James DeAnda

This case involved Ticor Title Insurance Company's claims against the FDIC and former officers/directors of Northwest Bank & Trust arising from an assignment agreement that entitled Ticor to a share of distributions on a $550,000 promissory note or related collateral in the bankruptcy estate of J.R. McConnell. Ticor alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and good faith, breach of warranty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation after the FDIC received life insurance proceeds from the estate without paying Ticor any portion. The court dismissed the breach of contract claim because the assignment's clear terms required distributions either solely tied to the $550,000 Note or as part of a general unsecured creditor distribution, neither of which occurred when the FDIC's claim was based on unrelated notes. The tort claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Ticor's failure to first file an administrative claim with the FDIC as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act. Claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed without prejudice for lack of ancillary jurisdiction after the federal claims were resolved.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiffs sued two subsidiaries of a failed savings association (along with another defendant) for breach of contractual and fiduciary duties to maintain insurance on plaintiffs' property, as well as negligence and deceptive trade practices, based on alleged oral or unwritten agreements. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the parent institution, intervened, removed the case to federal court, and moved to dismiss under the D’Oench doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e). The court held that these defenses, which generally bar claims relying on side agreements not reflected in an institution’s written records, apply to claims against wholly-owned subsidiaries of failed institutions. The core reasoning was that regulators must be able to evaluate the financial condition of the parent based on complete written records of all its assets, including subsidiaries, so the motion to dismiss was granted.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Service Merchandise Company suing Service Jewelry Stores, Inc. and its owner for using a similar name in their Houston jewelry stores, alleging violations of federal service mark infringement laws (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a)), Texas dilution statutes, and common law. Plaintiff, which operates hundreds of stores nationwide with registered marks like 'SERVICE MERCHANDISE,' sought a preliminary injunction after defendants opened or planned three local jewelry-focused outlets. The court granted the injunction, permanently enjoining defendants from using 'Service Jewelry' or 'Service Jewelry Store' in their business. The core reasoning centered on the validity and incontestability of plaintiff's marks, a likelihood of consumer confusion from the similar names in overlapping jewelry sales and services, and the broader protections available under Texas law even without direct competition or source confusion.

business & regulatory

The case involved a father seeking federal court enforcement of a Texas state court order granting him visitation rights with his child, against the mother who had obtained an earlier conflicting custody decree in North Carolina state court; the father invoked the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) under 28 U.S.C. § 1738A as the basis for federal jurisdiction. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and awarded Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff's counsel. The core reasoning was that the Supreme Court's decision in Thompson v. Thompson established that the PKPA does not create a federal private cause of action and is instead a directive to state courts, that domestic relations matters fall outside federal jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff's further motions were unreasonable once counsel was notified of the controlling precedent.

family lawfederal powerprocedure

Rosemary Bowser sued McDonald's Corporation in a diversity action under state law for wrongful termination, breach of written and oral employment contracts, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and libel after her 1985 discharge for allegedly failing to follow cash-handling procedures. The court granted the defendant's motions for summary judgment. Bowser failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on any claim, including that her status as a permanent employee or oral promises created a just-cause requirement, that the employee handbook established contractual due-process rights, or that libelous statements were published to third parties within the limitations period. The court applied the 1986 Supreme Court summary judgment trilogy and held that the plaintiff could not defeat the motions with vague allegations, legal conclusions, or an affidavit contradicting her prior sworn deposition testimony.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involved unsecured creditors appealing a bankruptcy court's interim award of over $2.4 million in attorney's fees to Weil, Gotshal & Manges for its joint representation of multiple Chapter 11 debtors, including Global Marine, Inc. and its subsidiary, where the creditors alleged an actual conflict of interest under 11 U.S.C. § 327 due to the parent-subsidiary creditor-debtor relationship. The district court granted the law firm's motion to dismiss the notice of appeal. It held that interim fee awards are interlocutory orders not appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), that no exceptions to the finality rule (such as the collateral order doctrine or Forgay v. Cohen) applied because the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to monitor and adjust for conflicts, and that discretionary leave to appeal was unwarranted under standards like 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) given the absence of a controlling question of law or exceptional circumstances requiring immediate review.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved creditors appealing a bankruptcy court's order awarding over $2.2 million in interim attorneys' fees to court-appointed counsel for multiple debtors in a Chapter 11 reorganization and denying a motion to disqualify counsel due to alleged conflicts from intercompany debts and guarantees. The district court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the order was interlocutory rather than final and thus not appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The court reasoned that orders granting interim compensation and denying disqualification motions are generally not final judgments, do not fall under the collateral order doctrine or other exceptions to finality, and presented no controlling question of law or exceptional circumstances justifying discretionary review. It further rejected the creditors' claim that the fee award itself created a disqualifying self-interest in counsel.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Chemlawn Services Corp. and related plaintiffs suing GNC Pumps, Inc. and others for trademark infringement under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and common-law unfair competition, based on defendants' manufacture and sale of Mag-P spray guns that allegedly copied the design of plaintiffs' Chem-lawn Gun used in the gardening industry. After an evidentiary hearing and subsequent procedural issues including appeals and a stay, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. The decision rested on findings that the Chem-lawn Gun had acquired secondary meaning through continuous use and copying, that the digits of confusion test showed a likelihood of confusion despite no actual confusion, that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored enjoining the conduct, with a $5,000 bond required.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Huffco Petroleum Corp. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., plaintiffs filed suit to confirm an arbitration award of over $9 million for defendants' breach of the take-or-pay provision in a 1976 natural gas purchase contract, initially asserting jurisdiction under the federal arbitration statute and later amending to claim jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after determining that OCSLA's jurisdictional grant over cases arising from operations on the outer Continental Shelf extends only to disputes involving exploration, development, or production of minerals, as defined in the statute, and does not cover contractual disputes over the sale of already-produced gas. The core reasoning examined OCSLA's legislative purpose and definitions, found the take-or-pay breach fell beyond the production stage, distinguished contrary district court decisions and the Fifth Circuit's Laredo case (which involved platform construction), and denied defendants' request for Rule 11 sanctions.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In this case, plaintiff Mildred June Stevenson sued her employer, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, alleging that its drug testing program violated her federal and state constitutional rights to due process, privacy, protection against self-incrimination, and freedom from unreasonable searches. The defendant had placed her on indefinite leave after she refused to undergo urinalysis. The court addressed multiple procedural motions, including the plaintiff's requests to amend her complaint and to dismiss the case without prejudice, as well as the defendant's motions for summary judgment. It denied the motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that private employers are not subject to constitutional restrictions absent state action, and the plaintiff had raised no genuine issue of material fact on that point.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns a bank executive who sued officials at the Comptroller of the Currency after they rejected his nomination as president of a proposed new national bank. The rejection was based on internal reports of classified loans from his prior roles and an oral evaluation from a former supervisor, without the plaintiff being given an opportunity to review or rebut the specific adverse information. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Privacy Act, Fifth Amendment due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed and that qualified immunity did not apply because the officials should reasonably have known their procedures might violate due process.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a claim for damage to a varnishing machine that occurred when a truck carrying it struck a low railroad bridge while en route from France to Mexico after discharge from a vessel in Houston. The district court, following reversal and remand from the Fifth Circuit on the applicability of COGSA's negligent navigation defense, addressed the remaining issues of damages and related claims. The court held that the $500 per package liability limitation under COGSA applied because the machine was shipped in one package, the bill of lading incorporated the limit, and the trucker's unintentional route deviation did not constitute an unreasonable deviation that would waive the limitation. The court further ruled that no attorney's fees were available absent statutory authorization in COGSA or other federal law. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $500 plus interest and costs.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Boureslan v. Aramco, an American citizen employed by Aramco in Saudi Arabia sued his employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging harassment and termination based on national origin, race, and religion, along with related state-law claims. The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that Title VII does not apply to employment outside the United States. The court reasoned that the statute's text defines "employer" and "commerce" in terms that do not extend abroad, its legislative history focuses solely on domestic discrimination, and the exemption for "aliens outside any State" does not support a negative inference of extraterritorial coverage for U.S. citizens; the court also noted potential conflicts with foreign sovereignty and contrasted the statute with the later-amended ADEA. The state claims were dismissed for lack of pendent jurisdiction.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who sued numerous defendants alleging improprieties in a foreclosure sale of Texas real property pursuant to a deed of trust and in the enforcement of federal tax liens on the same property; the plaintiff claimed ownership based on his $23 bid in silver at the sale. The court converted the defendants' motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment, reviewed the record, and determined there were no genuine issues of material fact. It granted summary judgment to the defendants on the two main claims, dismissed the remaining allegations for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, and imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court reasoned that Texas law governing deeds of trust and foreclosure sales did not recognize the plaintiff's bid as overriding the mortgagee's credit bid, that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the sale, and that his claims were frivolous. The court also established a special pre-service review procedure for any future complaints filed by this plaintiff.

propertyproceduretaxes

The case was a patent infringement suit in which Whitehall Corporation alleged that Western Geophysical Company of America and Litton Resources Systems had copied, manufactured, and sold a seismic streamer system covered by U.S. Patent No. 3,319,734 for use in underwater oil exploration. The court found the patent invalid and unenforceable on grounds of obviousness, prior use, and inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office. It denied the defendants' request for attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, rejected claims of tortious interference with business relations, and noted that the expiration of the patent rendered any request for injunctive relief moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute between an association of elevator employers and an international union over whether a prior arbitration award interpreting a collective bargaining agreement's wage rate formula barred further arbitration regarding wage reductions in Houston and Dallas. The court decided to deny the employers' request for an injunction against arbitration and granted the union's motion for summary judgment in part, allowing the arbitration to proceed while deferring other issues. The core reasoning was that the prior arbitrator's decision was expressly limited to the Cedar Rapids dispute, and questions about the award's precedential effect on future disputes must be resolved through arbitration rather than by the court. The court also denied the local unions' intervention motion due to procedural noncompliance and adequate representation by the international union.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves Lubrizol suing Exxon for alleged violations of a protective order from a prior New Jersey patent infringement lawsuit, including misrepresentations about the security of confidential information placed in a shared computer facility called the Gates Data Center, and seeking damages, fees, and injunctive relief. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which the court converted to a summary judgment motion, arguing that res judicata from the prior settlement and dismissal with prejudice barred the claims. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained and res judicata did not apply because the prior action concerned patent claims while this suit addressed distinct fraud and protective order violations not resolved or released in the settlement.

procedure

This case involves a Salvadoran citizen who entered the U.S. illegally in 1984, conceded deportability before an immigration judge but sought political asylum, failed to receive notice of a rescheduled hearing after moving without updating his address with INS, and was ordered deported in absentia when he did not appear. After the district director denied a stay of deportation, the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(9) and a preliminary injunction to halt his removal pending appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court denied the petition and motion in full, ruling that it had no jurisdiction to review the underlying deportation order and that the district director's denial of a stay was not an abuse of discretion because notice complied with regulations and due process while the petitioner had not made a prima facie showing of asylum eligibility.

immigration

The case involved a lawsuit by Falcon Construction Co. against several parties after a barge carrying metal piling capsized in the Houston Ship Channel in 1979, resulting in the loss of the cargo. The court found that the stevedore company was not liable because it loaded the cargo with reasonable care and diligence according to industry standards. It also determined that the towing company was not at fault, as the tug master acted reasonably and had no duty to detect non-apparent unseaworthiness of the barge. Finally, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover from the barge owner due to a charter party contract that required the plaintiff to obtain cargo insurance and indemnify the owner for any losses.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved consolidated claims for damages arising from the 1982 collapse of a broadcast tower, including wrongful death claims for five workers and property damage to the tower, after personal injury and other claims had been settled. The jury found defendant Stainless, Inc. 100% liable for the deaths. The court denied Stainless's post-verdict motions for new trial and judgment n.o.v., holding that Stainless exercised control over the premises as general contractor and thus owed a duty of ordinary care to provide a safe workplace, that negligent performance of its contractual duties supported a negligence claim and award of punitive damages, and that damages for mental anguish were recoverable by the decedents' survivors under Texas wrongful death law.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory