Kansas City, leading BNSF Railway to sue OOCL in Texas state court for breach of contract and negligence in failing to indemnify BNSF or cover cleanup and related expenses. OOCL removed the case to federal court and moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), citing a related indemnity suit it had filed there against other parties. The court denied the motion, holding that OOCL had not shown good cause because the private interest factors (such as access to proof and witness convenience) and public interest factors (such as local interests and court congestion) did not favor transfer, the suits lacked substantial overlap in parties and issues, and a forum-selection clause weighed against transfer. The ruling emphasized that plaintiff's choice of venue placed the burden on the movant and that avoiding duplicative litigation requires demonstrated factual and legal relatedness.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved the City of Clinton suing Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation under the Packers and Stockyards Act after the company idled its local poultry facility, which the city alleged was done to manipulate chicken prices and in breach of prior representations that the facility would continue operating in exchange for the city’s capital improvements and facility expansions. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the city lacked standing to pursue claims under the PSA because it did not qualify as a “person” under the statute’s definition. The court further ruled that the city failed to state viable claims for promissory estoppel or fraud, as the alleged promises were too indefinite to support reasonable reliance and the fraud allegations lacked the required specificity. These conclusions rested on statutory interpretation of the PSA and federal pleading standards under Rules 8 and 9.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose after Pilgrim’s Pride filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while facing multidistrict FLSA litigation in the Western District of Arkansas; the plaintiffs filed matching proofs of claim in the bankruptcy and sought relief from the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court recommended withdrawing the reference of the estimation proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) and transferring them, and the district court adopted that recommendation. The district court granted the parties’ agreed motion to transfer the estimation motion and related proceedings to the Arkansas district court. The court reasoned that transfer served the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties because the Arkansas court already had two years of familiarity with the claims, allowing faster and more efficient estimation while discovery limits would further streamline the process.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves contract poultry growers from multiple states suing Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation in its chapter 11 bankruptcy, alleging the company used its market power to close facilities and terminate grower contracts in order to reduce chicken supply and raise prices, along with related state-law claims such as promissory estoppel, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). It dismissed the promissory estoppel, fraud, and IIED claims because the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations, including any duty to disclose for the fraud claims, and dismissed the DTPA claims for the Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana plaintiffs because they had not shown entitlement to invoke Texas law. The court allowed the Texas plaintiffs’ DTPA claims and all plaintiffs’ claims under the Packers & Stockyards Act to proceed and granted leave to file an amended complaint.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability