Hilda G. Tagle

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

immigrationprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

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.

civil rightsprocedure

In De Pacheco v. Martinez, Mexican citizen Ana Pacheco and her U.S. permanent resident husband Jose Pacheco sued several Texas notaries public (Private Defendants) for providing unauthorized immigration legal services, alleging claims including negligent misrepresentation, fraud, negligence based on federal criminal statutes, breach of implied contract, and civil RICO, plus a claim against federal immigration agencies (Federal Defendants) for failing to enforce regulations on who may represent individuals in immigration matters. The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding no federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the state-law claims against the Private Defendants did not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue under the Grable test, and dismissing the claim against the Federal Defendants for failure to state a claim as there was no private right of action. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims once the federal claims were dismissed.

immigrationprocedurecriminal law

The case involved the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) suing Manuel Garza for using its trademarked certification card after his certification had been revoked, seeking default judgment on claims under both 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and § 1125. The court had previously granted default judgment only on the § 1125 claims and denied it on the § 1114 claims, entering final judgment accordingly. ARRT then filed a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, arguing that Garza's use of the genuine but revoked card with the trademark constituted infringement under § 1114 and citing supporting precedents. The court denied the motion, holding that § 1114 requires use of a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the mark, which did not cover Garza's conduct with an unaltered genuine mark, and that such deceptive use was instead addressed by § 1125. The decision rested on the plain language of the Lanham Act and a lack of binding precedent requiring a different interpretation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, neurosurgeon Dr. Pisharodi sued Valley Baptist Medical Center and several staff physicians, alleging racial discrimination, harassment through peer reviews, defamation, interference with contracts, and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to his hospital privileges and professional interactions. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and the court granted the motion in full, dismissing all claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than an employee under Title VII, failed to identify any qualifying adverse employment actions, did not establish the required elements for his other tort and contract claims, and presented no evidence of extreme or outrageous conduct supporting an IIED claim.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Daniel Enguita, a long-time employee of Neoplan USA Corporation, who sued after his 2002 termination, alleging discrimination based on national origin, disability, and age, plus retaliation, under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and parallel federal statutes including Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims were barred by statutes of limitations. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the state-law claims with prejudice because they were filed after the applicable 180- or 300-day deadlines measured from the plant closure notice and final pay date. It denied the motion as to the federal claims, however, finding them timely based on the date of the EEOC intake questionnaire and charge, which satisfied the 300-day federal filing period, and allowing the case to proceed on those claims only.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerned the distribution of proceeds from the judicial sale of the decommissioned aircraft carrier Ex-USS Cabot/Dedalo, which had been subject to multiple in rem lawsuits in federal courts in Louisiana and Texas. The disputes arose from maritime liens claimed after a 1997 collision that damaged the vessel's moorings, leading to Coast Guard intervention, and a subsequent 1998 incident where the ship listed while docked in Texas. The court held that Marine Salvage & Services, Inc. held a valid salvage lien of $20,908.00 and the United States held one of $70,342.68, entitling both to a pro rata share of accrued interest from the court registry, while finding insufficient funds to satisfy any other asserted maritime liens. The reasoning centered on the priority rules for maritime liens under federal admiralty law, the factual determination that the services qualified as salvage rather than mere necessaries, and the application of established precedents ranking salvage liens highly.

propertyprocedure