Xavier Rodriguez

Lilia Solis-de Patino, a Mexican citizen, filed an emergency habeas petition in district court to block her removal and challenge the government's plan to reinstate a 2000 expedited removal order, claiming her initial detention was unlawful, the reinstatement process violated due process, and the original order was invalid for lacking a supervisor's signature. The government moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the REAL ID Act divests district courts of habeas jurisdiction over challenges to removal orders, channeling such review exclusively to the courts of appeals, and that the limited exceptions for expedited removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) did not apply; some claims were also moot after her release from custody, and transfer was unavailable due to the petition's untimeliness.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved parents of infants whose blood samples were collected under Texas's mandatory newborn screening program for genetic disorders; the plaintiffs alleged that the Texas Department of Health Services retained and potentially used or distributed the samples for research without parental consent or disclosure, raising constitutional and statutory claims. After the Beleno litigation prompted legislative amendments in 2009 allowing parents to opt out of retention and request destruction of samples, and following settlement and destruction of the relevant specimens, the defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion in part under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that the named plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show concrete injury from any distribution and that their claims were moot due to the samples having been destroyed, with class claims also dismissed as a result. The 12(b)(6) motion was dismissed as moot, leading to dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

healthcarecivil rightsprocedure

This case concerns a Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee's appeal from the confirmation of debtors' repayment plan, which proposed retaining a $600,000 home with monthly mortgage payments over four times the IRS standard for the area while paying only a 1% dividend to unsecured creditors, including a large IRS claim for unpaid taxes. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's confirmation order. The court applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) and found the plan was not proposed in good faith, noting the absence of any justification for the high housing costs relative to the minimal payments to creditors and the debtors' prior tax noncompliance.

business & regulatory

Plaintiffs Ted and Jerelene Lee sued the City of San Antonio, councilmember Diane Cibrian, neighbors, and neighborhood associations after the City denied their application to rezone five lots from R-20 to R-6. The complaint alleged that political influence, campaign contributions, and coordinated opposition by defendants violated the plaintiffs' substantive due process rights by arbitrarily blocking the rezoning. The court dismissed all federal claims, finding that zoning decisions are legislative acts reviewed under a rational-basis standard, that the complaint did not plausibly allege an arbitrary or irrational denial, that certain defendants enjoyed legislative immunity, and that related state-law and conspiracy claims also failed. All pending motions were resolved and the case was closed.

propertycivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned Penn-America Insurance Company's suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a commercial property and liability policy issued to Marcos Zertuche had been cancelled effective October 20, 2008, for nonpayment of premiums, relieving it of any duty to cover losses from a January 2009 fire at the insured apartment building; Zertuche responded with counterclaims against Penn-America and third-party claims against agents Stoltz & Company and Texas All Risk General Agency alleging breach of contract, negligence, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising from communications about cancellation and possible reinstatement. The court granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment motions filed by Penn-America, Stoltz, and TAR. The rulings turned on the validity of the cancellation notice, whether a reinstatement offer was accepted or any misrepresentations occurred, the presence of an insurable interest, and whether the evidence showed actionable conduct or causation by the agents.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerns a mobility-impaired plaintiff who uses a wheelchair and sued Macy’s West Stores under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging architectural barriers at a store in San Antonio and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel compliance. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), contending the plaintiff lacked standing because she had not shown a realistic likelihood of returning and that the complaint contained insufficient factual detail. The court denied the motion, ruling that the plaintiff established standing through allegations of past visits, plans to return as both a customer and ADA tester, and ongoing injury from unremoved barriers, while distinguishing precedents that required a higher showing of future harm. The court further found the amended complaint adequate to survive dismissal despite its generalized descriptions of violations in areas such as parking, entrances, counters, and restrooms.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Guadalupe Betancourt, a Kansas resident who uses a wheelchair, sued Ingram Park Mall under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged architectural barriers at the Texas property that she visited and planned to return to. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing because her out-of-state residence meant she could not show a real and immediate threat of future harm from the barriers. The court analyzed standing requirements in ADA Title III cases, noting that disabled individuals form a specific class facing ongoing discrimination while barriers remain in place, distinguishing these claims from precedents like Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, and concluded that the plaintiff's allegations of intent to return and continuing injury were sufficient to establish standing and survive dismissal.

civil rights

This case is an appeal by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts from a bankruptcy court order that granted attorney fees to debtor Gary L. Zars's counsel for work in a dismissed 2007 Chapter 13 case, to be paid from funds held in a subsequent 2008 bankruptcy estate. The district court reversed the order in part and affirmed it in part after reviewing the record and applicable bankruptcy law. The core reasoning addressed whether the fee payment from the later estate's assets amounted to an unauthorized payment of a pre-petition claim, whether it improperly used the Comptroller's cash collateral secured by tax liens, and the bankruptcy court's discretion in approving the fee application under the Bankruptcy Code.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves the City of San Antonio's April 2008 emergency demolition of structures on property at 332 E. Myrtle Street that plaintiff Paul Kinnison had recently purchased, after city inspectors determined the buildings posed an imminent danger due to structural damage; Kinnison alleged the city violated its own code procedures, failed to provide predeprivation notice or hearing despite feasible time to do so, and infringed his rights under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions as well as state tort law. The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, granting the individual defendants' motion in full, granting the city's motion in part and denying it in part, and granting the plaintiff's motion in part and denying it in part, while also excluding certain affidavit testimony. Core reasoning focused on the procedural due process claim against the city, holding that because the inspections and decisions occurred over several days rather than in a true sudden emergency, predeprivation process was required and available, distinguishing the facts from cases with immediate collapse risks, and that qualified immunity or other defenses shielded the individuals.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Richard Pena, who uses a service dog due to disabilities from a prior stroke, sued Bexar County and individual officers after being detained and questioned at the county courthouse entrance and later arrested while researching adoption records, alleging violations of Title II of the ADA, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various state-law tort claims. The court dismissed all state-law claims against the individual defendants under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 101.106(e), rendering related summary judgment arguments moot, and sua sponte dismissed the direct Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment claims because such constitutional violations by state actors must proceed exclusively through Section 1983 rather than direct actions. The remaining claims are the ADA claim against the county, the Section 1983 claims against all defendants, and a state-law negligent training claim against the county, on which defendants had moved for summary judgment. The court recited the summary judgment standard requiring no genuine issue of material fact and applied it to the plaintiff's declaration detailing the encounters with officers.

civil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Rodriguez-Castorena, the defendant was charged with illegal re-entry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and moved to suppress verbal statements, fingerprints, and his A-file obtained after a Border Patrol agent stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The court ruled that the defendant had standing to challenge the stop as it resulted in his seizure, but found the stop lacked reasonable suspicion under the Brignoni-Ponce totality-of-the-circumstances test because the sole factors noted were a change in demeanor by the driver and passenger with no prior traffic violations or other indicators. The motion to suppress was granted in part, suppressing the verbal statements due to the unlawful stop and lack of Miranda warnings, but denied as to the fingerprints taken during routine booking and the A-file, consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent holding such evidence not suppressible even after an illegal detention.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Coolwater, LLC's appeal from a bankruptcy court's denial of its motion to dismiss Camp Arrowhead, Ltd.'s Chapter 11 filing (alleged to be in bad faith) and from the court's order authorizing the sale of the debtor's 650-acre Texas property to the Youngkins (later assigned to P&O Ranch, LLC) for $6.75 million. After the sale closed without a stay pending appeal, the district court granted the debtor's motion to dismiss the consolidated appeals as moot. The court reasoned that 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) protects good-faith purchasers from reversal or modification of a sale absent a stay, the bankruptcy court had found the purchasers acted in good faith after an arm's-length transaction, and Coolwater failed to show clear error in that finding or to obtain a stay, leaving no effective relief available even if the merits favored Coolwater.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned plaintiff Paul Chance Kinnison's challenge to the City of San Antonio's emergency demolition of two structures on his recently purchased property, which city inspectors deemed an imminent threat to public safety due to severe structural damage. Kinnison alleged violations of the city's code of ordinances, Texas Local Government Code provisions on owner notice, and various federal and state constitutional protections. The court ruled on the City's motion for summary judgment by granting it in part and denying it in part. It determined that city officials had properly documented the danger through inspections and affidavits, satisfied the ordinance's requirements for immediate demolition without prior notice, and that no evidence supported certain other claims.

propertyprocedurecivil rights

This case concerned whether the "telephone concession" benefit offered by AT&T and BellSouth to retirees living outside their service area—providing reimbursements for land-line phone services or toll charges—qualified as an ERISA pension plan. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment to establish it as such, while defendants sought summary judgment on the opposite ground. The court granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiffs', ruling that the program was not an ERISA pension plan. The core reasoning was that the benefit supplied in-kind services or conditional reimbursements rather than retirement income, did not involve systematic deferral of earned compensation, and aligned with regulatory exclusions for no-additional-cost employee perks.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves Gerald Padalecki's appeal of the Social Security Administration's denial of Title II disability benefits based on multiple medical conditions including a heart condition, COPD, and others, with an alleged onset date in 2001. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to remand the case for further administrative proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard at step two of the sequential evaluation process when assessing the severity of certain impairments, contrary to the standard established in Stone v. Heckler, which constitutes legal error requiring remand regardless of later steps in the analysis.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involved plaintiff RBIII, L.P., whose property at 814 South Nueces Street was inspected and demolished by the City of San Antonio in January 2008 after city officials determined the structure posed an imminent danger. RBIII sued the City and individual defendant Reyes Hernandez, asserting claims under city ordinances, state statutes, the Texas Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution (including procedural due process, equal protection, and takings), as well as state tort claims such as trespass. The court granted Hernandez's motion for summary judgment on the federal constitutional claims, finding qualified immunity applied because no clearly established constitutional violation occurred. It also granted in part the motion to dismiss the state-law claims against Hernandez under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 101.106(e), which bars suits against governmental employees when the governmental unit is sued on the same subject matter, while denying dismissal as to certain non-TTCA claims.

propertycivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Robert Blancas seeking federal court review of the Social Security Administration's denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, with the central dispute being whether he meets the listing criteria for mental retardation based on his cognitive functioning and adaptive deficits. After the Appeals Council remanded once for further evaluation and the ALJ issued a second denial, the Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the Commissioner's decision, but the district court reviewed the matter de novo and rejected that recommendation. The court decided to remand the case for additional proceedings, reasoning that the ALJ's analysis of the medical evidence on adaptive functioning was inadequate and failed to clearly apply consistent criteria to distinguish mental retardation from borderline intellectual functioning.

federal powerprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract dispute in which Purolite sold PD-206 resin to Purity Water for use in purifying biodiesel at the Dunhill Terminal Project, but Purity Water withheld payment claiming the resin was defective and caused losses from nonpayment by third parties. Purolite sued for the unpaid amount, and Purity Water filed a counterclaim alleging breach due to the resin's performance. The court granted Purolite's motion for summary judgment in part on its contract claim, after previously excluding Purity Water's expert testimony and dismissing its counterclaim. The core reasoning was that there was no evidence the resin was defective, as the biodiesel was successfully dewatered and sold, and Purity Water had performed its own contractual obligations, with no showing that any resin issue caused the third parties' nonpayment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Carlos Trevino filed this federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 1997 Bexar County capital murder conviction and death sentence for the sexual assault and stabbing of Linda Salinas during a group outing that turned violent. The district court examined the trial record, including evidence of the crime, plea negotiations, guilt-innocence and punishment phases, and post-conviction claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the state court proceedings and federal claims, the court determined that Trevino was not entitled to habeas relief but granted a certificate of appealability.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between MPJ and Aero Sky over an aircraft maintenance agreement that was resolved through arbitration before a retired state judge. MPJ filed suit to confirm the arbitration award, while Aero Sky counter-moved to modify or vacate it under the Federal Arbitration Act. The magistrate judge recommended confirming the award and denying the counter-motion, finding no statutory grounds for vacatur or modification such as corruption, partiality, or arbitrator misconduct. The district court accepted the recommendation after de novo review, noting the narrow scope of judicial review under the FAA and that neither party objected to the report. The court granted confirmation of the award and denied all related requests for modification or hearing.

business & regulatoryprocedure