Kenneth M. Hoyt

The case involved a Texas limited partnership that owned an apartment complex and held a commercial insurance policy from Lexington Insurance Company; after Hurricane Ike damaged the property, the plaintiff sued Lexington along with Texas-based adjusters and an insurance agent in state court, alleging negligence, breach of contract, violations of the Texas Insurance Code and DTPA, and other claims related to the handling of the insurance claim. Lexington removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, asserting that the Texas defendants had been fraudulently joined so that complete diversity existed. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that Lexington failed to meet its heavy burden of showing improper joinder because the plaintiff had a reasonable possibility of stating viable claims against the non-diverse defendants under the Texas Insurance Code. The court further noted that the claims against the local insurance agent arose from the same transaction and that joinder was not fraudulent under Texas procedural rules. The action was therefore returned to the 165th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a homeowner who sued his mortgage servicer, BAC Home Loans Servicing, after the bank paid overdue property taxes on his property and initiated foreclosure proceedings following his refusal to repay. The plaintiff alleged various claims including fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of federal lending and debt collection laws, stemming from alleged misrepresentations about property tax amounts at the time of the loan origination in 2004. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that the fraud and tort claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations since the plaintiff knew of the tax increases by 2006, and the breach of contract claim failed to state a valid cause of action because the bank was authorized under the deed of trust to pay the taxes to protect its lien.

propertyproceduretaxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in an adversary proceeding where Amco Energy, Inc. (formerly Capco) sued Tana Exploration, Ryder Scott, Tristone, and others for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and related business torts arising from Capco's 2006 purchase of 13 Gulf of Mexico oil and gas properties. Capco alleged it relied on overstated reserves reports and revenue projections that led to its bankruptcy filing after the purchase closed. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The core reasoning was that Capco had contractually waived any reliance on the sellers' or consultants' representations in the purchase agreement, had conducted its own independent due diligence and evaluations (including by its lender), and that revenue estimates or projections could not constitute actionable misrepresentations as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liabilityproperty

This case involves claims by a former BP employee and an environmental group against BP for alleged non-compliance with federal safety and environmental regulations at its Atlantis offshore oil facility. The plaintiffs asserted violations under the False Claims Act, seeking recovery of oil and gas revenues obtained through allegedly false certifications to the government, and under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, seeking an injunction to halt operations until compliance is achieved. The court denied BP's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which argued failures in pleading, lack of specificity, standing issues, and failure to join necessary parties. The reasoning centered on the sufficiency of the allegations under the relevant rules, the applicability of citizen suit provisions, and the plaintiffs' standing to enforce regulatory compliance.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerns a cargo damage claim by Williamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company against multiple carriers, including Seaboard Marine Ltd., for water, mold, and mildew contamination of apparel shipped from Guatemala to Texas via ocean and road transport. Seaboard moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, alternatively, to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), citing a forum selection clause in the bill of lading designating the Southern District of Florida. The court denied both motions, holding that Seaboard waived any venue objection by failing to raise it with specificity in its answer as required by Rules 12(g) and 12(h). The court further found that the Section 1404(a) factors did not favor transfer even if the objection had been preserved.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage under a builders risk policy issued by Lexington Insurance Company to Diamond Beach and its contractors for a construction project in Galveston, Texas. After Hurricane Ike caused physical damage in 2008, the parties resolved claims for hard costs and initial soft costs from delays, but disputed a supplemental soft cost claim for additional expenses stemming from a roofing subcontractor's manpower shortages and overloaded city inspection services. The court granted Lexington's motion for summary judgment and denied Diamond's partial motion, holding that the policy's delay in completion coverage applied only to losses caused by direct physical damage to the insured property, which was absent here as the delays arose from external factors unrelated to the storm damage. The court also noted that the parties had already agreed on the period of indemnity ending after the resolved 51-day delay.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a Texas plaintiff seeking insurance coverage for property damage and related losses from Hurricane Ike under policies issued by out-of-state insurers Ace American and Liberty Mutual. The plaintiff also sued a Texas-based adjuster and its employee for alleged violations of the Texas Insurance Code, including failure to attempt a good-faith settlement and misrepresentations about coverage. The defendants removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiff moved to remand, arguing the Texas defendants destroyed complete diversity. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the plaintiff had stated viable statutory claims against the non-diverse adjusters under Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code, making joinder proper and precluding federal diversity jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute arising from property damage to Seabrook Marina's marine operation and restaurant caused by Hurricane Ike. Scottsdale Insurance had issued a commercial property policy and, after the storm, assigned adjusters including Texas residents Jack King and Kent Parker to evaluate the claim; the plaintiff alleged the adjusters conducted an outcome-oriented investigation that resulted in inadequate or denied payments, leading to suit in Texas state court. Scottsdale removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but Seabrook moved to remand, arguing that the Texas-resident adjusters destroyed complete diversity. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the individual adjusters were properly joined because the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting potential liability under the Texas Insurance Code, so federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Gyrodata's patent infringement lawsuit against Gyro Technologies, where Gyrodata claims that Gyro Tech's wellbore surveying tools infringe its '195 patent for a rate gyro-based surveying system that operates without a wireline connection. Gyrodata sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Gyro Tech from continuing to use or sell the allegedly infringing devices. The court denied the preliminary injunction, reasoning that Gyrodata failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because the defendants raised a substantial question regarding the patent's validity, specifically that the invention was obvious in light of prior art such as the SPE article and the Ferranti tool.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Baker Hughes, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,497,943 covering a method using water-soluble hydroxyacids to remove metals and amines from crude oil during the desalting process, accused Nalco of infringing the patent by using a similar process at the Sunoco refinery in Philadelphia. After an initial preliminary injunction was vacated by the Federal Circuit for insufficient findings on irreparable harm, the district court on remand considered additional evidence, including demonstrations of the parties' processes and Nalco's access to Baker Hughes' methods. The court granted Baker Hughes' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits regarding validity, enforceability, and infringement, along with irreparable harm, a balance of equities favoring Baker Hughes, and public interest support. It enjoined Nalco from performing or inducing the patented method, including sales of compositions like malic acid for that purpose, but required Baker Hughes to post a $1,000,000 bond and denied Nalco's motion to supplement the record with an alternative process.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a 2006 traffic stop in Tomball, Texas, where a police sergeant, responding to a stolen vehicle report, approached a matching truck, drew his weapon, and accidentally discharged a shot that struck the plaintiff passenger in the head. The plaintiff sued the City of Tomball and the sergeant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, plus state-law claims of assault and negligence under the Texas Tort Claims Act. After the claims against the sergeant were dismissed, the court addressed the City's motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding triable issues on whether the City maintained an unconstitutional policy or custom regarding use of force and vehicle operations that could support municipal liability, while dismissing certain other claims for lack of a policy violation or sovereign immunity waiver.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Stanley Rosenblatt, a longtime employee of an agency affiliated with United Way, who sued after the organization converted its defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance plan in 1996, added a wear-away provision in 2002, and froze accruals in 2004, alleging that the changes discriminated against older workers by limiting new benefit accruals and using their contributions to address funding shortfalls, in violation of the ADEA and ERISA. The court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss the complaint. The core reasoning was that the plan amendments did not violate ADEA sections on benefit accruals or early retirement benefits, that the cash balance plan remained a defined benefit plan under ERISA with adequate disclosures and no improper funding practices, and that Rosenblatt failed to allege facts showing statutory violations or that he qualified for the relief sought.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved plaintiffs Carl R. Pruett and Scott Martin seeking recovery of attorney's fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after prevailing in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Texas Occupational Code Annotated § 1704.109 against the Harris County Bail Bond Board and Harris County, Texas. The court granted the motion, awarding $557,989 in attorney's fees and $30,473.83 in costs. The court applied the lodestar method, multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable rates, considered the Johnson factors, made reductions for certain duplicative or unrelated time, and determined the prevailing rates for the attorneys involved.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Federal Trade Commission suing Steven L. Kennedy and related companies and individuals for engaging in cramming by billing consumers' telephone accounts for website design and hosting services without obtaining informed consent, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC alleged that the defendants used deceptive telemarketing scripts, falsely promised automatic cancellation after a free trial period, and structured multiple entities to continue billing despite complaints to local exchange carriers. The court determined after reviewing testimonial and documentary evidence that Kennedy actively participated in managing and controlling the common enterprise's marketing and billing operations. The court ruled in favor of the FTC, entering a permanent injunction prohibiting Kennedy from certain business activities and ordering a monetary judgment of $4,108,131.32 against him for equitable relief including consumer redress.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Rimkus Consulting Group and its insurer Hartford Casualty Insurance over coverage under a business interruption policy following damage from Hurricane Katrina. Rimkus sought recovery for lost business income, temporary employee housing expenses, and increased rent at a new permanent office, along with statutory penalties under the Texas Insurance Code. The court granted summary judgment to Rimkus on its claims for extra expenses related to temporary operations and associated statutory damages, but denied recovery for business income loss and permanent rent increases; Hartford's motion was granted on the latter two claims. The reasoning centered on the policy language limiting coverage to temporary extra expenses necessary to resume business operations and excluding offsets from increased revenues post-disaster, while finding no coverage for ongoing higher costs at a new permanent location.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns whether Texas can constitutionally enforce a rolling public beach easement under the Open Beaches Act, which expands and contracts with the natural vegetation line and mean high tide, potentially subjecting beachfront homes owned by plaintiff Carol Severance to removal orders when they become located on the public beach. The court dismissed the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials, concluding that claims based on possible future enforcement actions were not ripe and that the remaining claims failed as a matter of law. The core reasoning was that Texas common law recognizes the public's superior rolling easement rights over the affected dry beach properties, this framework does not conflict with federal constitutional property protections, and any constitutional defenses could be raised if an actual enforcement action is filed in state court.

propertycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the Veldekens, owners of a hospital property leased to debtor Doctors Hospital 1997, L.P., and GE HFS Holdings, Inc., which acquired loans secured by the property along with the Veldekens' personal guaranty and security interest. After the debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, related state court claims against GE were removed to federal court, referred to the Bankruptcy Court as Adversary Proceeding 05-3772, and later affected by plan confirmation and foreclosure on the property. The Veldekens moved to withdraw the reference to the District Court. The District Court granted the motion, holding that it had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and could resolve the case expeditiously without duplicative appeals or unresolved bankruptcy jurisdictional questions, with good cause shown due to changed circumstances after initial consent to bankruptcy court adjudication.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by E-Pass Technologies against Microsoft and HP, alleging that certain PDAs and Microsoft software infringed claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,276,311, which covers a method for storing credit card data on an electronic multi-function card and verifying use through signature comparison on a central computer. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment of non-infringement. The court reasoned that the accused devices did not qualify as "cards" under the patent and that E-Pass presented no evidence that any user had performed all steps of claim 19, including the required card-verification procedure, either literally or by inducement; without direct infringement, the inducement claims necessarily failed. The court dismissed the plaintiff's related motion concerning invalidity and inequitable conduct defenses as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a contract dispute arising from a 1997 agreement to convert an oil carrier into a platform, under which Petrobras alleged that MODEC USA joined the Consortium and assumed joint liability, leading to claims of breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment filed in Texas federal court. The court granted MODEC USA's motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It reasoned that the Conversion Contract contained a valid forum selection clause designating the courts of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as the exclusive venue for any disputes, that Petrobras was bound by the clause as a party to the contract, and that the Texas suit was duplicative of ongoing litigation in Brazil, making enforcement neither unjust nor unreasonable.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission suing several natural gas traders employed by Shell Trading Gas and Power for allegedly submitting false price and volume reports on thousands of trades to industry publications such as Inside FERC and NGI between 2001 and 2002, in an effort to influence natural gas price indices used in spot and derivatives markets. The complaint charged violations of the false reporting and attempted manipulation provisions of section 9(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), contending that CEA exemptions for exempt commodities applied and that the allegations lacked particularity. The court denied the motions, reasoning that the exemptions cover only contracts or transactions and not the reporting activities at issue, and that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim.

business & regulatory