Keith P. Ellison

In this products liability case, Joann Powell sued Profile Design LLC after a bicycle accident allegedly caused by a defective aerobar stem weld, and Profile responded by filing a third-party complaint against several manufacturers, including HL (USA) Corporation, seeking contribution and indemnity under Texas law. The court denied Powell’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the third-party defendants, holding that she lacked standing to raise that issue on their behalf. The court granted HL (USA)’s separate motion to dismiss, concluding that the California corporation had insufficient minimum contacts with Texas for either specific or general personal jurisdiction, as merely placing products into the national stream of commerce, without evidence of purposeful targeting of Texas or substantial business there, does not satisfy due process requirements.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Wellogix suing Accenture for misappropriation of trade secrets under Texas common law and theft of trade secrets under the Texas Theft Liability Act, alleging that Accenture wrongfully acquired and used Wellogix’s confidential intellectual property related to its software. After a jury trial, the jury found for Wellogix on both claims and awarded $26.2 million in compensatory damages plus $68.2 million in exemplary damages. In ruling on Accenture’s post-trial motions, the court denied the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the trial record contained legally sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that a trade secret existed, that it was acquired through improper means or breach of confidence, and that Accenture used it without authorization. The court granted in part the motion for new trial or remittitur, determining that the damages award required adjustment.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a patent infringement suit brought by Shell against RMS Engineering and Tesoro over U.S. Patent No. 6,221,318, which describes a spent catalyst distributor used in fluid catalytic cracking units at oil refineries. The court conducted a Markman hearing to construe disputed claim terms such as 'fluid mass' and related elements of the apparatus for distributing fluids. It denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment on equitable estoppel and laches, as well as on indefiniteness, and denied as moot a motion to exclude expert testimony. The court also denied a later motion for reconsideration or clarification of its claim-construction rulings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case stems from the arrest of plaintiff Kerry Thomas in Galveston, Texas, shortly after Hurricane Ike, where police officers approached his home to investigate a generator on a trailer, leading to Thomas being ordered to drop his rifle, physically thrown down stairs, kicked while handcuffed, and jailed without prompt medical care on charges that were later dismissed. Thomas sued the individual officers and the City of Galveston under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of the Fourth, Fourteenth, and Second Amendments, including false arrest, excessive force, denial of medical treatment, and retaliation for gun rights. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, concluding that some claims against the officers and the city under Monell could proceed based on the detailed factual allegations of misconduct and potential patterns or customs.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Jamie Leigh Jones's claims against KBR defendants arising from her alleged rape by a coworker while employed in Iraq under a Defense Base Act-covered contract, including sexual harassment and hostile work environment under Title VII, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and related tort claims. The KBR defendants moved for partial summary judgment and dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing preemption or exclusivity of remedies under the Defense Base Act and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, concluding that some common-law claims were barred where their facts overlapped with statutory remedies but permitting claims such as assault and battery against the individual defendant and certain others to proceed.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liabilitycriminal law

This case arose from the death of Aaron Hobart, a man with schizoaffective disorder, following a police response to his parents' 911 call requesting a crisis intervention team officer to transport him for mental health treatment on February 18, 2009. His parents sued the City of Stafford, Officer Jesus Estrada, and Police Chief Bonny Krahn under federal civil rights statutes, alleging constitutional violations in the handling of the encounter. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and denied non-parties' motions to quash deposition notices. It reasoned that federal law governs questions of evidentiary privilege and identification of final policymakers for municipal liability purposes under Section 1983, while also applying state positive law where relevant to those federal inquiries and finding no basis for absolute legislative privilege in this context.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved Wellogix, a software company offering tools for managing complex services procurement in the oil and gas industry, suing Accenture, a consulting firm, over claims that Accenture misappropriated Wellogix's trade secrets and confidential information during joint work with clients like BP on electronic procurement projects. Wellogix alleged misappropriation of software features such as eField-Ticket and WorkFlow Navigator, along with related claims including theft, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contracts, and conspiracy. The court granted Accenture's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, denying summary judgment on trade secret misappropriation, certain theft claims, and breach of confidence while granting it on fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and conspiracy claims due to lack of evidence on elements like a meeting of the minds; it also denied the motion to exclude an expert witness and granted the motion to dismiss the breach of confidence claim. The decisions rested on whether Wellogix raised genuine issues of material fact regarding access to and improper use of confidential materials versus insufficient proof of agreement or interference.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a Texas resident who filed employment discrimination and related actions in state court and challenged the presiding judge's requirement that her cases use an electronic filing system operated by LexisNexis under a county contract, which imposed per-document fees. Plaintiff alleged violations of RICO, federal due process and equal protection via §1983, various Texas constitutional provisions, and state-law claims including fraud and theft. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in full, denied reconsideration, and denied leave to amend further. It reasoned that the plaintiff failed to allege a cognizable federal constitutional violation from the e-filing mandate or fees, that state-law violations do not support §1983 claims, and that no predicate acts or other elements supported a RICO claim.

civil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Reginald Quincy McCoy, who was indicted in January 2008 on a single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) based on a June 2006 incident. McCoy filed a motion to dismiss the indictment under the Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Clause, citing the nearly five-year delay between the alleged offense and trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion, applying the Barker v. Wingo factors and determining that the length of delay, assertion of the right, and reasons for delay weighed heavily in McCoy's favor, which presumed prejudice and was supported by evidence of actual prejudice from lost witnesses and inability to mount a defense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved disputes over the breach of ten immigration delivery bonds posted by Safety National Casualty Corporation and its agent AAA Bonding Agency to secure the release of aliens pending deportation proceedings. The court reviewed DHS bond breach determinations under the arbitrary and capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. It remanded nine bonds to the agency because DHS had failed to send required notices of demand to deliver and notices of breach to both the obligor and the agent as specified in the bond contract, following prior rulings on similar bonds. For the tenth bond, the court granted the defendants' motion for discovery of the alien's A-File before further proceedings on summary judgment.

immigrationprocedure

This case arose from a workplace injury to employee Aicia Ortiz at A.N.P., Inc., after which Ortiz sued A.N.P. for negligence and premises defects; A.N.P. then brought third-party claims against its occupational accident insurer Union Central seeking contribution or indemnity under the policy for any amounts owed to Ortiz. The policy was issued as an ERISA-governed employee benefit that explicitly disclaimed workers' compensation coverage, liability insurance, or any duty to indemnify or defend the employer. On Union Central's motion for summary judgment, the court held that the policy qualifies as an ERISA plan, that A.N.P.'s claims are preempted by ERISA, that the policy provides no coverage for casualty risks or Ortiz's suit, and that Union Central met its obligations to A.N.P., while denying summary judgment on requests concerning obligations to Ortiz and attorneys' fees.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a Texas hospital, North Cypress, that operates out-of-network and sued CIGNA for allegedly underpaying reimbursement claims for emergency and other services provided to patients under ERISA-governed health plans, failing to pay promptly, breaching separate discount agreements, and violating related ERISA claims procedures. North Cypress asserted claims under ERISA sections 502(a)(1)(B), 502(a)(3), and 502(c)(1)(B), along with Texas Insurance Code violations and breach of contract. CIGNA moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing due to invalid patient assignments, ERISA preemption of state claims, improper defendants, and limits on available remedies, while also seeking to strike the jury demand as untimely. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after analyzing the sufficiency of the pleadings under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves patent infringement claims brought by WesternGeco against Ion Geophysical and several Fugro entities, alleging violations of U.S. patents related to marine seismic streamer positioning technology used in surveys, including one conducted in the Chukchi Sea on the Outer Continental Shelf. The court addressed two motions: a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement filed by the Fugro U.S. Defendants (joined by others), and a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by the Fugro Norway Defendants. The court granted the 12(b)(6)/12(e) motion in part and denied it in part, while denying the personal jurisdiction motion. The core reasoning centers on accepting the complaint's factual allegations as true, evaluating the sufficiency of infringement claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271, and determining that the U.S.-based activities and connections provided an adequate basis for jurisdiction over the foreign entities in connection with the alleged U.S. patent violations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Tametra Moore, an African-American woman, alleged that her white male manager at Cricket Communications sexually harassed her with explicit comments and by showing her a photo of his penis, made racially charged statements about black women, and that she faced retaliation after complaining to supervisors and HR. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the alleged conduct created a hostile work environment based on sex and race and whether the employer's subsequent actions, viewed cumulatively, amounted to retaliation under Title VII.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a dispute over the inventorship of two patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,056,866 and 7,709,418) covering high-temperature superconducting compositions, with plaintiff Hor and intervenor Meng claiming joint inventorship alongside defendant Chu, who is listed as the sole inventor. The plaintiffs filed suit under 35 U.S.C. § 256 to correct inventorship years after the patents issued, alleging contributions to the research conducted at the University of Houston in 1986-1987. The court granted Chu's motion for summary judgment based on laches, finding that Hor and Meng unreasonably delayed in bringing their claims, which caused prejudice to Chu in defending his position as sole inventor. It also granted Chu's motions regarding the unclean hands defenses but declined to address the remaining motion on corroboration, as laches served as a complete defense to the inventorship claims.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Shell Oil Company and its trademark affiliate, which sell ROTELLA motor oil in distinctive packaging, and Warren Unilube and Warren Oil, which sell a competing LUBRIGUARD product. Shell alleges that Warren's packaging infringes its unregistered trade dress under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and Texas common law. The court denied Warren's motion to exclude expert testimony from Dr. Linda L. Golden, finding the survey evidence sufficiently reliable under Daubert standards despite potential flaws that go to weight rather than admissibility. It granted Warren's summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part, while denying Shell's motion for summary judgment on the nonfunctionality and inherent distinctiveness of the ROTELLA trade dress, due to genuine issues of material fact regarding distinctiveness and likelihood of consumer confusion.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a contract dispute between Dealer Computer Services, Inc. and Michael Motor Company over computer hardware, software, and support services for an automobile dealership, which was subject to arbitration under Michigan law and AAA commercial rules. After a panel ruled unanimously for DCS, Michael Motor moved to vacate the award on grounds that one arbitrator, who had previously served on a nearly identical arbitration involving DCS and the same law firm without full disclosure of that prior service, exhibited evident partiality. The court granted the motion to vacate, holding that the arbitrator's nondisclosure of her participation in the Venus Ford Arbitration—where the same contractual provision and issues were decided in DCS's favor—created an appearance of bias requiring vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court denied a related motion to strike an affidavit but did not address other asserted grounds for vacatur.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves a contract dispute in which Fagan Holdings, a professional employer organization, licensed Darwin software from Thinkware for payroll and HR functions but encountered numerous implementation problems, leading Fagan to sue for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation after terminating the agreement. The court addressed Thinkware's motion for summary judgment, which it granted in part and denied in part. It first conducted a choice-of-law analysis under Texas rules and the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, determining that Ohio law governs the contract claim due to the parties' selection in the license agreement while applying a most-significant-relationship test to the tort claims. The partial summary judgment ruling turned on the sufficiency of evidence regarding the alleged misrepresentations and contractual obligations after weighing the contacts of the parties and transactions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from the sudden closure of a Texas charter school serving students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), prompting parents and guardians to sue the school, its board, and state education officials for injunctive relief to prevent disruption to the students' individualized education programs. The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and other relief alleging violations of due process and IDEA procedural safeguards. The court denied the application for injunctive relief, denied certain motions as moot, granted limited leave to amend the complaint, and dismissed the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The decision rested on the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, primarily because they had not exhausted required administrative remedies under IDEA and lacked a protected property interest in the continued operation of the specific school.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a Texas property owner suing an insurer and its adjusters over the handling and alleged underpayment of a Hurricane Ike insurance claim, asserting breach of contract and Texas Insurance Code violations. After the defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the non-diverse Texas adjuster company had been properly joined. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the adjuster was not improperly joined because the plaintiff's petition alleged specific facts supporting potential recovery against it under the Texas Insurance Code, which applies to adjusters, and that the pleadings provided a reasonable basis for recovery under state pleading standards. As a result, complete diversity was lacking and the federal court lacked jurisdiction.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure