John David Rainey

In Rodriguez v. Alcoa Inc., plaintiff Gino Rodriguez sued Alcoa under the Americans with Disabilities Act after the company withdrew a conditional offer for a Plant Utility Operator position upon discovering his significant hearing impairment during a pre-employment physical exam that he had not disclosed on his medical history form. Rodriguez did not respond to Alcoa's motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that Rodriguez's impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity under pre-2009 ADA standards, that Alcoa did not regard him as disabled in a qualifying manner, and that he therefore was not an individual with a disability entitled to protection.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Harrison v. Formosa Plastics Corp. Texas, plaintiff Thomas Harrison, a process operator hired at age 51, sued his employer alleging age discrimination and retaliatory discharge after he was terminated following an incident in which he refused a supervisor's instruction to load rail cars and left work without permission. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court determined that Formosa had articulated a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the termination (insubordination), that Harrison admitted he did not believe age motivated the firing, and that his retaliation claim rested solely on the temporal proximity between his complaints about age-related comments and his discharge, which was insufficient to establish but-for causation under Fifth Circuit precedent.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition by Warren Darrell Rivers, who was convicted of capital murder in 1988 for killing an 11-year-old boy during an aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to death by a Texas jury based on answers to two special issue questions. Rivers raised multiple claims, primarily that the special issues prevented the jury from giving full mitigating effect to evidence of his unstable childhood and abuse, along with ineffective assistance of counsel and other trial errors. The court granted relief only on the sentencing claim under Penry v. Lynaugh, ordering a new punishment hearing, while finding no constitutional error in the conviction or other claims and denying them. The core reasoning applied AEDPA deference to state findings, reviewed the record of mitigating evidence and jury instructions, and concluded recent jurisprudence showed the jury could not adequately consider the mitigation without explicit guidance.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case was a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by a former hospital employee alleging that the defendant health systems violated the Stark law and Anti-Kickback Statute by offering below-market leases to physicians and groups in exchange for patient referrals, which in turn caused the submission of false Medicare claims; the complaint also included a retaliation claim for the relator's termination and miscellaneous allegations about misuse of funds. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the action. It first analyzed subject-matter jurisdiction under the FCA's public-disclosure bar, determining that the core allegations had been publicly disclosed in prior state-court litigation involving a physical-therapy provider and that the relator was not an original source; the court further held that the retaliation claim was untimely under the applicable statute of limitations.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Neutrino Development Corp. against Sonosite, Inc. over a patent for a handheld ultrasonography device and methods. After construing the claims and finding that Sonosite's devices literally infringed, the court ruled the relevant patent claims invalid due to the improper addition of new matter during prosecution and entered judgment for Sonosite. Sonosite then moved for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing the case was exceptional because of alleged inequitable conduct, including deceptive intent by the inventor in adding the new matter and pursuing the suit. The court denied the motion, holding that Sonosite failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the case was exceptional or that inequitable conduct occurred.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Neely v. Barnhart, the plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging inability to work since December 2001 due to physical and mental impairments. The district court denied Neely's motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner's, affirming the ALJ's determination that Neely was not disabled because he retained residual functional capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings on Neely's functional abilities, including evidence of consistent grooming, politeness, and lack of stress-related issues that contradicted certain medical opinions, and that the five-step sequential evaluation process under the regulations was properly applied without legal error.

federal powerprocedure

In this bankruptcy appeal, Amy Pratt sought discharge of approximately $37,000 in federal student loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), arguing that repaying them while supporting six children with her husband's engineering income would constitute undue hardship. The bankruptcy court granted the discharge after finding the Pratts met the Brunner test's three prongs on minimal standard of living, additional circumstances, and good faith. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that the bankruptcy court's findings were clearly erroneous because Pratt had made no payments on her loans, remained in deferment by choice, and had not pursued income-based repayment options like the William D. Ford program; it further determined that her husband's income-maximizing efforts could not substitute for her own lack of good faith and that the family's circumstances did not meet the high bar for additional circumstances. The court emphasized that while the hardship was real, it was not undue under the applicable legal standard.

procedure

In Reyes v. Texas Ezpawn, L.P., the plaintiff filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of himself and other Assistant Store Managers, alleging they were misclassified as exempt employees and therefore entitled to overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The defendant, a retail pawn and short-term loan business, moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including insufficient evidence for the opt-in plaintiffs' claims, whether Reyes was similarly situated to others, and the applicability of FLSA exemptions based on job duties. Applying the Rule 56 standard, the court reviewed evidence of employees' responsibilities such as customer service, store operations, and management tasks, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves two employees who worked at Celanese's Bay City facility and sued over the company's implementation of a 12-hour shift schedule in the 1980s and 1990s, claiming they were not properly informed that their hourly wage rate would be reduced by a factor of .857 to keep the change cost-neutral while still paying overtime after eight hours. The plaintiffs also alleged retaliation under employment laws and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from coworker harassment and the employer's failure to intervene. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed the IIED claims because the alleged conduct by coworkers and the employer did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous behavior under Texas law, while allowing other claims such as the wage and retaliation issues to proceed. The decision rested on the absence of genuine issues of material fact for the dismissed claims and the application of relevant statutes like the FLSA and state tort standards.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Neutrino Development Corporation against Sonosite, Inc., alleging that four of Sonosite's hand-carried ultrasound devices infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,221,021, which covered a method and apparatus for penile hemodynamic stimulation, monitoring, and drug delivery using an ultrasonography generator. The court granted Sonosite's motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on new matter under 35 U.S.C. § 132. The core reasoning was that the patent claims, as amended during prosecution to specify that the ultrasonography generator was sized to be hand-held, introduced new matter not supported by the original 1997 or 1999 patent applications or their drawings and specifications. Because the asserted claims were invalid, the court also dismissed Neutrino's claims for direct and induced infringement and reversed its prior findings of literal infringement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Mahoney's claims against her former employer, Ernst & Young, under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerning the timing and extent of her approved leave, her right to reinstatement, and related damages. The district court reviewed objections to a magistrate judge's recommendations on summary judgment motions. The court sustained the plaintiff's objections regarding the FMLA leave calculation, holding based on the defendant's admissions that leave periods ran through the end of the employer's fiscal year on September 30, 2002, and then restarted for twelve weeks on October 1, leaving material fact issues on whether the employer interfered with reinstatement rights. The court also sustained the objection on mitigation of damages, finding that the totality of circumstances alleged by the plaintiff could allow a reasonable jury to conclude her refusal of an unconditional offer of a substantially similar position was objectively reasonable, so the issue must go to trial rather than being resolved as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves physician groups suing insurance companies and a preferred provider organization for allegedly misusing a discounted fee schedule from a PPO contract after the insurer had left the network, leading to underpayment on thousands of claims, as well as improper processing of claims under a separate contract. The defendants removed the state court action to federal district court, arguing that the claims were completely preempted by ERISA because they involved benefits under ERISA plans. The court granted the motion to remand in part and denied it in part, holding that claims based on the original PPO contract were not preempted since the plan beneficiaries had no rights to benefits under their ERISA plans and the services were independent of those plans, while allowing some claims to potentially remain in federal court. The reasoning focused on the well-pleaded complaint rule and the absence of derivative rights under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) for the disputed claims. The court denied the request for attorneys' fees associated with the removal.

healthcarefederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement action in which Neutrino Development Corporation alleged that Sonosite's hand-carried ultrasound devices infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,221,021, which covers a method and apparatus for stimulating and monitoring hemodynamic activity in the penis. After the court previously granted summary judgment of infringement to Neutrino, the remaining issues centered on Sonosite's invalidity defenses, which required expert testimony. The opinion addresses multiple Daubert motions by Neutrino to exclude seven of Sonosite's expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court denied the motions to exclude three experts entirely, granted the motion to exclude one expert, and granted in part and denied in part the motions concerning the remaining four experts, applying the Daubert reliability factors and assessing relevance to the patent claims and prior art.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the City of College Station seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the USDA and Rural Utilities Service from issuing a loan to the Wellborn Special Utility District under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, which would trigger 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) protections shielding Wellborn's service area from municipal annexation. The court granted the injunction after a hearing, finding that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on claims that the agencies violated their own regulations in 7 C.F.R. § 1780.1 et seq. by approving funding for projects that would serve areas already annexed by the city rather than exclusively rural customers. The core reasoning centered on the administrative record showing the loan proceeds would finance water meter replacements and other infrastructure in non-rural annexed territories, breaching the requirement that funds only support facilities serving rural areas, along with inadequate agency explanation for the decision.

federal powerbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a Texas resident suing Chatham College, a Pennsylvania university, in federal district court in Texas for breach of contract after the college dismissed her from its physician assistant program. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), asserting it had no offices, employees, or other contacts in Texas. The court granted the motion after determining that the plaintiff's application and communications did not create minimum contacts with Texas sufficient for specific jurisdiction, as the college made admission decisions in Pennsylvania, the program was to be performed there, and a website accessible nationwide did not show purposeful availment. Other pending motions were resolved accordingly, with the venue motion denied as moot.

procedure

The case concerns limited partners in AMCOR farming entities who claimed tax refunds after the IRS disallowed partnership deductions from their 1980s returns and made assessments following Tax Court decisions. The government moved to partially dismiss the Schuenamans' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing they failed to file required administrative refund claims under 26 U.S.C. § 7422 before suing, and also sought to deny class certification. The court granted leave for a late response, dismissed the Schuenamans' claims because no timely refund claim had been filed to waive sovereign immunity (even under TEFRA procedures), and granted the government's motion in part while denying it in part on remaining issues including interest netting and class certification.

taxesprocedure

The case is a patent infringement action in which Neutrino Development Corporation alleged that four handheld ultrasound devices sold by Sonosite, Inc. infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,221,021, which covers a method and apparatus for stimulating, monitoring, and accelerating drug delivery related to penile blood flow. Sonosite moved for summary judgment of invalidity, contending that the patent was barred by the on-sale provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and was anticipated by a prior-art Diasonics ultrasound system. After claim construction, the court denied the motion, holding that genuine disputes of material fact existed on both the on-sale bar and anticipation issues. These disputes arose from conflicting expert opinions on whether the Diasonics device satisfied the patent’s requirements for a hand-held portable body, transducer mounting, and multiple ultrasound emitters, which the court concluded must be resolved by a trier of fact rather than on summary judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Neutrino Development Corporation against Sonosite, Inc., alleging that four of Sonosite's hand-carried ultrasound devices infringed Neutrino's U.S. Patent No. 6,221,021, which covers a method and apparatus for penile hemodynamic stimulation, monitoring, and drug delivery. After a Markman hearing on claim construction, Neutrino moved for summary judgment on infringement. The court granted the motion, finding literal infringement because the accused devices read on all claims of the patent as construed. Sonosite's defense invoking the reverse doctrine of equivalents was rejected, as its evidence compared the devices to the pre-amendment patent application rather than the issued claims and failed to show that the devices performed the claimed function in a substantially different way.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a former high school secretary who sued her school district employer after being terminated at age 66, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and her First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously granted summary judgment in her favor on the First Amendment claim and awarded back pay of $28,937, front pay of $40,000, plus other damages. The current dispute concerned whether those pay awards should be reduced by the plaintiff's retirement income from the Teacher Retirement System. The court held that no offset was appropriate, reasoning that the retirement benefits were funded by the employee's own contributions rather than by the employer, consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent on similar benefits in employment cases.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

The case involved Charlene Salge, a 66-year-old secretary employed for 33 years by the Edna Independent School District, who was terminated after speaking with a local newspaper reporter about the non-renewal of the high school principal's contract. Salge sued under the First Amendment (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging her termination was retaliation for protected speech and age-based discrimination. The court granted Salge's partial motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment claim, finding her speech addressed a matter of public concern and was not made pursuant to her official duties, while denying the district's cross-motion on the same issue. It granted the district's motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination claim due to lack of evidence that the stated reason for termination was pretextual. Other procedural motions, including one to depose a witness and for continuance, were denied.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights