The case involved plaintiff Johnny Ray Romo, who was injured in a 2008 rollover accident after a tire on his Ford Ranger allegedly failed; he sued Michelin North America (MNA) as the tire manufacturer and Wal-Mart as the seller, asserting strict product liability and negligence claims for defective design, manufacture, warnings, and related failures. The court denied MNA's motion to dismiss and for sanctions, granted summary judgment to both MNA and Wal-Mart, and denied the related fee motion as moot. Core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to disclose any expert witnesses by the scheduling deadline, leaving no evidence to establish a tire defect, causation, or the specific circumstances required under Texas law for liability against a non-manufacturing seller; photographs and other materials showed post-accident tire damage rather than a pre-existing defect, and the claims lacked evidentiary support.
The case involved East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corporation seeking a declaration that its insurer, American Alternative Insurance Corporation, had a duty to defend and indemnify it in a lawsuit brought by customers alleging wrongful discontinuation of water service related to easement disputes. The court granted partial summary judgment to East Rio Hondo, finding that the insurer had a duty to defend based on the allegations in the underlying pleadings matching the insurance policy's coverage provisions under the eight-corners rule. However, it determined that the duty to indemnify could not be decided until facts are established in the underlying case and stayed the proceedings accordingly. The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
In Contreras v. United States, Juan Contreras, a former Cameron County constable convicted of participating in a South Texas drug-trafficking operation, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 652-month sentence. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the motion, ordering resentencing. The core reasoning was that Contreras’s appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise a Booker claim on direct appeal; the Fifth Circuit had already indicated that such a claim would have resulted in remand for resentencing under advisory guidelines, as occurred for Contreras’s co-defendants, and the government conceded the point. The court found this failure satisfied both prongs of Strickland v. Washington, establishing deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
Kevin Bonitto, a Jamaican citizen and former lawful permanent resident convicted of drug trafficking, was ordered removed and held in post-removal-order detention by ICE after serving his criminal sentence. He filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that his detention exceeded the six-month presumptively reasonable period under Zadvydas v. Davis without a significant likelihood of removal to Jamaica and violated due process. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and conditionally granted the petition, ordering ICE to perform a custody status review under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 by May 26, 2008, or release Bonitto under supervision; it denied the motion to dismiss and other requested relief. The core reasoning was that ICE's prior file review was procedurally deficient, provided no explanation for continued detention, and failed to complete the required 180-day headquarters review.
In Ebel v. Eli Lilly and Co., the plaintiff sued the pharmaceutical manufacturer after her husband committed suicide while taking the prescription drug Zyprexa, alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty based on the company's failure to adequately warn of risks including suicide and dangerous interactions with Paxil. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. It applied Texas's learned intermediary doctrine, under which a drug manufacturer fulfills its duty by warning prescribing physicians rather than patients directly. The court also relied on Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 82.007, which creates a presumption that FDA-approved warnings are adequate unless exceptions such as overpromotion are proven, and found no evidence supporting any exception here.
The case concerned a plaintiff's 2004 application for a Section 8 housing voucher from the Brownsville Housing Authority, which expired after the authority refused to approve a tenancy without court-ordered guardianship over the plaintiff's grandson, leading to cancellation of the application; the plaintiff later reapplied in 2006. The plaintiff sued in December 2006, claiming the guardianship policy violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of familial status, that the authority failed to provide required notice and hearing, and that it violated procedural due process rights, while seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and requested declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the policy, while granting in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds for certain claims.