Jorge Antonio Solis

The case concerned a lawsuit by a Hispanic resident of Irving, Texas, against the city and its officials, alleging that the city's at-large system for electing its eight city council members and mayor violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Hispanic residents. Following a four-day bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining that the three Gingles preconditions were met based on 2000 Census and 2006 ACS data showing Hispanics comprised a growing share of the population (concentrated south of Highway 183) and were sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in a single-member district. The court further found, through expert statistical analyses of election returns and Spanish-surname voter data, that Hispanic voters were politically cohesive and that non-Hispanic voters typically voted as a bloc to defeat Hispanic-preferred candidates. It concluded that these factors established the plaintiff's standing and supported a claim of vote dilution under the totality of circumstances, while noting the absence of any prior successful remedies through the city's charter review process.

electionscivil rights

This case concerns federal criminal charges against defendants Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh for alleged involvement with the Holy Land Foundation in providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization, through fundraising and related activities. After a jury trial resulting in acquittals on most counts and a deadlock on others, the defendants moved for judgments of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. The court denied both motions, holding that the government's evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that each defendant knowingly participated in the charged conspiracies to provide material support and launder money.

criminal law

The case involved the Verizon Employee Benefits Committee suing former employee Michael Frawley under ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)) to recover an alleged $239,872 overpayment of pension benefits stemming from an error in calculating credit for his prior service at R.H. Donnelley. Frawley moved for summary judgment on his statute of limitations defense, arguing that a recent Texas Supreme Court decision established a two-year limitations period for the analogous state-law claim of money had and received. The court granted the motion, holding that the two-year period applied rather than four years, that the claim accrued when the overpayment was made in 2003, and that the discovery rule did not toll the limitations period because the plan administrator Hewitt's knowledge of the calculation error was imputed to the Committee.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is an appeal from two orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding involving debtor Vernon Hulme. The orders concerned the denial of CFB-5, Inc.'s claimed interests in a collection of paintings and the approval of a settlement between the trustee and Surf City-USA regarding the sale proceeds of those paintings. The district court affirmed both orders after reviewing the record, finding that the bankruptcy court correctly determined CFB-5 had no ownership, security, or possessory interest in the artwork based on lack of documentation and credible testimony, and that the settlement was a reasonable compromise of Surf City's potentially valid claim.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved InternetAd Systems, LLC suing Amadeus North America, Inc. and others for patent infringement on web-related technology patents originally owned by David Judson. The central dispute concerned whether InternetAd, as an assignee and exclusive licensee under an agreement with the patent owner, had standing to bring the suit without joining the current patent owner. The court granted InternetAd's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on standing grounds, and denied as moot the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the licensing agreement transferred all substantial rights to InternetAd, making it an exclusive licensee with authority to enforce the patents independently, even though the licensor retained some limited consultation and consent rights that did not undermine standing.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a civil lawsuit by Daldav Associates, L.P. against Avram Lebor and others, alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising from a scheme in which defendants falsely represented their ability to secure billions in real estate development financing through major insurers and securities firms in exchange for upfront deposits and fees. The plaintiff claimed it paid $346,750 based on these promises, which were never fulfilled and instead diverted for personal use. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Lebor on both claims. The core reasoning was that Lebor failed to respond or dispute the allegations, allowing the court to accept the plaintiff's evidence as establishing all required elements—including false representations made in a business context, lack of reasonable care, justifiable reliance, and resulting pecuniary damages—with no genuine issues of material fact remaining.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying landlord Savoy's motion to compel debtor Nucentrix to pay post-petition rent under a non-residential lease and to allow an administrative expense claim. After Nucentrix filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought to reject the lease due to high costs, the parties discussed a reduced-rent arrangement for smaller premises; Nucentrix paid the lower amount, which Savoy accepted for several months, but Savoy later sought the full contractual rent. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's denial of the motion and remanded for entry of judgment, concluding that Nucentrix could not reasonably rely on the lease modification discussions to estop Savoy from claiming the original rent because Savoy's draft motions expressly reserved its rights. The court found that the bankruptcy court's application of promissory estoppel was incorrect under the circumstances.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Dr. Adrian Kerans and Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. over obligations under a 1996 settlement agreement resolving prior litigation about a disability insurance policy issued in 1990. After becoming disabled in 1993, Kerans filed a state court action in 2004 seeking declaratory relief and damages for breach of the settlement, claiming he need only provide information specified in the agreement. Provident removed the case to federal court, arguing the policy was part of an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the claims relate to an ERISA plan and are thus completely preempted by ERISA's civil enforcement provisions under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) and § 1132, creating federal question jurisdiction regardless of how the complaint was pleaded.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suing TXI Operations on behalf of employee Julie Fundling, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII due to sex discrimination in her salary compared to male attorney Wes Schlenker. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent or that TXI's explanations for the pay difference were pretextual. TXI justified the higher salary for Schlenker based on his greater experience, market rates, and performance considerations, while Fundling had received performance-based raises and the pay gap narrowed over time. The court determined that the EEOC failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or rebut the legitimate non-discriminatory reasons provided by the employer.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Mathews Heating & Air Conditioning LLC held a commercial general liability insurance policy from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company covering February 1999 to February 2000. When Mathews was sued by customers for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence related to the design, installation, and maintenance of an air conditioning system that allegedly caused property damage from mold, Liberty denied a defense and coverage under the policy. Mathews then sued Liberty for breach of contract and violations of Texas insurance statutes, seeking damages including defense costs after the underlying suit settled. The court, applying Texas's eight-corners rule to compare the policy language with the allegations in the underlying petitions, denied Liberty's motion for summary judgment, finding that the property damage claims potentially fell within coverage and that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the duty to defend.

business & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between factoring companies that purchase structured settlement payment rights from injured persons. Plaintiff Settlement Capital Corp. sued Defendants BHG Structured Settlements, Inc. and others for tortious interference with contract and unfair competition after Defendants sent a letter to a Texas state court and the payee opposing Plaintiff's proposed transfer of payments from Lydell Jordan and offering a competing transaction. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act does not immunize Defendants' conduct or require dismissal based on the statutory scheme for court approval of transfers, and that defenses such as the contract being terminable at will require further factual development.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute arising from an underlying medical malpractice lawsuit against Presbyterian Healthcare Resources. Travelers Indemnity Company, which issued a general liability policy to Presbyterian, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking rulings on the scope of its duty to defend and indemnify. Presbyterian counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of the common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of Articles 21.21 and 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code. The court granted Travelers' motion to dismiss the bad-faith claim, holding that Texas law recognizes no such tort duty in third-party liability cases and that contractual and Stowers remedies suffice. It denied dismissal of the Insurance Code claims, finding they may apply to third-party defense obligations, and denied the alternative request for a more definite statement because the pleadings met federal notice-pleading standards.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case is a bankruptcy appeal arising from a fee dispute in which attorney Pronske obtained a default judgment against his former client Clay Capital Corp. for unpaid legal fees of about $6,859, then used a state-court turnover order and sheriff's sale to purchase the client's $200,000-plus bankruptcy claim for $3,500 and collect the proceeds from the trustee. The bankruptcy court overruled the client's objections and upheld the transfer as valid under Texas law, finding no misconduct or misleading of the trustee. On appeal, the district court affirmed after de novo review, holding that the client had not properly raised ethical or professional-conduct arguments in the bankruptcy court and that the state-court collection process and claim transfer complied with applicable rules. The court rejected challenges to the attorney's conduct as forfeited or unsupported by the record.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Murray v. TXU Corp., the plaintiff sued his former employer, TXU Energy Trading Company LP, after termination on August 1, 2002, alleging violation of the whistleblower protections in Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. The plaintiff had sent a complaint to the Secretary of Labor by Federal Express, and after no final decision within 180 days, filed suit in federal district court; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, claiming the complaint was not received within the required 90-day filing period. The court denied the motion, applying the presumption of timely receipt for properly addressed and mailed documents (including via private carrier), which was supported by evidence such as Federal Express records and a Department of Labor letter indicating receipt in late October 2002, and noting no showing of bad faith by the plaintiff that would bar jurisdiction under the statute's 180-day provision.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Pugh v. Arrow Electronics, Inc., the plaintiff sued his former employer for breach of an employment contract after being terminated before the end of the agreement term. The defendant moved to dismiss for improper venue, citing a forum-selection clause in the contract that required litigation in courts serving Suffolk County, New York. The court determined that the forum-selection clause was prima facie valid under federal law in diversity cases but, rather than dismissing the case, exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York, where it could have originally been brought, in the interest of justice.

procedurelabor & employment

Taylor Made Golf Company sued MJT Consulting Group, Marc Gunderson, and E-Golf Investments for federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition, alleging the defendants sold golf clubs bearing Taylor Made marks that were not genuine or authorized, including clubs with altered parts such as non-Taylor Made shafts and defective heads that had been modified. The defendants operated retail stores that advertised and sold these clubs to the public without authorization from Taylor Made. The court granted in part and denied in part Taylor Made's motion for summary judgment, finding liability for infringement based on evidence that the clubs were not authentic Taylor Made products assembled to company standards, that the defendants had notice of the claims, and that the sales constituted use of the marks in commerce. The decision rested on the Lanham Act provisions regarding trademark use, likelihood of confusion, and remedies including potential damages.

business & regulatory

In Haile v. Town of Addison, plaintiff Frank Haile challenged a Town resolution imposing a $0.12 per gallon fuel flowage fee on holders of aviation fuel dispensing permits at Addison Airport, seeking a declaratory judgment that the fee was an unauthorized tax, damages for an alleged unconstitutional taking under the Texas and U.S. Constitutions, and injunctive relief. The court granted the Town's motion for summary judgment, holding that Haile lacked standing to sue. Haile was not a permit holder and instead purchased fuel from third-party suppliers who paid the fee; the court reasoned that any resulting increase in fuel prices was too speculative to constitute a redressable injury in fact, as the suppliers were not parties to the case and there was no evidence they would lower prices if the fee were enjoined. The court further rejected Haile's arguments based on the Commerce Clause and underinclusive statutes, finding no competent evidence of an injury in fact.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned household goods damaged during a multi-leg shipment from Mexico City to Plano, Texas, with plaintiffs suing under the Carmack Amendment to Title 49 as well as Texas common law and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court granted summary judgment to defendants Terrier and Fernandez on all state-law claims, holding that the Carmack Amendment preempts inconsistent state remedies for the domestic segment of the transportation. It denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment under the Carmack Amendment because the record presented genuine factual disputes over who packed and loaded the goods, their condition at handover, whether the trailer was sealed, and the extent of damages. The case will proceed to trial solely on the federal Carmack claim.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedurefederal power

In Rodriguez v. Barnhart, plaintiff Betty Rodriguez sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits, after an ALJ rejected her claim and the Appeals Council declined review even after considering additional medical evidence submitted for the first time on appeal. The magistrate judge recommended affirming the denial without considering that new evidence, and the plaintiff objected, arguing both that the new evidence should have been reviewed as part of the record and that the magistrate misinterpreted the existing medical evidence. The district court overruled the objections, holding that when the Appeals Council denies review the court examines only the ALJ's decision based on the evidence presented to the ALJ, that other district court decisions such as Cauble v. Massanari are persuasive but not binding, and that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

procedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in the Chapter 7 proceeding of Auto International Refrigeration, Inc., concerning a revolving credit loan agreement between the debtor and Fidelity Funding, Inc. (later transferred to GBCC). The Chapter 7 trustee asserted claims of usury under Texas law, breach of the loan agreement, and equitable subordination of the creditor's claim, while also challenging the treatment of certain fees, interest, and unmatured amounts. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's summary judgment rulings that the loan was not usurious, the agreement was not breached, and equitable subordination was unwarranted, but reversed and remanded in part regarding the disallowance of $54,243.06 in unmatured interest, applying relevant provisions of the Texas Finance Code and the loan's savings clause.

business & regulatoryprocedure