Gray Hampton Miller

This case involved a dispute over accidental death benefits under a group life insurance policy issued by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company to Wesley Wood Vincent through his employer. Vincent died after falling at home and suffering a cervical spine injury while intoxicated, with a blood alcohol content of .328; plaintiff Cheryl Likens, the beneficiary, sued after Hartford denied the claim under policy exclusions for injuries sustained as a result of being legally intoxicated or not independent of all other causes. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's, holding that the exclusions applied. It reasoned that Texas law defines intoxication broadly enough to cover Vincent's condition at the time of the fall, the policy language was unambiguous, and no additional requirement of criminal adjudication was needed for the exclusion to take effect.

business & regulatory

This case is a declaratory judgment action in which the owners and managers of La Gran Plaza Mall sought a ruling that Zurich American Insurance must defend and indemnify them in a state-court negligence suit brought by an elevator technician injured when he fell through a broken escape hatch. The court granted Zurich's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion. It held that the OCP policy issued to one plaintiff contained an exclusion barring coverage for injuries arising from the insured's own acts or omissions, while the CGL policy issued to the technician's employer provided coverage only for injuries arising solely from that employer's negligence; the underlying complaint alleged facts that triggered both exclusions and made it impossible for coverage to arise. The decision rested on the eight-corners rule for comparing the policy language to the factual allegations in the state-court petition.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Quicksilver Resources, Inc. and Eagle Drilling, LLC, along with individual defendants, concerning contract and tort claims arising from drilling contracts. The court addressed which state's law applies to the tort claims in this federal diversity action. Applying Texas choice-of-law rules, the court determined that the Oklahoma choice-of-law provisions in the IADC Contracts were broad enough to cover tort claims between Quicksilver and Eagle as well as Eagle's false representation claim against the individuals. For Eagle's remaining claims of tortious interference, conspiracy, and false light invasion of privacy against the individual defendants, the court applied the most significant relationship test and concluded that Texas law governs those claims.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiffs Naida Kaspar and Brittani Johnson sued defendants in Texas state court for personal injuries from a 2010 automobile accident, with Johnson added as a plaintiff more than a year after the suit began. Defendants removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that Johnson's damages exceeded $75,000 and seeking an equitable exception to the one-year removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) due to alleged forum manipulation. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the one-year limit barred removal and that the Tedford exception did not apply because the plaintiffs had merely used state joinder rules without manipulating citizenship or federal timing rules, and all doubts must be resolved against removal. The motion to transfer venue was denied as moot, and the case was returned to the County Court of Nueces County, Texas.

proceduretorts & liability

This interpleader action arose after the death of Jackie Sanders, when Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance faced conflicting claims to the proceeds of a $440,000 term life policy on her life: her husband Gideon Sanders as named beneficiary asserted a right to the funds, while Banco Popular claimed them under a collateral assignment executed to secure an SBA loan to Sanders, his wife, and their business. Sanders contended that his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge extinguished any obligation to Banco Popular and that the assignment was invalid or released, while the insurer sought to deposit the proceeds with the court and be discharged from liability. The court granted summary judgment to MassMutual and Banco Popular and denied Sanders's cross-motion, holding that the assignment created a valid secured interest that was not released by the bankruptcy discharge of unsecured debts, that Sanders failed to demonstrate any release or invalidity of the assignment, and that MassMutual was entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from the deposited funds before distribution to Banco Popular.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Energy XXI, the owner of an offshore oil well on the Outer Continental Shelf, and New Tech Engineering, a contractor providing wellsite consultants under a Master Service Agreement (MSA). Energy XXI sued New Tech for negligence and breach of the MSA after a workstring became stuck during recompletion operations, leading to significant costs; New Tech countersued for breach of the MSA's indemnity provisions and sought declaratory relief. The court granted in part New Tech's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for indemnity, granted Energy XXI leave to file a second amended complaint adding individual defendants, denied New Tech's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's affirmative claims due to factual disputes over borrowed servant status and contract interpretation, and overruled objections to evidence. The rulings were based on application of Louisiana law under OCSLA, analysis of the MSA's terms regarding liability and indemnity, and the existence of genuine issues of material fact precluding full summary judgment.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved claims by former server Vania Santiero against Denny's Restaurant, its owner Den-Forest LLP, managing member Assad Shorrosh, and supervisor Shadi Hadi, alleging sexual harassment under Title VII and various state law tort claims stemming from incidents shortly after her hiring in 2009. The court granted summary judgment to Shorrosh on all claims and to Den-Forest on the Title VII claims and certain state claims, finding insufficient evidence to hold them liable under federal law due to the prompt response to the complaint and lack of direct involvement. However, the court denied summary judgment to Den-Forest on the state law claims for sexual assault, assault, and offensive bodily contact, reasoning that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the supervisor acted as a vice-principal, potentially imputing his actions directly to the company. The decision was based on application of summary judgment standards and relevant precedents for employer liability in harassment and tort cases.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a CFTC enforcement action against defendants who operated a fraudulent forex trading scheme that raised about $21 million from investors through false statements about profits and trading activity. After the court appointed a receiver and the defendants consented to a permanent injunction, the receiver recovered approximately $15 million and proposed an interim pro rata distribution of $12 million to all defrauded investors based on their net out-of-pocket losses. Certain Global One investors objected, arguing that about $10.6 million of the funds remained segregated and traceable to them, so those amounts should be distributed only among them rather than shared pro rata with other victims. The court granted the receiver's motion, approved the pro rata plan, overruled the objections, and denied the investors' motion to intervene, reasoning that the funds had been intermingled with other accounts, tracing was not feasible for all investors, and the proposed distribution fairly accounted for net losses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Luis Limón, Porfirio Montalvo, and Manuel Olivarez, Jr. sued Double Eagle Marine, LLC for injuries from a 2007 boat collision with an unlit barge they alleged Double Eagle owned or operated. The court granted summary judgment to Double Eagle in 2009 after plaintiffs failed to produce evidence linking it to the barge despite extra discovery time. Nearly a year later, following revelation of new GPS/AIS data in related litigation suggesting Double Eagle's involvement, plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)-(3) and (6). The court denied the motion, holding that it was not brought within a reasonable time as required by Rule 60(c), that the delay after learning of the evidence was unreasonable, and that claims under subsection (6) were unavailable because they overlapped with other subsections and lacked extraordinary circumstances.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiffs sued their former attorneys for professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty after the attorneys allegedly allowed a federal Sherman Act antitrust claim to be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. Defendants removed the action from Texas state court to federal district court, arguing that federal question jurisdiction existed because the malpractice claims would require litigating substantial issues of federal antitrust law. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the state-law claims did not necessarily raise a substantial, disputed federal issue that would justify federal jurisdiction under the Grable test, and that exercising jurisdiction would upset the congressionally approved balance between federal and state courts. The court denied the request for attorney fees, finding the removal was objectively reasonable though ultimately unsuccessful.

proceduretorts & liability

In this bankruptcy appeal, debtor Joel D. Mallory, Jr. challenged the bankruptcy court's dismissal with prejudice of his Chapter 13 case, which the trustee had sought due to Mallory's failure to make required plan payments for several months, comply with wage deduction or ACH rules, provide domestic support information, and avoid prejudicial delay to creditors. The district court affirmed the dismissal, lifted the automatic stay to allow JPMorgan Chase to proceed with foreclosure on Mallory's home, and denied the bank's related motion as moot. The court reasoned that the bankruptcy judge's decision rested primarily on the undisputed fact of the delinquent payments, which Mallory acknowledged were required under the unamended plan and which the judge described as critical, rather than on Mallory's separate arguments about the validity of the mortgage proof of claim or chain of title issues. Mallory's other grounds for appeal, including alleged procedural errors and the need to resolve claim objections first, were rejected as they did not undermine the basis for dismissal.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involves plaintiffs Terra Nova Sciences, LLC and Elan Yogeswaren bringing claims including fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty against multiple JOA entities, Lee Morris Taylor, and Terascale Technology, LLC, arising from alleged misconduct in a business relationship involving software and technology services. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissing JOA Oil and Gas LLC and Jewel-suite.com, LLC entirely, as well as the quantum meruit and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the remaining JOA Software defendant and against Taylor/Terascale, while allowing the fraud claim against Taylor/Terascale to be amended. The court also granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, permitting new claims of fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unjust enrichment against additional entities JOA Oil & Gas, B.V. and Anatech, Corp., but denying leave for other proposed claims due to deficiencies such as failure to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b), absence of a plausible fiduciary relationship, and quantum meruit not applying to future business opportunities.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Shani Burnett appealing the bankruptcy court's dismissal of her claim that Stewart Title unlawfully discriminated against her by rescinding a conditional job offer after learning of her bankruptcy filing. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that 11 U.S.C. § 525(b) does not bar private employers from refusing to hire individuals based on their bankruptcy status. The core reasoning rested on statutory interpretation: unlike § 525(a), which explicitly prohibits governmental units from denying employment for this reason, § 525(b) omits that phrase, and the court applied the expressio unius canon to conclude Congress intentionally excluded prospective hiring from the private-employer prohibitions.

labor & employmentfederal power

The cases concern civilian truck drivers employed by defense contractors to transport fuel in Iraq who were injured when their convoys came under insurgent attack in April 2004 and who subsequently sued the contractors in tort. The district court addressed defendants' motions for summary judgment on whether the Defense Base Act (DBA), which incorporates the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, provides the exclusive remedy for such injuries and thus bars the tort claims. After analyzing the statute's definition of covered "accidental" injuries, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, concluding that the attacks qualified as accidents under the DBA's scheme. The court then certified the scope of the DBA's exclusivity provision for immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and stayed the remaining proceedings pending the Fifth Circuit's ruling.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage arising from a 2007 construction-site accident in which an Empire Steel employee was injured and sued Gilbane, the general contractor, for negligence. Gilbane settled the suit and then sued Empire Steel and its insurer Admiral for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment that Gilbane was an additional insured entitled to defense and indemnification under the Admiral CGL policy required by the parties' Trade Contractor Agreement. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted Gilbane's cross-motion in part, holding that the underlying complaint alleged facts within the policy's coverage for additional insureds and that Admiral therefore had a duty to defend; the court rejected Admiral's reliance on exclusions and narrower policy language that did not apply at the time of the accident.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involves civilian contractors employed by Halliburton and related companies to drive fuel convoys in Iraq under a LOGCAP contract with the Army. The plaintiffs alleged fraud, assault and battery, and negligence after their convoys were attacked by insurgents on April 8 and 9, 2004, resulting in injuries, trauma, and deaths. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) based on the political question doctrine, reasoning that the claims required judging the company's policies and actions rather than those of the military or Executive Branch. It also denied the motions for partial summary judgment based on the government contractor defense, finding that the defense did not apply to the service contracts at issue and that factual disputes remained.

torts & liabilityfederal power

In Funk v. Stryker Corp., plaintiff Ronald Funk sued the manufacturer of a Trident hip implant for injuries allegedly caused by a defective device, bringing claims for strict liability (including manufacturing, design, and marketing defects), negligence, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on impurities and failure to comply with FDA standards. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. The court reasoned that the Trident was a Class III medical device approved via the Premarket Approval process, the claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 under the Supreme Court's holding in Riegel v. Medtronic, and the allegations were too conclusory—relying on res ipsa loquitur rather than specific facts showing violations of parallel federal requirements—to survive preemption.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

The case involved federal criminal charges against four former BP America employees for allegedly conspiring to manipulate prices of February 2004 TET propane by acquiring a dominant market position, using stacked bids, and withholding supply to inflate prices and affect OPIS averages, thereby profiting from sales and related contracts. The defendants moved to dismiss the superseding indictment, arguing the alleged conduct did not violate the Commodities Exchange Act. The court granted the motions and dismissed all counts, holding that the indictment failed to state an offense because CEA manipulation requires deceptive conduct or misrepresentation, which was not adequately alleged, and because certain transactions involved eligible contract participants exempt from the relevant provisions.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case is an insurance coverage dispute between Alea London Limited and Scottsdale Insurance Company over liability policies issued to David Bickford and related Bickford entities for construction work. The underlying lawsuits alleged defective framing and carpentry that caused water intrusion damage in homes, leading to claims for defense and indemnity. Alea sought declarations that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Bickford defendants because they were not named insureds under its policies and the alleged work predated coverage. Scottsdale sought reimbursement for defense costs it had already paid. The court granted Alea's motion for summary judgment and denied Scottsdale's, holding that the lack of named insured status meant no coverage duties arose under the Alea policies.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned an appeal by Zuriel Lavie from the bankruptcy court's denial of recognition for an Israeli bankruptcy proceeding against Yuval Ran as either a foreign main or foreign nonmain proceeding under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision in full. The court determined that Ran had continuously resided in Texas since 1997 with his family, establishing his center of main interests in the United States rather than Israel at the time the recognition petition was filed. It further found insufficient evidence that Ran maintained an establishment in Israel when the petition was submitted, precluding recognition as a foreign nonmain proceeding.

business & regulatoryprocedure