Kathleen Cardone

The case concerned a coverage dispute under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Evanston Insurance to Villegas & Sons. After Villegas was held liable in state court for severe burns suffered by plaintiff Salcedo during the unloading of hot oil from a truck into an asphalt plant, Salcedo (as assignee) sued the insurer to collect on the judgment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant and denied the plaintiff's motion, holding that the policy's auto exclusion barred coverage. The exclusion applied because the injury arose out of the use and unloading of an auto—the oil tank truck—even though a pump malfunction on the plant also contributed to the accident. The court found that the plant equipment did not fall within any exception to the exclusion and that the policy language unambiguously precluded coverage.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a former El Paso Marriott employee who alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her by showing her inappropriate images and making offensive comments, which she reported to management, and that she subsequently faced retaliation including conflicts with coworkers and exclusion from training duties, leading to her resignation. She sued under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code for hostile work environment, retaliation, aiding or abetting discrimination, and sex discrimination based on pregnancy or related conditions. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the alleged incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment, there was insufficient evidence of a materially adverse employment action or causal link for retaliation, the negligence claim was preempted by the statutory claims, and the remaining claims were waived for lack of evidence and briefing.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Douglas v. Mission Chevrolet, plaintiff Raymond Douglas alleged that his employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages and by retaliating against him through termination after he complained about the wages. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for emotional distress and punitive damages. The court granted the motion, holding that such damages are not recoverable under the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision. The reasoning relied on the Fifth Circuit's requirement that FLSA remedies be interpreted consistently with those under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, under which emotional distress and punitive damages are unavailable.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a dispute between City Bank and Compass Bank (as successor to State National Bank) over revolving lines of credit extended to the now-defunct Sambrano Corporation, including competing security interests in the company's receivables and allegations that Compass Bank's actions caused SamCorp to breach its loan covenants with City Bank. The court addressed multiple pending motions, including Compass Bank's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss for lack of standing, as well as City Bank's motion to amend its complaint. It granted in part and denied in part the motions for summary judgment and to dismiss, referred certain third-party matters to the bankruptcy court, severed the surviving tort claim against Compass Bank for consolidation with another case, denied the motion to amend as moot, and stayed further proceedings pending resolution of the bankruptcy issues. The core reasoning focused on the priority of liens, the terms of the loan agreements prohibiting additional debt, evidence regarding Compass Bank's knowledge and intent in relation to any breach, and procedural efficiency in handling related claims across courts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liabilityproperty

This case involves former employees of Dynasty Insulation, Inc. who filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging failure to pay overtime wages for work on the Southwest Cheese Project. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment and a motion to strike evidence, denying the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, granting the defendant's motion in part and denying it in part, and denying the motion to strike. The rulings turned on issues including the statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs' claims, the sufficiency of evidence regarding workweeks and overtime payments, and compliance with procedural requirements for declarations and records under federal rules and FLSA regulations.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between El Paso Healthcare System (EPH), which operates two Texas hospitals, and Molina Healthcare of New Mexico, a managed care organization providing coverage to New Mexico Medicaid beneficiaries, over alleged underpayments for emergency outpatient services rendered to out-of-network patients. EPH moved for partial summary judgment on the proper reimbursement rate and method under New Mexico Medicaid regulations, while Molina moved for summary judgment denying any monetary recovery or declaratory relief. The court denied EPH's motion in full and granted Molina's motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the regulations require interim payments at a fixed percentage of billed charges subject to final year-end cost settlements for out-of-state hospitals, but that factual issues remain regarding whether Molina's prior payments satisfied its obligations and whether EPH has a private right of action.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Ajai and Divya Agarwal, Indian nationals living in Texas, who applied for U.S. naturalization in 2004, passed their exams, and then sued federal immigration officials in 2007 under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) to compel a decision on their stalled petitions. While the lawsuit was pending, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied the applications in May 2009 and initiated removal proceedings, prompting the government to move for dismissal on mootness and jurisdictional grounds or for summary judgment on ineligibility. The court denied the motion in full and vacated the denial decisions, holding that the filing of the § 1447(b) action gave the district court exclusive jurisdiction, rendering the agency's subsequent actions ultra vires; it further concluded that the pendency of removal proceedings did not divest jurisdiction or moot the naturalization claims.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

This case involves the criminal prosecution of Luis Posada Carriles on charges of perjury, obstruction of administrative proceedings, and making false statements during a naturalization process, stemming from his statements about involvement in bombings in Cuba. The government sought a protective order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d) to restrict dissemination of sensitive but unclassified discovery materials, such as unpublished reporter notes, foreign government information, medical records, and personnel files. The press moved to intervene to challenge the order on First Amendment grounds, while the defendant opposed it and sought production of a log detailing the materials. After in camera review, the court granted the protective order in part to prevent unwarranted public disclosure of specific sensitive items while preserving the defendant's defense rights, granted the press limited intervention, and denied the defendant's motion for a log. The core reasoning was that good cause existed under Rule 16(d) for targeted protections based on the nature of the materials, but a broad blanket order was not warranted, and sealed filings were appropriate for related court documents.

criminal lawfree speech

In Jimenez v. Dyncorp International, LLC, the plaintiff, a female police officer, brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim after Defendant Dyncorp withdrew a conditional job offer for a CIVPOL advisor position following her failure of a psychological evaluation during the required PAST training program, even though she was the only woman among the candidates and an initial evaluator had passed her before consulting colleagues. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the employer could be held liable for discrimination by third-party contractors conducting the evaluation and whether the report provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for the decision or served as pretext.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, the United States sued Jose R. Tellez and Lazara Tellez to obtain a judgment for unpaid federal taxes from 1996 and to enforce a tax lien on real property in El Paso, Texas, which the government alleged was not the defendants' actual homestead. After the defendants failed to respond, the court entered default and a final judgment authorizing sale of the property. The defendants later moved to set aside the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), arguing excusable neglect because they mistook the service of process for a separate pending IRS summons enforcement action involving different tax years. The court granted the motion, finding the default was not willful, the government would not be prejudiced, a meritorious defense could be presented, and the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits supported relief.

taxesfederal powerpropertyprocedure

The case involved Radar Solutions, Ltd., a manufacturer of devices including the RMR-C450 and RMR-S201, challenging FCC enforcement actions that deemed the products unlicensed intentional radiators prohibited from marketing and sale under the Communications Act and related regulations because they generate radio frequency signals capable of interfering with police radar. The FCC moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, while the plaintiff sought judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment on a counterclaim. The court granted the FCC's motion and denied the plaintiff's, holding that the devices met the regulatory definition of intentional radiators requiring prior FCC authorization, that a prior 1997 citation applied to similar devices, and that the plaintiff's testing and arguments did not create genuine issues of material fact regarding compliance or harmful interference. The core reasoning rested on the plain language of 47 C.F.R. Parts 2 and 15, the FCC's statutory authority under 47 U.S.C. §§ 302a and 333, and the absence of any exemption for the plaintiff's products.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a parent, M.L., suing on behalf of her disabled child A.L. under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, challenging decisions by a special education hearing officer regarding the El Paso Independent School District's handling of ARD committee meetings, evaluations, and consent for a full individual evaluation. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the school district's motion, affirming the hearing officer's rulings that dismissed the parent's complaints and allowed the district to proceed with an override of consent. The core reasoning was that the district followed required procedures for notices, meetings, and evaluations under the IDEA, with no procedural violations that denied the student a free appropriate public education.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute between franchisor Petro Franchise Systems, LLC and its affiliates and franchisees All American Properties, Inc. and All American Plazas, Inc. over two Pennsylvania truck stop franchises governed by agreements that took effect in 2003. After an acquisition and brand integration that the franchisees claimed harmed their business, the parties executed a 2008 settlement releasing escrow funds to cure defaults, but subsequent disagreements arose over fee payments, alleged breaches, and post-termination obligations such as non-compete covenants and use of proprietary marks. The franchisor sought a preliminary injunction to enforce the agreements, while the franchisees sought their own injunctive relief on counterclaims. The court granted the franchisor's application in part and denied the franchisees' application, applying the standard four-factor test for preliminary injunctive relief under applicable law and finding that the franchisor had demonstrated a likelihood of success on key contract claims along with irreparable harm.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved federal criminal charges against defendant Martinez for allegedly kidnapping and transporting a minor from Texas to Mexico, where he engaged in sexual conduct with her, leading to an indictment with seven counts under various provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 and related statutes. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing primarily that 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) exceeds Congress's constitutional authority, and also sought a bill of particulars for more details on the charges. The court denied both motions, holding that § 2423(c) is a valid exercise of congressional power to regulate the channels of foreign commerce and that the indictment provided sufficient notice without needing further particulars. The core reasoning focused on the statute's connection to interstate and foreign commerce, the defendant's use of channels of commerce to cross the border, and precedents upholding similar regulations of conduct abroad tied to U.S. travel.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involved a Jamaican-born petitioner who entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident at age 12 and whose father later naturalized; the petitioner sought to establish derivative citizenship through a long-pending application filed by his father, but faced removal proceedings after a criminal conviction for sexual abuse of children. The CIS initially denied the application on the ground that the petitioner's mother was never a U.S. citizen, though the Department of Homeland Security later acknowledged that the petitioner facially met the requirements under the law in effect when the application was filed. The district court dismissed the petitioner's pro se action seeking mandamus, habeas relief, and declaratory judgment without prejudice, while vacating the CIS denial as improvidently granted, primarily because the claims were subject to jurisdictional bars under immigration statutes such as 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) and because the application had been adjudicated under an incorrect provision. The court reasoned that equitable estoppel and related challenges to the government's handling of the citizenship process could not be pursued in this forum given the statutory framework governing removal and naturalization proceedings.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved a defendant arrested and indicted for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, who had prior convictions and was later found incompetent to stand trial. After the court ordered a mental competency evaluation at a federal medical facility, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment due to lengthy delays in transportation and proceedings, citing violations of the Speedy Trial Act's 70-day limit and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b). The court granted the motion and dismissed the indictment with prejudice, holding that the government failed to show the delays qualified for statutory exclusions, the Speedy Trial Act clock had run, and factors such as the length of delay, lack of justification, and prejudice supported dismissal with prejudice rather than without. The court did not reach the Rule 48(b) claim.

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

In United States v. Torres, the defendant was charged with one count of failing to register or update his registration as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250, based on his prior military convictions for sex offenses against minors and subsequent unreported employment changes in Texas and New Mexico. After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the court found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the statutory elements were satisfied because the defendant was a sex offender required to register under SORNA and knowingly failed to update his registration as required, holding that the “knowingly” mens rea applies only to the failure to register and does not require awareness of SORNA itself.

criminal law

This case involved post-judgment motions in a dispute where a student (R.R.) prevailed against the El Paso Independent School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, leading to an award of attorney fees. The court addressed the plaintiff's requests to amend the clerk's judgment to include the fees order, treat attorney fees as costs, award additional costs of $350, and grant post-judgment interest, alongside the defendant's motion to stay execution of the fees order pending appeal. The court denied amending the judgment as unnecessary under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, granted treating the $45,804 in fees as costs with 2.12% interest from August 25, 2008, and awarded the $350 in costs with 2.25% interest from July 14, 2008. It granted the stay but required the defendant to post a full supersedeas bond of $46,154 by January 7, 2009, because the defendant failed to show sufficient cause or financial details to waive the bond requirement.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a former Department of the Army Nursing Assistant who alleged discrimination on the basis of national origin, age, and disability, along with retaliation for prior EEO activity, in connection with a ten-day suspension and his eventual removal from federal service. The plaintiff pursued overlapping EEO complaints and an MSPB appeal challenging the personnel actions before filing suit in federal court. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on both the EEO and MSPB claims. It reasoned that some claims were jurisdictionally barred or untimely, while the remaining claims failed because the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation or demonstrate that the agency's legitimate reasons for the actions were pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a CBP officer who developed a permanent sleep disorder after two on-the-job accidents and received a temporary modified schedule excluding late-night and early-morning shifts. After his physician confirmed the restriction was permanent, the agency declined to continue the accommodation, stating that all officers must be available for all shifts, and did not select him for two other positions he sought; he then filed EEO complaints alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted the agency's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he was not qualified for the officer position without an accommodation that would fundamentally alter the job's essential functions, and likewise failed to show that any protected activity caused adverse actions sufficient to support a retaliation claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights