District Court, S.D. Texas — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Lemus v. CMH Homes, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011-07-12 · cited 5×
In Lemus v. CMH Homes, Inc., plaintiff Jesus Lemus and intervenor Vickie Long asserted state-law claims and RICO claims against CMH Homes, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Clayton Homes, and others arising from a 2003 retail installment contract for a manufactured home, alleged forgery of signatures on related deeds of trust and liens on Lemus's property, secret lien releases stating the debt was paid in full, and continued collection efforts. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under an arbitration clause in the contract. The court granted the motion to compel, ordered binding arbitration of all claims in Corpus Christi with defendants bearing arbitrator costs, and stayed the action pending arbitration. The core reasoning was that the Federal Arbitration Act mandates enforcement of valid agreements to arbitrate, the parties had agreed to arbitrate disputes relating to the contract, and performance under the contract ratified it and waived objections to its formation.
procedurepropertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
M.D. v. Perry
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011-07-01 · cited 11×
This case is a class action civil rights suit filed by children in the Permanent Managing Conservatorship of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, claiming that deficiencies in the state's foster care system violate their substantive and procedural due process rights and rights of familial association under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, with relief sought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs allege harms including repeated placements, over-medication, abuse, neglect, and separation from siblings. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that the federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger and Burford doctrines because state district courts already oversee foster care matters. The court denied the motion, holding that subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that Younger abstention is unwarranted because the class-wide claims for systemic injunctive relief do not interfere with particular ongoing state judicial proceedings in the manner required by that doctrine.
civil rightsfamily lawfederal power
Hafer v. VANDERBILT MORTG. AND FINANCE, INC.
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011-06-24 · cited 4×
This case is a putative class action brought by plaintiffs who purchased manufactured homes financed by defendants, alleging that the defendants secretly filed releases of mortgage liens and deeds of trust stating debts were paid in full but continued billing and collecting payments, in violation of Texas law on fraud, debt collection, and related claims; one defendant also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract. The district court granted the defendants' motions to compel arbitration of the named plaintiffs' individual claims and the counterclaims. The court reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of valid arbitration agreements in the retail installment contracts, that the plaintiffs' claims fell within the broad scope of those clauses because they related to the underlying financing transactions and lien releases, and that no external legal constraints prevented arbitration, leading to a stay of the federal action under 9 U.S.C. § 3.
business & regulatorypropertyprocedure
Powell v. Keeley
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011-06-09 · cited 6×
This case arose from a November 2008 car collision in Texas in which defendant Felix Patrick Keeley, Jr. turned left without yielding the right of way, striking a southbound vehicle driven by plaintiff Daniel Powell and injuring Powell, John McGrath, and Dan Powell while killing Timothy McGrath. Plaintiffs asserted claims including negligence per se based on violations of Texas Transportation Code provisions on yielding and safe lane changes, and John McGrath added a bystander claim for mental anguish from witnessing his brother's fatal injuries. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on the bystander and negligence per se claims, while plaintiffs cross-moved to eliminate defendant's contributory negligence defense. The court granted defendant's motion, dismissing those two claims, and denied plaintiffs' motion, holding that genuine factual disputes existed as to whether the Powell vehicle was speeding or otherwise contributorily negligent. The rulings rested on application of Texas tort law standards for bystander recovery and comparative responsibility under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, along with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requirements for summary judgment.
torts & liabilityprocedure
United States v. Brink
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011-06-06 · cited 10×
The case was a civil enforcement action by the United States against landowners Michael Brink and Dr. Steven Kalter for building a concrete dam on La Para Creek near its confluence with the Nueces River without first obtaining a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The district court granted the government's motions for summary judgment on the Clean Water Act claim and on the defendants' affirmative defenses. The court concluded that La Para Creek qualifies as waters of the United States due to its direct connection to the navigable Nueces River and Lake Corpus Christi, that the dam construction constituted a discharge of fill material requiring a federal permit, and that the defendants' arguments regarding state-law exemptions, waiver, estoppel, and equal protection lacked merit based on the undisputed facts and expert evidence.
environmentfederal power
Hernandez v. City of Corpus Christi
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011-05-17 · cited 11×
This case involves employment discrimination claims brought by Josie Hernandez, a former captain in the Corpus Christi Police Department, against the City of Corpus Christi. Hernandez alleged that she was passed over for promotions to higher positions due to her gender, national origin, race, and age, and that she faced retaliation and a hostile work environment after filing an EEOC charge. The court considered the City's motion for summary judgment on these claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and related state and constitutional claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain claims such as due process violations while allowing others to proceed.
labor & employmentcivil rights