The case concerned a lawsuit by a Hispanic resident of Irving, Texas, against the city and its officials, alleging that the city's at-large system for electing its eight city council members and mayor violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Hispanic residents. Following a four-day bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining that the three Gingles preconditions were met based on 2000 Census and 2006 ACS data showing Hispanics comprised a growing share of the population (concentrated south of Highway 183) and were sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in a single-member district. The court further found, through expert statistical analyses of election returns and Spanish-surname voter data, that Hispanic voters were politically cohesive and that non-Hispanic voters typically voted as a bloc to defeat Hispanic-preferred candidates. It concluded that these factors established the plaintiff's standing and supported a claim of vote dilution under the totality of circumstances, while noting the absence of any prior successful remedies through the city's charter review process.
This case concerns federal criminal charges against defendants Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh for alleged involvement with the Holy Land Foundation in providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization, through fundraising and related activities. After a jury trial resulting in acquittals on most counts and a deadlock on others, the defendants moved for judgments of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. The court denied both motions, holding that the government's evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that each defendant knowingly participated in the charged conspiracies to provide material support and launder money.
The case involved the Verizon Employee Benefits Committee suing former employee Michael Frawley under ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)) to recover an alleged $239,872 overpayment of pension benefits stemming from an error in calculating credit for his prior service at R.H. Donnelley. Frawley moved for summary judgment on his statute of limitations defense, arguing that a recent Texas Supreme Court decision established a two-year limitations period for the analogous state-law claim of money had and received. The court granted the motion, holding that the two-year period applied rather than four years, that the claim accrued when the overpayment was made in 2003, and that the discovery rule did not toll the limitations period because the plan administrator Hewitt's knowledge of the calculation error was imputed to the Committee.
This case is an appeal from two orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding involving debtor Vernon Hulme. The orders concerned the denial of CFB-5, Inc.'s claimed interests in a collection of paintings and the approval of a settlement between the trustee and Surf City-USA regarding the sale proceeds of those paintings. The district court affirmed both orders after reviewing the record, finding that the bankruptcy court correctly determined CFB-5 had no ownership, security, or possessory interest in the artwork based on lack of documentation and credible testimony, and that the settlement was a reasonable compromise of Surf City's potentially valid claim.
The case involved InternetAd Systems, LLC suing Amadeus North America, Inc. and others for patent infringement on web-related technology patents originally owned by David Judson. The central dispute concerned whether InternetAd, as an assignee and exclusive licensee under an agreement with the patent owner, had standing to bring the suit without joining the current patent owner. The court granted InternetAd's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on standing grounds, and denied as moot the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the licensing agreement transferred all substantial rights to InternetAd, making it an exclusive licensee with authority to enforce the patents independently, even though the licensor retained some limited consultation and consent rights that did not undermine standing.
This case involved a civil lawsuit by Daldav Associates, L.P. against Avram Lebor and others, alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising from a scheme in which defendants falsely represented their ability to secure billions in real estate development financing through major insurers and securities firms in exchange for upfront deposits and fees. The plaintiff claimed it paid $346,750 based on these promises, which were never fulfilled and instead diverted for personal use. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Lebor on both claims. The core reasoning was that Lebor failed to respond or dispute the allegations, allowing the court to accept the plaintiff's evidence as establishing all required elements—including false representations made in a business context, lack of reasonable care, justifiable reliance, and resulting pecuniary damages—with no genuine issues of material fact remaining.