David Hittner

This case involved a rehearing of disciplinary and sanctions proceedings against attorneys Melvin K. Silverman, S. Tracy Long, and Joseph F. Cleveland, Jr., along with their clients John P. Gillig and Triple Tee Golf, Inc., stemming from two prior lawsuits alleging misappropriation of trade secrets related to adjustable-weight golf club designs shared with a consultant later hired by Nike. The proceedings arose after Judge McBryde imposed sanctions based on declarations filed in the second suit and found violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and Northern District of Texas Local Rule 83.8(b). On rehearing, the court dismissed all disciplinary and sanctions matters with prejudice, ordered a refund of previously paid sanctions, and found no rule violations because the declarations were not improper, were at least partly substantiated by evidence, and followed an objectively reasonable prefiling investigation.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which Sterling Equities sued Chubb Custom Insurance after Hurricane Ike damaged one of its apartment complexes, seeking additional recovery beyond a prior settlement. The parties had executed a Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement that paid Sterling for losses on three named properties and released Chubb from further liability for all damages from the original claim related to Hurricane Ike, though the Greenwood Property at issue was not explicitly named in the release. Sterling argued the release was ambiguous and did not cover the Greenwood Property, while Chubb moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the release barred the claims. The court granted Chubb's motion, finding that the Greenwood Property was part of the original claim, the release broadly extinguished liability for Hurricane Ike-related losses, and Sterling's breach of contract and Texas Insurance Code claims were precluded as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves two defendants, a county commissioner and a real estate developer, charged in a federal indictment with conspiracy and bribery related to federally funded programs, along with tax charges against one defendant. After initially severing the trials due to one defendant's continuance request, resulting in a mistrial for the first defendant, the government moved to rejoin them for a single trial. The court granted the motion, construing it as a request to reconsider severance under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a). The core reasoning was the strong federal preference for joint trials in conspiracy cases, absent a serious risk of prejudice to a specific trial right or the jury's ability to render a reliable verdict, with speedy trial concerns addressable via ends-of-justice continuances.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Robert Allen Stanford, who faced federal charges including securities fraud and money laundering conspiracy and was in pretrial detention. Following a head injury in jail and ongoing medication, three psychiatrists evaluated his mental state and testified at a hearing that he was incompetent to stand trial due to delirium possibly caused by over-medication, brain injury, or major depressive disorder. The court granted in part Stanford's motion for relief and medical treatment by ordering his commitment to the custody of the Attorney General for inpatient psychiatric evaluation and supervised medication withdrawal at a federal facility, while denying any request to select a private facility. The core reasoning was that 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) mandates commitment to the Attorney General upon a finding of incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence, and cited precedents did not authorize release to a facility of the defendant's choosing after due process was provided through notice and an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Stanford, defendant Robert Allen Stanford, facing a twenty-one count indictment for mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of an SEC investigation arising from his control of Stanford Financial Group and related entities, moved for release from pretrial detention or dismissal of the indictment on grounds that his continued detention violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel, and the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive bail. The district court denied the motion. The court explained that pretrial detention to prevent flight serves a valid nonpunitive regulatory purpose and, evaluating the claim on a case-by-case basis using factors such as the length and non-speculative future duration of detention, case complexity, government evidence strength, and causes of delay, concluded that the detention had not become excessively prolonged so as to constitute impermissible punishment.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involves a dispute over insurance coverage for $634,057.87 in hurricane damage to an apartment complex owned by plaintiff Rincon Del Sol, LLC, along with related claims of breach of a forbearance agreement that allegedly led to foreclosure; after the plaintiff sued multiple defendants including Texas citizens in Texas state court, certain defendants removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction based on improper joinder of the Texas defendants and federal jurisdiction arising from Fannie Mae's presence as a defendant under its charter. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied the pending motions to dismiss as moot. It reasoned that although complete diversity existed, removal was barred by the presence of local defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) because the Texas defendants were not improperly joined, and that the Fannie Mae charter did not confer federal question jurisdiction here.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns directors and officers of Stanford entities who sought coverage under D&O and excess insurance policies for defense costs in an SEC civil enforcement action and related federal criminal proceedings alleging a multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. The court denied the insurers' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and granted the insureds' motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the insurers to advance defense costs. The court reasoned that the policies obligated the insurers to pay defense costs subject to a reservation of rights until a final coverage determination, that the insureds faced irreparable harm to their ability to defend the actions without interim funding, and that the balance of harms favored the insureds because the insurers retained the right to seek reimbursement if coverage was ultimately denied.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

In this trademark infringement case under the Lanham Act, Kiva Kitchen & Bath sued Capital Distributing and related parties for infringement, unfair competition, and related claims after the defendants used Kiva's marks online. A jury found for Kiva, determined the case was exceptional because the defendants acted willfully and deliberately, and the district court entered judgment awarding damages and fees, which the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Kiva then moved for attorneys' fees incurred after February 25, 2008, including on appeal and post-judgment matters, while the defendants opposed and sought to exclude expert testimony on fees. The court granted Kiva's fee motion and denied the motion to exclude, holding that the Lanham Act allows reasonable fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases without distinguishing between trial and appeal stages, and that other circuits have awarded appellate fees where the case was already found exceptional at trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the U.S. government's motion to revoke a magistrate judge's order releasing Robert Allen Stanford on bond pending trial. Stanford, chairman of Stanford International Bank, faced a 21-count federal indictment charging him with mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of an SEC investigation related to alleged mismanagement of investor funds. The district court granted the motion and ordered Stanford detained, finding him a serious flight risk based on his dual U.S.-Antiguan citizenship, extensive unexplained international travel over many years, possession of multiple passports that were not fully disclosed, large unaccounted transfers from bank accounts, and other evidence indicating a likelihood he would flee the jurisdiction. The court concluded that no combination of release conditions could reasonably assure his appearance at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an in rem admiralty action in which plaintiff Nathan Smith claimed to have located an abandoned 1820s barkentine treasure ship near Melon Lake in Refugio County, Texas, and sought title to it under the law of finds or alternatively a salvage award, along with an injunction against interference. Intervenor Marie Sorenson, the landowner, contested the vessel's existence and the court's jurisdiction. After a bench trial, the court found that Smith offered no credible evidence of the vessel's existence, relying only on legends, satellite imagery, and unverified tests, and therefore dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; it further noted that any embedded property would belong to the landowner.

propertyprocedurefederal power

The case concerned plaintiffs Jennifer Pedrozo and Coane and Associates seeking to compel the U.S. Embassy and USCIS to complete processing of an approved H-1B nonimmigrant worker petition and visa application after a consular officer denied the visa based on discrepancies regarding the specialty occupation qualification and returned the petition for reconsideration. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the claims were moot and that courts cannot review consular visa decisions or certain discretionary USCIS actions. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that INA provisions such as 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bar judicial review of the consular officer's denial and certain discretionary decisions, while the APA could potentially authorize review of unreasonable delay claims regarding the USCIS petition depending on the facts of any ongoing processing.

immigrationprocedure

In this False Claims Act qui tam action, former employee Cassaday alleged that KBR submitted false claims to the government under a military support contract and retaliated against him for reporting the fraud, asserting a retaliation claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The defendants moved to compel arbitration of the retaliation claim pursuant to an employment agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, to sever, and to stay the arbitrable claims, holding that the parties had entered a valid arbitration agreement that was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable and that encompassed the FCA retaliation claim. The court further determined that no federal statute or policy rendered the claim nonarbitrable, applying the two-step analysis for arbitrability under Fifth Circuit precedent.

criminal lawlabor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Plaintiff Khurrum Khan sought a temporary restraining order to compel Fort Bend Independent School District to permit him to attend his high school graduation ceremony and deliver the valedictorian address on June 7, 2008. The district had excluded him after transferring him to an alternative education program for alleged computer hacking and a grand jury indictment for theft of school computers, followed by six days of unexcused absences. Khan claimed a protected property interest in graduation participation and argued that the exclusion without a hearing violated his procedural due process rights. The court denied the motion, holding that students have no constitutionally protected property interest in attending or speaking at a graduation ceremony, which is a social event rather than a protected benefit, and that Khan therefore failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or satisfy the other elements required for injunctive relief.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involves a dispute over a shipment of fabric cargo from Texas to Mexico that was stolen during transit after crossing the border, leading plaintiff Apparel Production Services, Inc., a California corporation, to sue defendants Trafago Forwarding, Inc., a Texas corporation, and Transportes de Carga Fema, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation, for negligence, breach of contract, and related claims in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. The defendants moved to transfer venue to the Laredo Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing greater convenience for parties and witnesses. The court granted both motions to transfer, finding that the private interest factors, particularly the location of witnesses and evidence in or near Laredo, and public interest factors supported transfer. The court also noted that the plaintiff's choice of forum received little deference because the plaintiff was not a resident of the Houston Division and the operative facts occurred in the Laredo area. The decision rested on balancing the statutory convenience considerations without addressing the merits of the underlying claims.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In United States v. Famiglietti, the government sought forfeiture of a $250,000 pretrial bond after defendant Julio Famiglietti, charged with possessing and transporting child pornography, was released pending trial in the Southern District of Texas. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full and granted the government’s motions, entering judgment against the defendant individually and against his wife and adult children as sureties, jointly and severally, for the full bond amount. The court reasoned that the sureties had been expressly warned of the risks, including the defendant’s potential flight or violation of release conditions, and had voluntarily signed the bond under the Bail Reform Act framework, which uses bonds to secure both appearance and community safety. Enforcement followed directly from the bond’s terms once the defendant failed to comply with the ordered conditions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a civil action filed by former clients against The Hartford and attorney Warren Todd Hoeffner alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with insurance settlements, alongside a parallel criminal prosecution charging Hoeffner and two Hartford employees with a scheme involving $34 million in fraudulent payments and bribes. After an initial agreed stay of the civil case to avoid interfering with the criminal matter, Hoeffner moved to lift the stay, prompting the court to consider competing interests including discovery overlap, the status of the indicted criminal defendants, and the burdens on the parties. The court weighed six factors for determining whether special circumstances justified a stay, such as the extent of issue overlap, the plaintiffs' interest in expeditious resolution, and the public interest in law enforcement. It ultimately stayed the civil proceedings, including discovery on Hoeffner's cross-claim, until resolution of the criminal charges, finding the criminal timeline short enough to minimize prejudice. The decision rested on the Government's and Hartford's demonstration that a temporary stay served the interests of justice without being indefinite.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves taxpayers Ernest and Estelle Bartimmo seeking a refund of approximately $24,551 in tax-motivated interest penalties assessed by the IRS under IRC § 6621(c) for underpayments related to disallowed partnership deductions from their investment in Dillon Oil for tax years 1983 and 1984. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the government's cross-motion. The court found it had jurisdiction and that res judicata did not bar the claim, as the prior Tax Court dismissals did not specifically establish that the underpayments resulted from tax-motivated transactions, given that the FPAAs listed multiple alternative grounds without assigning specific adjustments. Therefore, the IRS improperly assessed the higher interest rate, entitling the plaintiffs to the refund.

taxes

This case involved students and parents suing a school superintendent in his official capacity, alleging violations of First Amendment rights at a Texas high school. The claims arose from the school's responses to student walkouts protesting immigration reform legislation, including restrictions on wearing certain t-shirts, classroom discipline, and suspensions for a second walkout, amid concerns over potential racial unrest among student groups. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the speech restrictions were permissible under Tinker v. Des Moines to avoid substantial disruption, that the superintendent lacked final policymaking authority for municipal liability purposes, and that certain retaliation claims failed due to lack of protected expressive conduct.

immigrationfree speechcivil rights

In this case, plaintiff Gaines Watkins, a 68-year-old supervisor terminated by defendant Input/Output, Inc., sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act alleging his discharge was due to age rather than the company's claimed financial restructuring and workforce reduction. A jury found in Watkins's favor on the age discrimination claim and determined the violation was willful, awarding $450,000 in back pay and an advisory $50,000 in front pay. The court granted the motion in part by awarding the full back pay plus an equal amount in mandatory liquidated damages based on the willful finding, but denied reinstatement or any front pay because the company's significant restructuring, outsourcing, and workforce reductions made reinstatement infeasible. The court also awarded partial attorneys' fees of $336,010.50, costs of $34,475.07, and post-judgment interest at 4.78%.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Huber v. Texas Woman's University, a tenured male professor at TWU's School of Library and Information Sciences sued his employer under Title VII, alleging gender discrimination by female supervisors who resented his higher salary; he claimed this led to adverse actions such as recommending relocation of a program he developed, denial of a travel allowance that excluded him from meetings, and assignment to teach generalized platform courses instead of his health sciences specialization. The district court granted TWU's motion for summary judgment. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court held that Huber failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on either an actionable adverse employment decision or that any decisions were motivated by his gender rather than legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons such as institutional needs or cost considerations. The opinion notes that bare assertions and conclusory allegations are insufficient to defeat summary judgment under Rule 56.

labor & employmentcivil rights