This case concerned R.R. Pennington's motion to quash an administrative subpoena issued by the Secretary of Labor under ERISA Section 504 to obtain financial records related to the Control Specialties, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan. The court enforced the subpoena, holding that the Secretary had established a legitimate law enforcement inquiry authorized by ERISA and that the requested records concerning certificates of deposit were relevant to potential violations of Title I of the statute. The court further found that the Secretary had complied with the Right to Financial Privacy Act by providing adequate notice of the inquiry's nature and by serving the subpoena on the customer on the same day it was served on the financial institution.
The case involved former officers and employees of a Canadian corporation appealing bankruptcy court orders that authorized subpoenas for their depositions in Houston to aid a foreign bankruptcy proceeding and denied their motion to quash. The U.S. District Court affirmed, holding that section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code permits ancillary proceedings in U.S. courts for discovery purposes when a foreign representative seeks relief consistent with comity and efficient estate administration. The court found that venue was proper in the Southern District of Texas due to the location of assets and potential deponents, and that the statute's broad language and legislative history support flexible relief including discovery without requiring letters rogatory or other international mechanisms.
This case involved the U.S. Department of Energy's effort to enforce an administrative subpoena against Phoenix Petroleum Company, a petroleum products reseller, seeking records on crude oil purchases, sales, and related transactions to check compliance with allocation and pricing rules under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act and related statutes. Phoenix challenged the subpoena on grounds including the appropriateness of summary proceedings after the Act's expiration, the DOE's and issuing official's authority, improper purpose due to congressional influence, and lack of relevance. The court enforced the subpoena, reasoning that the expiration of the EPAA did not bar enforcement of prior violations or subpoenas, the delegation of authority was valid, the subpoena served a lawful purpose without undue influence, and the requested documents were reasonably relevant to the agency's investigation.
This case involved a dispute between Tokura Construction Co., a Japanese corporation, and Corporación Raymond, a Delaware corporation, arising from subcontracts for dredging and other work on a port expansion project in Ecuador. The parties had agreed to arbitrate any disputes under American Arbitration Association rules in Houston, and an arbitration panel awarded Tokura over $1.5 million plus interest and other relief. Tokura sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction and the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm the award and recover an unpaid balance of about $263,000, while Raymond objected on grounds including alleged errors in the award calculations and prior payments. The court granted confirmation, holding that Raymond's objections were time-barred under the Act's three-month limit and, even if timely, lacked merit because judicial review of arbitration awards is narrowly limited to issues like fraud or arbitrator misconduct, not reexamination of factual or legal errors.
In Welch v. State Department of Highways & Public Transportation, the plaintiff, a marine technician employed by the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation, sued the State of Texas and the DHPT under the Jones Act for injuries sustained when she was crushed between a mobile crane and a dock while working on navigable waters. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity and sovereign immunity. The court granted the motion and dismissed the Jones Act claims with prejudice, holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court for monetary damages unless the state has consented, that operating in a federally regulated sphere like maritime activities does not constitute implied waiver under the standards set in Employees v. Department of Public Health & Welfare, and that Texas's limited waiver under the Tort Claims Act is overridden by the exclusive remedy provisions of its workers' compensation statutes applicable to DHPT employees.
In Freeman v. Southern National Bank, plaintiffs sued the defendant bank under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleging that the bank continued to report an automobile loan as uncollectible to a credit bureau even after the loan was paid in full and the title released, resulting in adverse credit reports. The court treated the bank's motion to dismiss the federal claim as one for summary judgment and dismissed both claims. It reasoned that the bank was not acting as a consumer reporting agency under the FCRA because the information reported was based solely on its own transactions and experiences with the plaintiffs, which the statute expressly excludes from the definition of a consumer report, and thus the bank owed no duties under the Act; the court also dismissed the pendant state claim. The opinion noted that consumers retain other remedies, such as disputing reports through the credit agency or pursuing common-law claims for malicious false reporting.
