Jane J. Boyle

This case involves an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by Melissa Buchanan-Rushing, a police officer for the City of Royse City, Texas, who alleged she was placed on involuntary medical leave, denied return to full duty as a School Resource Officer, had her FMLA leave request denied, and was ultimately terminated due to her pregnancy. The plaintiff asserted claims under Title VII and the Texas Labor Code for sex/pregnancy discrimination and retaliation, as well as under the FMLA, while voluntarily dismissing her ADA and equal protection claims. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, overruling objections and granting leave for a sur-reply. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to the circumstantial evidence, the court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of discrimination sufficient to survive summary judgment on at least some claims by showing she was otherwise discharged because of her pregnancy, even without strong evidence of similarly situated comparators. The decision turned on the substantive legal standards for summary judgment under Rule 56 and the requirements for proving intentional discrimination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a homeowner's insurance dispute where plaintiff Chris Tolar sued Allstate Texas Lloyd's for breach of contract and unfair claim settlement practices under the Texas Insurance Code, claiming the insurer improperly depreciated general contractor overhead and profit along with sales tax when calculating actual cash value payments for storm damage to his property. The court denied Tolar's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment on both claims while denying its alternative request to stay proceedings under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The decision rested on the finding that the policy language was unambiguous in allowing depreciation of those items in determining actual cash value, with no genuine issue of material fact on the damages element of the claims. Texas contract interpretation rules applied in this diversity case, and the court saw no need for agency input from the Texas Department of Insurance on this straightforward issue.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Jason Nordsell sued his employer GMAC Mortgage under the Americans with Disabilities Act for alleged retaliation after he refused to participate in a company practice involving undisclosed cash payments on short sale closings, which he claimed violated RESPA. He also brought Texas state-law claims for wrongful discharge under Sabine Pilot and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted GMAC's motion to dismiss the Sabine Pilot claim because Nordsell remained employed and had not been discharged or constructively discharged, and the exception applies only to actual terminations. The court also dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because it was based on the same facts as the ADA claim and Texas law treats it as a gap-filler tort unavailable when other remedies exist.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved an African-American truck driver who sued his former employer, J.B. Hunt Transport, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and libel based on the company's report to a private driver database stating he had been discharged after a preventable accident. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all claims. On the discrimination and retaliation claims, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework and found that the plaintiff failed to show the employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination and discipline were pretextual. On the libel claim, the court held there was no evidence of actual malice in the database communication. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend but denied the cross-motion for summary judgment and various motions to strike and for judicial notice.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case arose from a 2007 Kansas highway accident in which Don Ashton died after his Hummer was struck by a drunk driver; plaintiff Kelly Ashton, suing on behalf of the estate, alleged that Ashton survived the initial collision and was then run over and killed by an eighteen-wheeler driven by defendant George Muthee and owned by defendant Knight Transportation. After denying summary judgment, the court addressed plaintiff's motion for sanctions, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants had engaged in spoliation by destroying or altering key evidence, including the truck's front steer tires (replaced and then lost after the accident) and Qualcomm messages between Muthee and Knight in the days surrounding the incident. The court granted the motion, concluding that the defendants acted in bad faith both before and after the lawsuit was filed, and that this conduct warranted sanctions including an adverse-inference instruction. The decision rested on the defendants' failure to preserve evidence they had a duty to maintain once litigation was reasonably foreseeable, along with their efforts to conceal or falsify records such as driver logs.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves the Securities and Exchange Commission bringing an enforcement action against Microtune, Inc. and two former executives, alleging they engaged in a stock option backdating scheme from 2000 to mid-2003 that resulted in improper financial reporting. The court considered motions for summary judgment, focusing on whether the SEC's claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462. The court determined that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not toll the limitations period, as the SEC failed to meet its requirements, and that most requested remedies constituted penalties subject to the limitations period. Consequently, many of the SEC's claims were dismissed as time-barred, except for certain disgorgement claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, two groups of plaintiffs challenged a City of Farmers Branch ordinance that created a residential occupancy licensing system for rental housing, under which licenses would be revoked for tenants the federal government determined were not lawfully present in the United States. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on issues of standing and the ordinance's validity under the Supremacy Clause, Due Process, and Equal Protection. It held that the landlord and tenant plaintiffs had standing and that the ordinance was invalid under the Supremacy Clause. The core reasoning was that the ordinance regulated immigration and alien residency by tying housing eligibility to federal immigration status determinations and imposing local penalties, entering a field preempted by federal law and conflicting with Congress's exclusive authority over such matters.

immigrationfederal powercivil rights

This case involved a dispute between Fluor Corporation and Citadel Equity Fund over the number of shares of common stock owed to Citadel upon conversion of its convertible notes following a two-for-one stock split. Fluor calculated the shares based on an adjusted closing price of $88.80 per share to account for the split, while Citadel argued for using the unadjusted reported price of $177.60. The court granted Fluor's motion for summary judgment and denied Citadel's, holding that the plain language of the indenture defining "closing price per share" required adjustment for the due-bill value of the split dividend. The court reasoned that failing to adjust would lead to absurd results contrary to the parties' intent as expressed in the contract terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Robert Acosta's claims against his former employer, Fair Isaac Corporation, for approximately $282,000 in unpaid commissions allegedly owed under the company's Sales Compensation Plan for a large software sale made in 2004. Fair Isaac moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit based on an Agreement to Arbitrate Claims that Acosta signed as a condition of employment. The court granted the motion after determining that a valid arbitration agreement existed under California law, though it severed an unconscionable forum-selection clause requiring proceedings in Orange County, California. The agreement was found to be broad in scope and to encompass Acosta's contract claims, leading the court to dismiss the case with prejudice so the parties could proceed to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a putative class action by purchasers of life insurance-funded defined benefit plans marketed as qualifying for tax benefits under IRC Section 412(i), who faced IRS audits, penalties, and fees after the plans were ruled abusive tax shelters. The court reviewed the ILIC Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint asserting civil conspiracy, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and California UCL violations against Indianapolis Life and Hartstein/ECI, following prior dismissals for pleading deficiencies. The court held that the amended allegations still failed to state claims under Rule 8(a) and Twombly, particularly lacking facts showing a meeting of the minds for conspiracy or particularized misrepresentations. The reasoning centered on the implausibility of competitors conspiring to market rival policies, absence of facts supporting prior agreement, and plaintiffs' awareness of risks from the legal opinions provided.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In McIver v. United States, taxpayers sued the IRS under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432 and 7433 claiming erroneous tax liens filed in 2003 for tax years 1997, 1998, and 2000 and unauthorized collection actions for those years plus 1999, based on alleged statute-of-limitations violations, Tax Court decisions showing no taxes owed, and improper handling of overpayments. The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that the taxpayers failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, as valid extensions and waivers supported the 1997 assessment with balances still due, the IRS properly credited overpayments from other years, some collection claims were not exhausted administratively, and § 7433 does not permit challenges to assessments themselves.

taxesprocedure

In Ashfaq v. Anderson, a pathologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center sued Parkland Health and Hospital System's CEO under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming her removal from leadership roles at Parkland and UTSW violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because she was not given notice or an opportunity to resolve issues as required by a master services agreement between the institutions. The plaintiff alleged the removal stemmed from an undisclosed conflict of interest related to her prior work with a vendor, which she argued was handled arbitrarily. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, finding that the complaint did not allege facts showing the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional property interest or a violation of clearly established law. It permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within seven days and stayed discovery pending further proceedings on immunity. The ruling focused on the sequential qualified immunity analysis without addressing the merits of the state-law claims.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved professionals and their businesses who purchased life insurance policies to fund defined benefit plans under Section 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code, alleging that Indianapolis Life Insurance Company and other defendants conspired to market the plans as compliant tax shelters while knowing or ignoring IRS warnings that the plans would be deemed abusive tax shelters. The plaintiffs asserted claims including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and violations of state consumer protection and insurance statutes, claiming they faced IRS audits and related financial harms. The court granted Indianapolis Life's motion to dismiss the claims against it. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to adequately allege standing or connections for many plaintiffs under applicable state laws, that choice-of-law rules precluded certain claims, and that the allegations did not sufficiently state causes of action for fraud, misrepresentation, or statutory violations against this defendant.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves lenders, including Highland Crusader Offshore Partners and other Highland Funds, who sued LifeCare Holdings, its owners, and JPMorgan Chase in Texas state court over alleged breaches of a 2005 Credit Agreement, including unequal offers of amendment fees during a proposed second amendment, as well as claims of fraud and breach of good faith. The defendants removed the case to federal district court under the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. § 632, and the plaintiffs moved to remand. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that federal jurisdiction existed because JPMorgan, a national bank organized under U.S. laws, was a party and the underlying loan transaction qualified as an international or foreign financial operation due to foreign elements in the lending arrangement and the nature of the banking claims. The court reasoned that the Edge Act applies even to state-law contract and tort claims arising from such transactions.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from disputes over the servicing of two commercial mortgage-backed securities trusts, where certificate holder Super Future Equities sued Wells Fargo, Orix Capital Markets, and related parties for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, and civil RICO violations; those claims were previously dismissed on summary judgment. Orix then asserted counterclaims against Super Future Equities and its principals for libel per se, business disparagement, tortious interference with contracts, conspiracy, and copyright infringement, alleging that statements and images posted on a website called predatorix.com harmed its business and infringed its copyrights. The court granted summary judgment to the counter-defendants on the business disparagement, tortious interference, and copyright infringement claims, as well as on libel per se and conspiracy against one individual, but denied it on libel per se and conspiracy against the remaining counter-defendants, primarily because Orix failed to show evidence of actual malice, specific interference, or lack of fair use for the copyright claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Lela M. McNair's appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income based on alleged disabilities including chronic pain from degenerative bone disease and other conditions. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part by reversing the denial of Disability Insurance Benefits and remanding the case for reconsideration while affirming the denial of Supplemental Security Income. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's determination at step two of the sequential evaluation process—that the plaintiff's back impairment was not severe—lacked substantial supporting evidence from the medical record and was not harmless error, as it affected later findings regarding past relevant work and transferable skills.

federal powerhealthcare

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Southwestern Bell and Fujitsu against Arthur Collins, Inc., seeking rulings of non-infringement and invalidity of two patents (the '907 and '589 patents) covering a dynamically reconfigurable time space time switch technology that Collins had asserted against the plaintiffs' switching systems. The court had previously dismissed all claims related to the '907 patent. On the motion for partial summary judgment, the court granted invalidity as to claims 4-14 of the '589 patent because Collins added those claims during reexamination specifically to avoid application of a prior district court claim construction from another case, which is not a permitted purpose under 35 U.S.C. § 305. The court denied the remainder of the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on anticipation and obviousness grounds for the remaining claims and noting that the '907 patent issues were already resolved.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Oglesby v. AT & T Corp., the plaintiff, after retiring from AT & T and electing a joint and survivor annuity pension option with his then-wife as beneficiary, sought to remove her as beneficiary following the annulment of their marriage and to receive full pension benefits. The court granted summary judgment in favor of AT & T, holding that the pension plan election was irrevocable once payments commenced and that the annulment decree did not explicitly waive the beneficiary's rights under the plan terms. The reasoning centered on the clear and unambiguous language in the plan documents prohibiting changes after the pension started, and ERISA's requirement to follow the plan's terms.

labor & employment

This case is a declaratory judgment action by Southwestern Bell Telephone against Arthur Collins, Inc., with Fujitsu Network Communications intervening, over whether Southwestern Bell's synchronous optical networks using Fujitsu add-drop multiplexers connected to Tellabs digital cross-connects infringe Collins's two patents on dynamically reconfigurable time space time switches. After claim construction, the court addressed multiple motions for summary judgment on infringement claims. The court granted summary judgment of no literal infringement of the '589 patent to Southwestern Bell and Fujitsu because the accused devices' control stores do not perform all four required functions specified in the claims. It dismissed withdrawn claims of infringement of the '907 patent and certain other claims by Fujitsu, but denied summary judgment on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and remaining issues because genuine disputes of material fact exist.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this insurance coverage dispute, OneBeacon sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, Don's Building Supply, in 26 underlying Texas lawsuits brought by homeowners alleging that defective Exterior Insulation and Finish systems distributed by DBS caused wood rot and other property damage to their homes. The court granted OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment and denied DBS's cross-motion, holding that OneBeacon owed no duty to defend. The core reasoning was that the CGL policies issued for the 1993-1996 period only covered property damage occurring during the policy term, but the underlying petitions alleged damage that was not discovered or manifest until years later (with suits filed in 2003-2005), so no occurrence took place within the coverage window under Texas law on latent defects.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liabilityprocedure