In this edition of Litigation Roundup, Jerry Jones gets a defamation lawsuit brought by a woman claiming to be his daughter dismissed after the plaintiff’s failed attempt to amend the claims, the ExxonMobil Oil Corporation gets its win in a coverage dispute with AIG affirmed by a Dallas appellate court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit calls out a federal judge in McAllen for denying a motion to dismiss a retaliation lawsuit with “no analysis period.”
Have a development we should include in the next Litigation Roundup? Please let us know at tlblitigation@texaslawbook.net.
Harris County District Court
‘World’s Largest’ Pentecostal Church, Student Ministry Named in Sex Assault Suit
A John Doe parishioner who joined the student ministry affiliated with the Assemblies of God while he was a student at Sam Houston State University has filed a lawsuit accusing the church and the student ministry group of failing to protect him from sexual abuse.
Doe, who is seeking more than $1 million in damages, filed suit in Harris County March 13, naming the General Council of the Assemblies of God, which describes itself as the “world’s largest Pentecostal denomination,” the South Texas District Council Assemblies of God, Chi Alpha Campus Ministries USA and Chi Alpha Campus Ministries Huntsville as defendants.
“The decades-long history of sexual abuse at this church runs all the way to the top,” alleges the lawsuit, which includes an organizational chart purporting to show “the people at the heart of this terrible cover-up.”
Doe alleges he was sexually assaulted by a convicted sex offender, Daniel Savala, from 2017 until 2022. He was introduced to Savala, who was convicted of a sex crime in 2013 and has been forced to register as an offender since then, by the campus ministries’ pastors, according to the lawsuit, who called Savala a “prophet” who would “guide” Doe’s “religious journey.”
Doe has been legally blind since birth, according to the lawsuit, and accuses pastors Eli Stewart and Eli Gautreaux of “knowingly” sending him “to a sexual predator.”
The lawsuit alleges Doe isn’t the only victim of Savala, and that the church knew of other allegations of abuse against Savala since at least 2011.
The case has been assigned to Harris County District Judge Lauren Reeder.
Doe is represented by Anjali Nigam of The Nigam Law Firm in Houston and Jill Herz, Harry Herz and Paul Herz of Jill Herz Attorney at Law in Dallas.
The defendants had not retained counsel as of Monday.
The case number is 2024-16380.
Eastern District of Texas
Defamation Suit Against Jerry Jones Tossed
U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder, who in November had dismissed with prejudice most of a defamation lawsuit brought against Jerry Jones by a woman who says she was defamed by the Dallas Cowboys owner after claiming to be his daughter, recently entered judgment tossing the defamation claims.
Alexandra Davis, 26, was given a chance to amend her lawsuit in November after Judge Schroeder found she made a “conclusory statement” in her lawsuit that Jones, his attorney Donald Jack Jr. and communications consultant James Wilkinson acted with malice in making statements about her, but failed to “allege specific facts to demonstrate that defendants knew the statements were false or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth when they made them.”
She had accused the trio in the lawsuit she filed in March 2023 of participating in “a deliberate plan and scheme to publicly defame plaintiff.” Davis had filed a prior declaratory judgment action in Dallas County court seeking a ruling that she wasn’t bound by a settlement agreement her mother and Jones allegedly entered into when she was an infant. When that was reported by the Dallas Morning News and others, Davis alleges the attacks against her began.
In his March 13 order, Judge Schroeder found Davis’ amended lawsuit did not correct the issues he pointed out in November.
“Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded that Defendants acted with actual malice,” he wrote. “As the court previously ruled, because plaintiff failed to plead an element of a defamation claim, she also failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
The lawsuit isn’t over — Davis is facing counterclaims accusing her of breaching a binding settlement agreement between Davis, Jones and Davis’ mother, Cynthia Davis-Spencer.
Davis is represented by Jay Gray and Andrew Bergman of BergmanGray, Erin Keil and Donald “Matt” Keil of Keil Law Firm and Hailee M. Amox of Atchley Russell Waldrop & Hlavinka.
Jones, Wilkinson, and Jack are represented by Charles “Chip” Babcock, Nancy W. Hamilton, David T. Moran, Edwin Buffmire and Cody Martinezof Jackson Walker and David Folsom of Texarkana.
The case number is 5:23-cv-00032.
Northern District of Texas
Judge O’Connor Recuses in Chamber’s Challenge to CFPB Credit Card Late-Fee Rule
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman will now be presiding over a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule capping credit card late fees after U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor recused himself from the suit filed March 7.
Judge O’Connor issued a two-sentence order March 14 recusing himself from the case and asking that it be reassigned to another judge. Accountable.US, which bills itself as a government watchdog group, had raised concerns in a news release dated March 14 that Judge O’Connor’s personal investments in credit-card issuing companies constituted a conflict of interest that made recusal necessary.
Accountable.US President Caroline Ciccone issued a statement accusing the Chamber of forum shopping by filing suit in the Northern District of Texas.
“It’s no coincidence the Chamber sued in this conservative jurisdiction where they expected to draw a sympathetic ear for preserving the late fee price-gouging practice,” she said. “With O’Connor, the Chamber drew a judge with serious conflicts of interest that almost certainly favors the banking industry and calls into question whether these proceedings can be fair and impartial.”
In its lawsuit, the Chamber accuses the CFPB of implementing a final rule on late fees “before the public-comment period had even commenced.”
“The rule, which upends more than a decade of regulations, is unlawful,” the Chamber alleges. “Its promulgation by the CFPB, moreover, violated the Appropriations Clause. The concept of attaching consequences to the failure to pay an obligation is ubiquitous in our legal system.”
The Chamber is represented by Michael Murray and Tor Tarantola of Paul Hastings, Derek Carson and Philip Vickers of Cantey Hanger, Thomas Pinder and Andrew Doersam of the American Bankers Association and Jennifer B. Dickey and Maria C. Monaghan of the U.S. Chamber’s litigation center.
The CFPB is represented by its own Stephanie Garlock of D.C.
The case number is 4:24-cv-00213.
Northern District of California
MatchGroup Hires Defense in Class Action Alleging Dating Apps Are Intentionally Addictive
A team of Sidley Austin attorneys, most of whom are based in Dallas, have been hired by MatchGroup to defend against a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the company of making dating apps intentionally addictive.
The six named plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on Valentine’s Day alleging MatchGroup’s suite of dating apps — which includes Tinder, Hinge and The League — have been intentionally designed “with addictive, game-like design features, which lock users into a perpetual pay-to-play loop that prioritizes corporate profits over its marketing promises and customers’ relationship goals.”
“In violation of consumer protection and other laws, the purposely addictive design of the platforms is not disclosed to users,” the lawsuit alleges. “Instead, Match affirmatively represents the platforms as effective tools for establishing off-app relationships while secretly doing everything in its power to capture and sustain paying subscribers and keep them on-app.”
The lawsuit is seeking more than $5 million in damages for a nationwide class of plaintiffs who have purchased subscriptions to any MatchGroup platforms “within the applicable statute of limitations.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler has been assigned to the case.
MatchGroup is represented by Amy P. Lally of Sidley Austin in Los Angeles and Angela C. Zambrano, Chelsea Priest and Kathrine Maldonado of Sidley’s Dallas office.
The plaintiffs are represented by Bahar Sodaify, Kelsey Elling and Ryan J. Clarkson of Clarkson Law Firm in Malibu.
The case number is 3:24-cv-00888.
Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas
Exxon Mobil Gets Win Against Insurer Affirmed
A three-justice panel of the Dallas Court of Appeals on March 13 issued a ruling affirming a win for ExxonMobil Oil Corporation in its coverage dispute with AIG Specialty Insurance Co. over claims related to exposure to a chemical called methyl t-butyl ether, or MTBE.
Justices Robbie Partida-Kipness, Erin A. Nowell and Craig Smith determined that Dallas County Judge Veretta Frazier got it right when she refused to compel arbitration in the case and denied AIG’s motion accordingly.
ExxonMobil brought this lawsuit against AIG about five years after it entered a 2015 settlement agreement with AIG, which was then known as American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co., seeking a declaration that the insurer had to cover certain benzene-related claims and lawsuits.
AIG removed the case to federal court, but that judge remanded it back to state court because of a lack of diversity jurisdiction. AIG then filed suit in New York seeking to compel arbitration, and a judge there agreed to send the dispute to arbitration but declined to stay ExxonMobil’s lawsuit in Dallas County seeking a declaration.
At that point, AIG also asked Judge Frazier to compel arbitration and she declined.
The panel wrote that the settlement agreement superseded an earlier agreement to arbitrate this dispute.
“Parties are free to modify or unmake prior agreements, and AISLIC does not provide any authority to support that an agreement to arbitrate controls in perpetuity and could not be modified by the parties,” the justices wrote. “We see no reason why sophisticated, multi-national companies like AISLIC and EMOC could not agree to modify their prior contracts.”
AIG is represented by Darin L. Brooks, Brian E. Waters, William N. Drabble and R. Rees LeMay of Gray Reed & McGraw.
ExxonMobil is represented by Ernest Martin Jr., Adrian Azer and Andrew W. Guthrie of Haynes Boone.
The case number is 05-23-00719-CV.
Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston
Suing an Ambulance Co. for Fraudulent Billing? You’ll Need an Expert Report for That
A lawsuit brought by a man accusing an ambulance company of billing violations is a healthcare liability lawsuit that requires the submission of an expert report to support the claims, a three-justice panel recently held in tossing the lawsuit.
Alstonia Louis, who was transported to the hospital following a 2019 motor-vehicle accident, had argued his lawsuit against Liberty County Emergency Medical Services was not a healthcare liability claim because he was only complaining of the company’s allegedly fraudulent billing practices that saddled him with an $1,830 bill.
Liberty County argued the lawsuit clearly implicates the requirement to file an expert report because the claim “touches on the conduct of the emergency medical personnel who attended to him in the ambulance.”
A trial court in 2022 entered final judgment in favor of Liberty County EMS.
“The resolution of Louis’s challenge to the level of care provided to him and appropriate commensurate billing for those services is not within lay knowledge,” the panel wrote in affirming that ruling. “Therefore, the fact-finder would need expert medical testimony to confirm whether (1) the care received by Louis was ‘basic-life support’ as he was billed for and (2) the amount Louis was charged was appropriate for the services provided.”
Justices Charles A. Spain, Jerry Zimmerer and Meagan Hassan sat on the panel that issued the March 14 ruling.
Louis is represented by Lonnie B. Davis of Hemphill.
Liberty County EMS is represented by Phillip W. Bechter and John S. Collins of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease in Houston.
The case number is 14-22-00671-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
New Law Mandates Second Look at $3M Hutto Development Row
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday determined that a new law signed by Gov. Greg Abbott on June 9 that became effective immediately means the trial court needs to take another look at whether contractor Legacy Hutto can proceed with its lawsuit attempting to recoup $3 million from the city of Hutto for work it performed under a contract.
The new law, H.B. 1817 amended an existing law to require that a governmental entity must notify a business entity of its failure to submit a disclosure of interested parties and also mandates that a contract between a governmental entity and a business entity is deemed “properly executed” until notice is provided to the business entity of the failure to submit the form.
In this case, Legacy Hutto sued the city after it failed to pay for work on a development project, but the city argued it was immune from the suit because the underlying contract with Legacy hadn’t been properly executed since Legacy didn’t submit the disclosure of interested parties.
The trial court granted the city’s motion to dismiss the suit. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed, and this appeal followed.
While the case was pending with the state’s high court, lawmakers passed H.B. 1817, which expressly applies to any lawsuit still pending when it took effect.
“H.B. 1817 modifies the law that applies to this case,” the justices wrote. “The district court should address the new statutory requirements in the first instance.”
Legacy Hutto is represented by V. Blayre Peña and Matt Lightfoot of VBPena Law, Terry L. Scarborough of Hance Scarborough and Fred Hagans and William G. Hagans of Hagans Montgomery Hagans.
The city of Hutto is represented by George C. Hyde, Matthew L. Weston, Stephen C. Speck and Michael L. Bostic of Hyde Kelly in Austin.
The case number is 22-0973.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Federal Judge in McAllen Chided for Ruling with ‘No Analysis Period’
A Fifth Circuit panel has called out U.S. District Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa’s ruling declining to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 12 employees of the Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District against four members of its board accused of engaging in retaliation for First Amendment activities.
In a per curiam opinion issued Friday, Judges W. Eugene Davis, Don R. Willett and Andrew S. Oldham told Judge Hinojosa he had been instructed by the Fifth Circuit in 2022 in this same case that he needed to reassess the board members’ motion “on a plaintiff-by-plaintiff, defendant-by-defendant basis and assign reasons for its subsequent decision.”
The Fifth Circuit panel in 2022 explained the lack of analysis meant the case was “not sufficiently reasoned for this court to review on appeal.”
But on July 27, 2023, Judge Hinojosa “in almost an identically worded minute-entry order … again denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without any explanation of its reasoning.”
This appeal followed.
“Here, for the second time, the district court not only provided no individualized analysis as to each officer’s entitlement to either legislative or qualified immunity, it provided no analysis period,” the panel wrote in its Friday ruling. “The district court’s lack of any explanation about the basis for its denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss precludes effective appellate review in this case.”
The panel sent the case back to Judge Hinojosa “to evaluate defendants’ motion to dismiss on a plaintiff-by-plaintiff, defendant-by-defendant basis, and to provide reasons for its judgment.”
The plaintiff employees are represented by Alfonso Kennard Jr. and Eddie Robert Hodges II of Kennard Law.
The defendant school board members are represented by William S. Helfand and Sean M. Higgins of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith and Randy E. Lopez of Edinburg. The case number is 23-40461.