Norman William Black

This case arose from a state-court wrongful death and medical malpractice action filed by the family of Patrick Dixon Brinkley against healthcare providers. After the plaintiffs' own expert was deposed and questioned about potential violations of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), the defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the denial of their remand request. The court held that the deposition testimony qualified as an "other paper" under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because it resulted from the voluntary act of the plaintiffs' counsel eliciting EMTALA-related facts and contentions, thereby making removal timely; the court further retained supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims arising from the same facts.

procedurehealthcaretorts & liability

The case involved Jimmy Herrera suing his former employer CTS Corporation for disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act after being terminated from his Shipping Clerk position due to lifting restrictions from his vascular disease. The court granted CTS's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court reasoned that Herrera could not perform the essential functions of the job, which included lifting packages up to 90 pounds, even with accommodations, because any restructuring would improperly reallocate essential duties to other employees, and Herrera failed to reconcile his claim with his receipt of Social Security disability benefits.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Valley Regional Medical Center's lawsuit against Dr. Phillip G. Wright for amounts allegedly owed under a Physician Assistance Agreement, with Dr. Wright filing counterclaims for breach of contract. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the hospital and now denies Dr. Wright's motions for a new trial, to stay enforcement of the judgment, and to compel discovery, as well as his response to the sua sponte summary judgment ruling. Although the hospital had not properly pleaded a suit on a sworn account, summary judgment was upheld on the breach of contract claim because the contract required the non-breaching party to provide written notice of intent to terminate within sixty days of an alleged breach, and Dr. Wright's failure to do so constituted a waiver of his rights to remedies. The core reasoning rests on the explicit waiver provision in Section G.5 of the agreement, which the court applied to bar Dr. Wright's challenges to the hospital's performance and claimed damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over a 1993 Physician Assistance Agreement between Valley Regional Medical Center and cardiac surgeon Dr. Phillip Wright, under which the hospital provided a guaranteed annual income of $480,000 in exchange for establishing a practice, with provisions for repayment of advances based on reported gross receipts. After a corporate merger involving parent company HCA, Valley Regional sued Dr. Wright for breach of contract and on a sworn account seeking repayment of advances, while Dr. Wright raised counterclaims and sued HCA for breach and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted summary judgment to both Valley Regional and HCA. It held that Valley Regional had established the elements of its claims and that Dr. Wright's defenses, including waiver for lack of notice and entitlement to offsets, lacked support in the record. HCA was not liable because it was not a party to the agreement, did not assume its obligations in the merger, and no facts supported veil-piercing.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case involved three farm workers suing their employer Mario Trevino for unpaid wages after harvesting okra for three days in 1994. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failure to pay the federal minimum wage and of the Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) for providing false employment information, failing to post terms, omitting written pay statements, and not timely paying wages. The court granted plaintiffs' unopposed motion for summary judgment after finding undisputed evidence of the hours worked and the violations. It awarded specific unpaid minimum wages plus equal liquidated damages under the FLSA, $2,000 statutory damages per plaintiff for the four AWPA violations, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

labor & employment

This case concerns a bankruptcy appeal in which debtors James and Shirley Patterson challenged a ruling on the timing of homestead exemptions. The debtors initially filed a Chapter 13 case claiming their urban residence as exempt, but after foreclosure they converted to Chapter 7 and sought to amend their schedules to claim a 40-acre rural property instead. The bankruptcy court held that exemptions are fixed as of the original filing date under Fifth Circuit precedent in In re Williamson. On de novo review, the district court reversed, adopting the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit in In re Lindberg that the date of conversion controls for exemption purposes and that Chapter 13 administration considerations support allowing the amendment, which was filed before the creditors' meeting and any trustee reliance. The court therefore permitted the rural property to be claimed as exempt.

propertyprocedure

The case involved pretrial detainee William J. Burton, who had AIDS, suing Cameron County, its sheriff in his official capacity, and jail medical director Dr. Gustavo Stern under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Texas law for alleged denial of prescribed medications such as AZT, lack of access to his physician, psychological counseling, and other conditions including harassment and inadequate hygiene during his two-month detention in 1992. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting no genuine issues of material fact existed. The court applied the summary judgment standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, reviewed jail medical logs and deposition testimony showing regular medication administration and physician oversight, and analyzed claims under the Fourteenth Amendment standard from Bell v. Wolfish for pretrial detainees, along with state tort limitations periods.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a parent suing a school district and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX, claiming her daughter was sexually harassed and assaulted by another student at school, and that the defendants failed to act despite knowing about prior misconduct. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims, dismissing them, and remanded the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that there is no constitutional duty for schools to protect students from other students under the Due Process Clause, citing Supreme Court precedent, and that Title IX claims cannot be brought against individuals or for hostile environments without proof of intentional discrimination. Individual defendants were also entitled to qualified immunity since no clearly established rights were violated.

civil rights

The case involved a student plaintiff who sued a school principal under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after being sexually assaulted by another student, alleging the principal failed to ensure her safety. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the Due Process Clause imposes no duty on state officials to protect individuals from private violence absent a special relationship like that with prisoners, which does not apply to public school students, and that Texas Education Code § 21.912 provides immunity to school employees for acts within their duties unless excessive force in discipline is involved, which was not alleged here.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This consolidated wrongful death and products liability case arose from two 1992 commercial airplane crashes in Nepal, involving Airbus aircraft operated by Pakistan International Airlines and Thai Airways International; plaintiffs alleged defects in aircraft design, manufacturing, pilot training, and approach charts, naming various international defendants including Airbus entities, Jeppesen companies, and Sundstrand. The court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. It held that jurisdiction existed under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act but that dismissal was required on forum non conveniens grounds because the crashes occurred in Nepal, all relevant evidence, witnesses, maintenance records, pilot training documents, and crash investigations were located in France, Thailand, Pakistan, Germany, or Nepal, none of the parties or decedents had any connection to Texas, and a Texas court would face insurmountable burdens in compelling testimony, applying foreign law, and managing an unrelated case on its docket.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute over coverage under a legal malpractice insurance policy issued to a law firm, where the insurer sought a declaration that claims filed by defendant Walsh against firm partners for alleged malpractice were excluded from coverage. The claims arose from the partners' participation in real estate development loans and a savings and loan association that failed, leading to foreclosures and related litigation. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment and denied the insured's motion for a defense, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It reasoned that the policy's exclusions for claims involving business enterprises owned or controlled by the insured, liabilities from services as officers or partners in such entities, and work on ventures with pecuniary interests clearly applied, as the events stemmed from the lawyers' business roles rather than legal representation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Ecuadorian residents suing Texaco over alleged contamination of air, land, and water in Ecuador, seeking monetary damages, an injunction to restore the land, and a court-administered trust fund for medical monitoring. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case from state to federal court, finding federal question jurisdiction because the claims implicated international relations, foreign policy, and Ecuador's sovereign control over its natural resources, as evidenced by the Ecuadoran government's formal protest against the litigation. The court then granted the defendants' motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that Ecuador was the more appropriate forum since the alleged harm, plaintiffs, evidence, and relevant regulations were all located there, while U.S. courts had no direct interest and enforcing any judgment would be difficult.

environmentfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case arose from injuries sustained by workers on a fixed oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico when a survival capsule fell approximately fifty feet during a man-overboard drill because the operator activated the wrong release mechanism. Plaintiffs brought state-law negligence claims in Texas state court against the platform operators and a maritime strict products liability claim against the capsule manufacturer; defendants removed the action to federal court on the ground that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act supplied federal-question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand, contending the suit was maritime in character and properly brought in state court under the saving-to-suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), and also arguing that one defendant’s lack of consent to removal required remand. The court examined Fifth Circuit precedent distinguishing platform-based torts governed by OCSLA from those sufficiently connected to traditional maritime activity, noting that the facts did not squarely fit existing authority, and analyzed whether the claims arose under federal law for removal purposes.

procedurefederal powertorts & liability

This case involves a defamation lawsuit by plaintiff Norman Waring against book publisher William Morrow & Co. over passages in "Sleeping With the Devil" that described him as an informant or snitch who provided police with information about a planned homicide, potentially endangering his life. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint to add a false light invasion of privacy claim. The court held that the statements were unambiguously non-defamatory as a matter of law because, read in context, they portrayed the plaintiff positively for promptly reporting the information to authorities. The court further concluded that the statements were substantially true under Texas law based on undisputed facts from depositions, interviews, and police records, making substantial truth an absolute defense.

torts & liability

In Maxwell v. Henry, the plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his 1992 arrest during an abortion-clinic protest in Houston, claiming unlawful arrest and incarceration along with unjustified media coverage, and also asserted libel and privacy claims against KHOU-TV and its reporters. The court dismissed the claims against Police Chief Sam Nuchia on qualified-immunity grounds because the complaint lacked the required particularized facts showing violation of clearly established rights, dismissed the Houston Police Department because it is not a suable entity separate from the City, and dismissed the claims against the media defendants because the broadcast was privileged under Texas law and the state does not recognize false-light torts. The court denied the City of Houston’s motion to dismiss, finding the pleadings sufficient to allege that a municipal policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violations. The rulings rested on standards for pleading civil-rights claims, Monell liability requirements, Rule 17 capacity rules, and Texas defamation privileges.

abortioncivil rightscriminal lawfree speech

The case involves a lawsuit by the mother of William Mutrux, an 18-year-old inmate who committed suicide in the Cameron County Jail, seeking damages under the Texas Wrongful Death and Survivor Statutes and the Texas Tort Claims Act for alleged negligence in failing to properly monitor and house a known suicidal inmate. Cameron County moved for partial summary judgment on grounds including lack of notice, sovereign immunity under the Tort Claims Act, and the affirmative defense of suicide. The court denied the motion, finding fact issues regarding actual notice to the county, whether the county's policy on suicidal inmates was negligently implemented, potential liability for non-use of secure facilities like padded cells, and that the suicide defense may not apply if there was a failure to meet legal standards.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

This case involves the FDIC, as successor to a failed bank, suing borrowers including Altaf Adam to recover the unpaid balance on a promissory note used to purchase bank stock, which was pledged as collateral and later foreclosed upon after the borrowers allegedly failed to maintain required capital ratios. The borrowers raised defenses such as improper notice of default under the loan agreement and asserted counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference against bank officers and others. The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and granted the FDIC's motion for summary judgment, awarding it $535,876.74 plus interest against the borrowers jointly and severally, while dismissing all claims by the borrowers. It also granted summary judgment to the other defendants on the interference and related claims. The core reasoning was that there were no genuine issues of material fact, the FDIC established its status as holder of the note with no valid defenses, and the borrowers failed to show evidence supporting their claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff whose bid on a surplus government property held by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) as receiver was rejected; the RTC then included the property in a bulk sale package to another buyer under a master agreement. The plaintiff filed an emergency motion seeking to enjoin the sale, asserting the property was excluded from the deal, but the court denied the motion and dismissed the case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) bars injunctions against the RTC's exercise of its receivership powers, including asset liquidation; the plaintiff lacked standing as a disappointed bidder under FIRREA, was not a party or third-party beneficiary to the contract, and could not demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the balance of equities or public interest favored relief.

propertyfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

Sherwin Jarmon, a continuing-contract teacher for the Houston Independent School District, was suspended with pay in January 1989 and terminated in June 1989 after allegations of verbal and physical abuse and sexual harassment of students. Jarmon sued in federal court, claiming that the termination deprived him of property and liberty interests without due process and violated his First Amendment free-speech rights. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the claims were barred by res judicata because the same facts and legal issues had already been finally decided against Jarmon in an earlier Texas Education Agency proceeding and a subsequent state-court action that ended in a dismissal with prejudice.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a substitute teacher who was removed from the Houston Independent School District’s substitute list after complaints from multiple schools about his use of profanity, yelling, and physical contact with students. He sued the district and several administrators, alleging violations of due process and equal protection under the Texas Constitution, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various state common-law claims such as wrongful discharge and defamation. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff had no protected property interest in continued at-will employment as a non-contract substitute teacher and no liberty interest was implicated because the reasons for his removal were not publicly disclosed in a manner that foreclosed other employment. The equal-protection claim failed for lack of a protected class or any showing that differential treatment lacked a rational basis, the § 1983 claim fell with the absence of a constitutional violation, and the state-law claims were barred by governmental and official immunity. The court applied Texas employment-at-will doctrine and federal summary-judgment standards to reach its decision.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure