Marcia A. Crone

In Gellhaus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., former Wal-Mart assistant manager Pam Gellhaus sued the company under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging she was a non-exempt employee entitled to overtime pay for routinely working 50-70 hours per week. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing that Gellhaus qualified as an exempt executive employee. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claim after finding that Gellhaus's duties met the FLSA executive exemption criteria: she supervised and disciplined up to 100 employees, evaluated their performance, made recommendations on hiring and pay that were given particular weight, and received a salary exceeding $455 per week. The court concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Wal-Mart was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the exemption issue.

labor & employment

In Moore v. Bis Salamis, Inc., the plaintiff sued his employer BSI and the owners/operators of the Thunder Horse offshore oil facility for injuries from chemical exposure and a fall, asserting claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law for unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and negligence. The defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, prompting the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court. The court denied remand, concluding it had subject-matter jurisdiction because the Thunder Horse is a fixed work platform, not a vessel, so the claims arise under federal OCSLA rather than the Jones Act.

procedurefederal powerlabor & employment

This case involved Judith Finnicum suing Wyeth and Schwarz, the former manufacturers of brand-name metoclopramide (Reglan), for negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty, fraud, and related claims under Texas law after she developed tardive dyskinesia allegedly caused by long-term use of generic metoclopramide. Finnicum stipulated that she never ingested any version of the drug produced by the defendants, who had stopped manufacturing it years earlier. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that they owed no duty to warn users of generic versions of the drug made by other companies. The core reasoning relied on Texas precedents holding that brand-name manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries from products they did not manufacture or distribute, as extending liability based solely on physicians' reliance on brand-name warnings would stretch foreseeability too far.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved plaintiff Christopher Whiddon suing Chase Home Finance after Chase allegedly failed to obtain required fire and windstorm insurance on his home, leaving it uninsured when Hurricane Rita caused over $80,000 in damage in 2005; Whiddon asserted claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, common law fraud, negligence, and breach of contract. The court granted Chase's motion to dismiss the DTPA and negligence claims, finding them barred by the applicable statutes of limitations as evident on the face of the pleadings. It denied dismissal of the fraud and breach of contract claims but ordered Whiddon to file an amended complaint within thirty days that alleged those claims with greater particularity under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), noting that amendment could potentially cure the deficiencies.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

In Martin v. J.A.M. Distributing Co., plaintiff Richard C. Martin, an African-American bobtail and transport driver, sued his employer alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Section 1981, Title VII, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act after receiving a two-day suspension for cross-contaminating products and later being terminated for unexcused absences. Defendant J.A.M. moved for summary judgment, contending that Martin could not establish a prima facie case or show that its legitimate reasons for the adverse actions were pretextual. The court denied the motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Martin was treated less favorably than a similarly situated Caucasian coworker and whether his termination was motivated in part by his internal complaint of disparate treatment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Chapter 13 debtors Ronald and Sharon Ferrell who appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of their post-dismissal motions, including requests to alter or amend the dismissal order, obtain relief from an earlier agreed order, impose sanctions on the trustee, and reinstate their case. The bankruptcy court had dismissed the case after the trustee filed a certificate of non-compliance because the Ferrells failed to make required plan payments under an agreed order that provided for automatic dismissal without further hearing upon default. The district court affirmed, holding that the agreed order explicitly authorized dismissal for missed payments, that the trustee had no duty to advise the debtors about modification rights under 11 U.S.C. § 1329, and that cause existed for dismissal under § 1307(c)(6) due to the payment defaults.

procedure

In Alba v. Quarterman, an inmate convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Texas state court filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising twenty-five claims including allegations of racial bias in prosecution decisions, improper admission of unadjudicated offenses, ineffective assistance of counsel, and violations related to pretrial publicity and the lethal injection protocol. The district court reviewed the state court record and applicable precedents, determining that many claims were procedurally defaulted because they were not properly raised on direct appeal or in initial state habeas proceedings, while the remaining claims failed on the merits under standards such as those in Strickland v. Washington and Teague v. Lane. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and denied relief, upholding the death sentence after prior state and federal reviews had already addressed aspects of the conviction and punishment phases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Mary Bourne suing Wal-Mart and assistant manager Renee Berryhill in Texas state court for negligence and breach of warranty after she slipped on a hand-held shopping basket left on the floor of a checkout aisle, alleging serious physical injuries and seeking compensatory damages, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and exemplary damages. Wal-Mart removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, asserting that Berryhill had been fraudulently joined and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Bourne moved to remand, contending that Berryhill's presence defeated complete diversity and that the damages did not meet the jurisdictional threshold. The court denied the motion to remand, concluding that Berryhill was improperly joined because the petition failed to allege any independent duty owed by her as an employee and that the face of the complaint showed the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Defendant Demond Andrew Alexander's motion to suppress evidence seized and statements made during a traffic stop on Interstate 35 in Texas on November 30, 2006. The court denied the motion, concluding that the initial stop for a defective license plate light was supported by probable cause and that the officer's continued detention was justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on the occupants' nervous behavior, inconsistent travel stories, and other indicators. The court further found that Alexander voluntarily consented to the search of the vehicle, during which cocaine was discovered in hidden compartments. The decision rested on Fourth Amendment standards for traffic stops and consent searches, as analyzed through the totality of the circumstances including the video evidence and officer testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Simco Enterprises seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurer, James River, was obligated to defend and indemnify it in a personal injury lawsuit brought by Simco's employee against Entergy, a customer, along with claims for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code after coverage was denied. The underlying dispute arose from a contract requiring Simco to indemnify Entergy for claims related to Simco's work, including employee injuries. The court granted summary judgment to James River, holding that the insurance policy unambiguously excluded coverage for injuries to Simco's own employees and for Entergy as an additional insured or indemnitee. Because the policy provided no coverage for the claims, the breach of contract and Texas Insurance Code claims also failed as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns Stephen Verret's lawsuit against the United States seeking a refund of over $400,000 in IRS-assessed penalties, interest, and taxes for unpaid federal employment withholding taxes at Doctors Hospital, a nonprofit where Verret served as Board Chairman for many years while also receiving compensation for other services. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, denying the refund and upholding Verret's liability under Internal Revenue Code § 6672. The ruling rested on findings that Verret qualified as a responsible person given his substantial authority over finances and operations, including his role in directing the executive director and his personal financial ties to the hospital, and that he acted willfully by failing to ensure tax payments despite prior knowledge of delinquencies and repeated assurances from management.

taxes

The case concerned an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling on whether a deed of trust securing a 2000 promissory note on Texas real property had been extinguished after the note was paid off in 2002, or whether its dragnet clause continued to secure a later 2003 non-recourse note arising from a settlement agreement. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the property owner and related parties, declaring the deed of trust extinguished as a matter of law and ordering the holder to execute a release. The district court affirmed, holding that the deed of trust's release provision upon full payment of sums secured by the instrument rendered the dragnet clause inapplicable to post-payment indebtedness, consistent with the document's plain language and Texas precedent on mortgage construction.

propertyprocedure

In Willis v. Fugro Chance, Inc., plaintiffs Stephen and Corinna Willis sued Fugro Chance under the Jones Act for negligence after Stephen Willis was allegedly exposed to mercury and other toxic chemicals while providing navigational services aboard a drilling rig. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that Willis did not qualify as a seaman because he lacked a substantial connection to a vessel or identifiable fleet of vessels under Fugro Chance's ownership or control. The court granted summary judgment, holding that Willis's assignments to various customer vessels did not meet the seaman status requirements under Chandris and related Fifth Circuit precedent, leaving no viable Jones Act claim.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a former employee of the Texas Department of Transportation who sued her employer after being terminated, alleging discrimination based on race, gender, age, and disability, as well as retaliation for complaining about a hostile work environment, under federal statutes including Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for any of the discrimination or retaliation claims, as there was insufficient evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motive, and the termination was based on substantiated misconduct involving attempts to alter a coworker's retirement beneficiary designation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved the United States seeking to garnish funds in Bruce Chandler's accounts, including a SEP IRA, held by Citigroup Global Markets (Smith Barney) to collect on unpaid criminal fines and restitution stemming from Chandler's 2004 guilty plea to bank fraud. The court granted the government's motion for a final garnishment order, directing Smith Barney to remit the assets to satisfy the remaining $49,028.69 judgment. The core reasoning was that under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act and the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, criminal restitution and fines are treated like federal tax liens enforceable against all property, with exemptions limited to those listed in Internal Revenue Code §6334(a); state-law protections such as the Texas Property Code retirement plan exemption do not apply. The court further held that Smith Barney was not entitled to attorney fees or costs, as no statutory basis existed for such an award against the government.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Curtis Loftin, a seaman employed by defendant Kirby Inland Marine, alleged he was injured while working aboard a vessel and claimed Kirby failed to provide adequate maintenance and cure benefits, seeking punitive damages and attorney's fees on the grounds that the denial was arbitrary, capricious, or willful. Kirby moved to dismiss the punitive damages claim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing such damages are unavailable in actions for maintenance and cure under the Jones Act or general maritime law. The court granted the motion, holding that Loftin failed to state a viable claim for punitive damages as a matter of law. The reasoning relied on Fifth Circuit precedent establishing that punitive damages are not recoverable in maintenance and cure cases, even where egregious conduct is alleged, though attorney's fees might be available in limited circumstances.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In Loftin v. Kirby Inland Marine, L.P., a seaman who was injured while assisting with a heavy crossover hose on a vessel sued his employer for Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness, seeking an immediate award of maintenance and cure benefits prior to trial. The employer opposed the motion, arguing that factual disputes existed regarding the plaintiff's pre-employment disclosures about prior back surgeries stemming from a Navy injury. The court denied the motion for emergency relief. It held that triable issues remained as to whether the plaintiff's omissions were material to the hiring decision and whether a causal connection existed between the concealed prior conditions and the alleged injury, potentially barring recovery under the McCorpen defense.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case concerned former RGIS auditor Joél Johnson's individual claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act for allegedly unpaid wages and overtime related to travel time, meet-site assembly, equipment handling, and pre-inventory activities during the period from 2002 to 2004. After the collective-action class was decertified, the court addressed RGIS's motion for summary judgment on Johnson's remaining claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that time spent traveling from the optional meet site was noncompensable commute time under the FLSA except when compensable work was performed during travel, while finding genuine issues of material fact regarding certain pre-departure and equipment-related activities that precluded full summary judgment.

labor & employment

In Davidson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, three employees sued their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging a willful policy of denying overtime and minimum wages to non-exempt auditors and team leaders, and seeking to proceed collectively on behalf of others. A similar collective action was already pending in the same court, and RGIS moved to dismiss the new suit on grounds of collateral estoppel and an improper complaint amendment without leave of court. The court denied the motion, ruling that a motion to dismiss does not count as a responsive pleading under Rule 15(a) so the amendment was allowed as of right, that collateral estoppel does not apply absent a final judgment in the prior case, and that the amended complaint alleged sufficient facts to state an FLSA claim.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking to garnish defendant Bessie Lindsay's 401(k) retirement account held at First Bank & Trust East Texas to collect outstanding criminal restitution and fines stemming from her guilty plea to bank embezzlement. Lindsay claimed the funds were exempt under ERISA's anti-alienation provision, but the court granted the government's motion for judgment, ordering the bank to remit the funds. The court reasoned that the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, via 18 U.S.C. § 3613, permits enforcement of such judgments against all property except narrow tax-related exemptions and creates a specific exception overriding ERISA protections for federal criminal debts. No hearing was required because Lindsay raised no valid statutory exemption claim or procedural issues under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power