This case arose after Zachary Kovacic became intoxicated at Cheers Cocktail Lounge, was handcuffed by bar employees, and was later transported and released by Laredo police several miles from his hotel, where he was struck by a hit-and-run driver and died. Plaintiffs sued the bar owners under the Texas Dram Shop Act, for assault/battery, false imprisonment, and related negligence. On the bar's motion for partial summary judgment, the court granted relief on the Dram Shop claim, finding that the officers' conduct constituted a new and independent cause that broke the chain of causation as a matter of law, but denied summary judgment on the assault/battery and false imprisonment claims because the bar presented insufficient evidence to support its self-defense and justification arguments. The court applied Texas substantive law and federal summary-judgment standards, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
This case arose from a 2007 truck accident at a parking lot in which plaintiff Danny Williams was injured by a truck driven by defendant David McCollister, an employee of defendant P.A.M. Transport. Williams sued McCollister for ordinary negligence and sued P.A.M. directly for negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention; P.A.M. admitted it would be vicariously liable for any negligence by McCollister and moved for partial summary judgment on the direct claims. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, and the district judge adopted that recommendation after finding no clear error. The court held that, under Texas law, an employer's vicarious liability for an employee's negligence is mutually exclusive from direct claims of negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention when the employer stipulates to vicarious liability, so no genuine issue of material fact remained on those claims. Summary judgment was therefore entered for P.A.M. on the direct-liability counts.
This case involves a Bivens action by Rolando Gonzalez, Paula Gonzalez, and Ramiro Gonzalez against U.S. Border Patrol Agent Alvin Vega, alleging that Vega violated their Fourth Amendment rights during a vehicle stop and subsequent events on Masterson Road near the Rio Grande in Laredo, Texas. Vega had stopped the plaintiffs' vehicle for an immigration inspection after observing suspicious circumstances in a high-smuggling area, including the vehicle's behavior, appearance, and the occupants' conduct. The court granted Vega's motion for summary judgment as to Rolando and Paula Gonzalez, finding no constitutional violation occurred in the stop or questioning, but denied the motion as to Ramiro Gonzalez because factual disputes remained regarding whether he was seized and whether Vega had probable cause for any arrest. The core reasoning centered on qualified immunity analysis under the Fourth Amendment, assessing the reasonableness of the immigration stop and any subsequent seizures based on the agent's observations and the plaintiffs' actions.
In this case, former employees of the Webb County Tax Assessor-Collector's office sued the County and several officials in their official and individual capacities, asserting a federal Section 1983 claim along with state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, wrongful discharge under Sabine Pilot, and retaliation under Texas Labor Code Section 52.051. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the County's motion to dismiss all of the state-law claims against the County and the officials in their official capacities on grounds of governmental immunity, and dismissing the common-law claims against the officials in their individual capacities under Section 101.106(e) of the Texas Tort Claims Act. The court further denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their complaint. The decision rested on the conclusion that the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for these claims and that the statute's election-of-remedies provision bars suit against individuals once the governmental entity is sued.
Juan Gerardo Flores-Diaz, a Mexican national with prior drug convictions and multiple deportations, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his federal sentence for illegal reentry after deportation and attempted escape from custody. The district court denied the motion in full and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The ruling turned on the validity of the defendant's guilty plea, the propriety of sentencing enhancements based on his criminal history, and the unavailability of discretionary relief under former immigration provisions.
This case involved two long-term employees of a custom brokerage company who were laid off during a reduction in workforce due to the company's financial losses and sued their employer and owners for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the defendants provided sufficient evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the terminations based on financial difficulties and workforce reductions, and the plaintiffs failed to show that this reason was a pretext for age discrimination. The court also noted that an EEOC determination letter did not create a genuine issue of material fact in the absence of other supporting evidence.
