Sam Sparks

The case involved an appeal by debtors Thaine and Lisa Mahanna from a bankruptcy court's order dismissing their Chapter 11 case without prejudice after they converted from Chapter 13. The bankruptcy court cited multiple failures by the debtors to meet their obligations, such as paying fees, providing accurate information, attending meetings, and maintaining proper accounts, along with the lack of assets and the case's stalled progress. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the debtors had not shown an absolute right to convert to Chapter 7 when a dismissal motion was pending, that their due process claims lacked merit, and that the order was final despite arguments based on Stern v. Marshall. The court also imposed sanctions on the debtors and their counsel for pursuing a frivolous appeal motivated in part by avoiding filing fees.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a foreclosure dispute in which plaintiff Kan, after defaulting on Texas properties, recorded documents purporting to reduce the secured debt to zero, substitute trustees, and reconvey the property, then sued defendant OneWest Bank challenging its authority to foreclose under a "show-me-the-note" theory and related claims. OneWest moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the complaint's conclusory allegations failed to satisfy Rule 8's notice requirements or the plausibility standards of Twombly and Iqbal, and that Kan's legal theories lacked support in Texas law.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Dell Marketing, LP and Incompass IT, Inc. over an alleged unpaid debt of approximately $75,000 for Dell products purchased by Incompass as a reseller. Dell filed suit in Texas state court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, which Incompass removed to federal court on diversity grounds while asserting lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense and filing counterclaims. After reviewing motions and supplemental briefing, the court found that Incompass lacked minimum contacts with Texas sufficient to satisfy due process for personal jurisdiction, noting that the contract's arbitration clause was illusory and Incompass had no other purposeful ties to the forum. The court therefore dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied all other pending motions as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a consolidated securities class action brought by lead plaintiff DeKalb County Pension Fund on behalf of purchasers of ArthroCare Corporation stock during the class period, alleging that the company, certain executives, and its auditor PriceWaterhouseCoopers made materially false and misleading public statements about the company's insurance billing practices through its DiscoCare subsidiary and about its accounting and internal controls. The plaintiff claims these statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, with additional control-person liability claims under Section 20(a). The court considered multiple motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. The court denied the motions in substantial part, finding that the complaint adequately alleged the existence of material misrepresentations, scienter, and loss causation when the facts are taken as true, while noting that control-person claims are derivative of the primary violations and that secondary actors cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting under the statute.

business & regulatory

This case was a trademark infringement suit in which Honestech alleged that Sonic Solutions (Roxio) infringed its claimed mark "VHS TO DVD" by using a similar title for competing analog-to-digital conversion software. After a jury trial, the jury found the mark descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, resulting in a verdict for Roxio on all claims. Honestech moved for a new trial, arguing the court improperly admitted expert survey testimony on secondary meaning, but the court denied the motion, finding the challenges were previously rejected and any error was not prejudicial. The court also resolved post-trial matters by granting Roxio's bill of costs in part while denying Honestech recovery of certain discovery expenses tied to an unpled genericness defense.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin concerned two Caucasian applicants denied admission who challenged the university's undergraduate admissions policy as discriminating on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and federal civil rights statutes. On cross-motions for summary judgment in the liability phase, the district court upheld the policy. The court reasoned that the policy was constitutional under Grutter v. Bollinger because it served the compelling interest of student body diversity through a narrowly tailored, holistic review process in which race was one individualized factor among many, and race-neutral alternatives such as the Top Ten Percent Law had not produced sufficient diversity. The opinion reviewed the history of UT's admissions practices, including the Top Ten Percent Law and personal achievement index, and found that consideration of race remained necessary and limited.

civil rights

This case concerned a coverage dispute between property owner ARM Properties Management Group and excess insurer RSUI Indemnity Company over an all-risks policy that excluded flood and earthquake perils, following damage to multiple properties that involved both flood and non-flood losses. The court addressed RSUI's motions for partial summary judgment regarding the flood exclusion's application and the interplay with primary National Flood Insurance Program policies, including questions of claim assignments and subrogation. Applying Texas rules of insurance contract interpretation that require giving effect to all policy provisions without isolating language, the court granted various procedural motions to develop the record and then granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment motions based on the plain policy language and federal NFIP regulations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case is a consolidated securities fraud class action brought by investors who purchased Dell Inc. stock between 2002 and 2006, alleging that Dell, its executives, and auditor PwC violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by making false statements about Dell's market share, revenue growth, profit margins, and business model to inflate the stock price. The court considered motions to dismiss filed by PwC and the Dell defendants, along with related briefing and supplemental authority. The court granted the motions and dismissed all claims against all defendants with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the required elements of their claims, including a strong inference of scienter and loss causation. The court also denied leave to amend, concluding that any amendment would be futile.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a challenge by the Free Market Foundation and others to Texas Government Code Sections 302.017 and 302.019, which restrict contributions and expenditures by organizations and individuals to influence the election of the Texas House Speaker. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring the statutes unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The reasoning was that these limits impinge on protected freedoms of expression and association by prohibiting coordinated political activity and most independent expenditures, and they are not closely drawn to match a sufficiently important governmental interest, as they allow unlimited contributions to candidates but severely restrict other forms of support. The court denied injunctive relief, finding no need for it beyond the declaratory judgment.

electionsfree speech

In Fisher v. State of Texas, two Texas residents denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin under its 2008 admissions process sued the university, alleging that its consideration of race in holistic review for non-Top Ten Percent applicants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and related federal statutes. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction ordering the university to re-evaluate their applications without regard to race and to admit them if they would have been admitted absent that factor. The district court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because they failed to show both that they would have been admitted without racial considerations and that the university's policy was unconstitutional. The court also concluded that the balance of harms and public interest weighed against an injunction, given the significant administrative burden and cost of re-reviewing thousands of individualized applications.

civil rightsprocedure

This case is a negligence and wrongful death action brought by the estate and family of Raymond Bascom against Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., alleging that the defendant's acts caused Bascom's death in San Antonio on April 5, 2006. Defendant Maxim moved to transfer venue from the Austin Division to the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court granted the motion, holding that the San Antonio Division was clearly more convenient for parties and witnesses and served the interest of justice. The decision rested on private interest factors, including the location of the accident, witnesses, and sources of proof in San Antonio, and public interest factors, particularly the strong local interest in adjudicating a dispute with no connection to Austin.

proceduretorts & liability

In Brinston v. Koppers Industries, Inc., Texas residents who own or lease property near a wood treatment plant sued the plant's current operator Koppers and former operator Burlington Northern, alleging contamination from toxic releases that created a nuisance and damaged their property; they sought class-wide compensatory and punitive damages plus an injunction to shut down the plant. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing and expiration of the two-year statute of limitations on permanent-nuisance claims that accrued to prior owners in 1905. Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to drop all class allegations and the injunction request, and also sought to continue the summary-judgment motion under Rule 56(f). The court granted the amendment but then granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert permanent-nuisance claims because those claims belonged to the owners at the time the nuisance allegedly began and that federal jurisdiction under CAFA therefore no longer existed.

environmentpropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a commission dispute between employee Wayne Specht and his employer Maximus, Inc. Specht pursued a large Texas state contract for call centers and eligibility services through an Opportunity Approval Request that was signed by Maximus supervisors, and the company ultimately won the contract worth over $24 million. Maximus refused to pay the $300,000 commission, arguing Specht had not obtained approvals from all appropriate divisions as required by his goal letters. The court granted summary judgment to Specht, concluding that Maximus had waived the approval condition through its conduct in pursuing the project and that Specht reasonably relied on the signed approvals under Texas law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves anonymous plaintiffs challenging Round Rock Independent School District’s policy of holding student votes on whether to include a prayer at high school graduation ceremonies, as well as the district’s review and editing of any such prayers. Some plaintiffs attended 2007 ceremonies where prayers occurred after revotes that excluded abstentions, while others objected to the policy generally without attending affected events. The court granted dismissal of all claims against the superintendent in his individual capacity and considered the district’s motion to dismiss, along with issues of mootness and ripeness raised in supplemental briefing. It determined that claims based on past ceremonies by attendees could proceed but that requests to hold the case open for potential future violations at 2008 or 2009 graduations were not ripe, directing the parties to submit a scheduling order consistent with the court’s regular docket rather than delaying proceedings.

religious libertycivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a Texas prison inmate suing the state and various prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, RLUIPA, and the Texas Religious Freedom Act, claiming that denial of access to the prison chapel for Christian services and restrictions on attending services while on cell restriction violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights along with statutory religious protections. The court granted motions to dismiss claims against certain defendants, claims for monetary damages against the state and officials in their official capacities, and TRFA claims against defendants in their individual capacities. On the remaining claims, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff did not establish a substantial burden on his religious exercise or that prison policies on chapel access and cell restrictions were not supported by compelling interests in security, safety, and neutral religious accommodation or were not the least restrictive means of achieving those interests.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal law

In Doe v. MySpace, Inc., the plaintiffs alleged that MySpace was negligent, grossly negligent, fraudulent, and made negligent misrepresentations by failing to verify users' ages or protect minors like 13-year-old Julie Doe, who was sexually assaulted after meeting an adult user through the site despite lying about her age to join. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that MySpace qualified for immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as an interactive computer service not liable for third-party content created by users, and that the fraud claims failed to meet the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). As a result, the negligence claims were dismissed with prejudice and the fraud claims without prejudice.

free speechtorts & liabilityprocedure