In this edition of Litigation Roundup, Texas turns to the state’s Supreme Court in a bid to revive its lawsuit alleging Google violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a Haynes Boone team gets a $3.5 million jury award overturned on appeal, and a new lawsuit in Dallas alleges the illegal dumping of tons of dirt tainted with heavy metals has imperiled construction of an affordable housing project.
Attorney General Ken Paxton recently issued a news release celebrating the fourth appointment of a lawyer in his office to the administration of President Donald Trump. This time, it is James Lloyd, former deputy attorney general for civil litigation, who will now serve as deputy policy director to Vice President JD Vance.
Lloyd, who is an alum of Sidley Austin and Mayer Brown, joins former OAG Special Counsel Joseph Mazzara, former Deputy Solicitor General Lanora Pettit and former Associate Deputy Attorney General Ryan Baasch, who are all serving in the federal government now.
Paxton also announced he had elevated three attorneys to senior leadership roles within his office: Austin Kinghorn will serve as the deputy attorney general for civil litigation; Ryan D. Walters is now the deputy attorney general for legal strategy; and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher alum Billy Cole was promoted to principal deputy solicitor general.
The Litigation Roundup is a weekly feature highlighting the work Texas lawyers are doing inside and outside the state. Have a development we should include next week? Please let us know at tlblitigation@texaslawbook.net.
Denton County District Court
Construction Co. Accused of Illegally Dumping ‘Hundreds’ of Truckloads of Dirt
Engineering and construction firm Mountain Cascade of Texas has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit seeking more than $1 million in damages brought by a developer that alleges an illegal dumping operation has halted its planned construction of an affordable apartment development.
Dallas developer MADII filed suit Feb. 27, alleging that Mountain Cascade, while working on a nearby project for the city of Denton, had “unlawfully dumped and spread hundreds of 18-wheeler size truckloads of foreign soil from the city project.”
“Subsequent soil tests revealed that the unlawfully dumped foreign soil contained non-native concentrations of certain metals, wholly inconsistent with previous test results performed on the property,” the lawsuit alleges. “As a direct result, the environmental status of the property changed from ‘no recognized environmental concern’ to ‘recognized environmental concern.’ In effect, MADII cannot obtain the HUD financing necessary for the economic viability of the project — without it, the project will be dead.”
In 2023 MADII began the process of constructing the 307-unit apartment complex on a 10-acre tract of land and has since spent $2.2 million on the project. After discovering that an estimated 169 18-wheeler loads of soil had been dumped on the property, MADII contacted the city of Denton, which launched an investigation and in September 2024 determined Mountain Cascade was responsible, according to the lawsuit.
In an October 2024 meeting, MADII alleges Mountain Cascade took responsibility for the dumping and promised to remediate the situation.
“As a preview, Mountain Cascade did not make good on that promise,” the lawsuit alleges, and that failure means the entire project is now in jeopardy.
“In short, this case is about Mountain Cascade’s lack of environmental stewardship and disregard for Texas landowner’s rights that caused damages to MADII and its property,” the suit reads. “This case is about Mountain Cascade reneging on its commitment to remediate the contamination, and the further damages and delay that MADII has incurred as a result.”
MADII is represented by Rogge Dunn and Alec E. Pedigo of Rogge Dunn Group.
Counsel information for Mountain Cascade wasn’t available Monday.
The case number is 25-2049-481.
Louisiana District Court
Dow Notches 2 Wins in Workplace Injury Suits
Jurors in Louisiana recently cleared The Dow Chemical Co. of liability in separate cases involving contractors injured at two sites.
In one case, Jontrell Saizon was injured in April 2020, and in the other case, Nicholas Blanchard was injured in December 2022. Both alleged Dow’s negligence was the cause. Because Dow had paid both men workers’ compensation benefits, the company argued the plaintiffs could not recover additional damages from it without proving the injuries were tried to an “intentional act” committed by Dow or one of its employees.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued the intentional act exception applied because the incidents that caused injuries to Saizon and Blanchard were substantially certain to occur.
Louisiana District Court Judge Kevin Kimbal, in Iberville Parish, presided over the Saizon case and granted Dow summary judgment in late January. After the Assumption Parish judge overseeing the Blanchard case denied Dow’s motion for summary judgment, the company appealed and won reversal on Feb. 14.
Dow is represented by Kevin Jordan and Sydney Rupe of Jordan, Lynch & Cancienne and Leigh Ann Schell of Adams & Reese.
The plaintiffs were represented by Arnold & Itkin and Clayton, Frugé & Ward.
The case number for Saizon’s Iberville Parish case is 80368, and the case number for Blanchard’s Assumption Parish case is 38949.
Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston
Dredge Co. Beats Back $3.5M Jury Award on Appeal
A three-justice panel has determined a man who alleged he was injured on the job, and to whom a jury awarded $3.5 million in damages, should instead take nothing on his claims.
Engineer Joshua Clark had sued Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company alleging its negligence was the cause of an off-duty fight involving him and two other employees. A jury agreed and awarded him about $3.5 million in damages.
On appeal, the company argued in part that it owed Clark nothing because Clark wasn’t acting within the scope of his employment, nor in service to the ship, at the time he was injured.
“Concluding that the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that Clark’s actions were in furtherance of Great Lakes’ business interests, we reverse and render,” the court held in a 10-page opinion.
According to the opinion, Clark was staying at a hotel near the worksite with other Great Lakes employees when tensions that had bubbled for days eventually escalated into two separate fights.
After the second fight, on Dec. 19, 2020, Clark was rendered unconscious, taken to the hospital and diagnosed as having a possible traumatic brain injury, as well as a broken nose and pain in his shoulder, back and neck. He also suffered a seizure while hospitalized. After a company investigation, Clark and one of the other two men involved were terminated. The third had resigned immediately.
“As noted, Clark was free to do as he pleased during his off-duty time, he was not being paid during his off-duty time, and he was not answerable to the call of duty,” the panel held in finding the jury’s verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. “In short, Clark was not serving any direct or indirect business interest of Great Lakes.”
Justices Kevin Jewell, Brad Hart and Maritza M. Antu sat on the panel that issued the Feb. 25 ruling.
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company is represented by Mark Trachtenberg and Ryan Pitts of Haynes Boone and Jefferson R. Tillery and Sara B. Kuebel of Jones Walker.
Clark is represented by Benjamin Shabot of Beeton Shabot and Sean E. O’Rourke and Nicholas Simon of Simon & O’Rourke Law Firm.
The case number is 14-23-00400-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
Kinder Morgan Denied Emergency Relief in Welder’s Injury Suit
Just five days after a pipeline company filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for relief, the Texas Supreme Court denied Kinder Morgan’s requests Wednesday.
Kinder Morgan CO2 and Kinder Morgan Production Company were trying to overturn a trial judge’s decision to grant Robert G. Eure’s motion for partial summary judgment that it argued wrongly imposed on it a new and nondelegable duty in the injury lawsuit.
That ruling, Kinder Morgan argued, deprives it of the right to have a jury determine proportionate responsibility, “fundamentally alters the way the impending jury trial can and must be conducted, and irreparably compromises Kinder Morgan’s ability to present the viable defenses it has spent the duration of this case developing by preventing Kinder Morgan from submitting exhibits, testimony, and jury questions on the issue of control.”
Eure, a welder, was working for National Mechanical Services in March 2019 when he was overhauling a generator at Kinder Morgan’s facility. During that work, according to the lawsuit, he fell off a ladder and “fell headfirst onto the floor of the generator.”
Eure filed suit in February 2021. Kinder Morgan sought to designate Eure’s employer, National Mechanical Services, as a responsible third party.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the case returned to the courtroom of Harris County District Judge O. Kyle Carter for further proceedings.
Kinder Morgan is represented by Jake Kauffman and James C. Marrow of Wright Close & Barger and Adraon D. Greene, Trenton J. Wallis, Nadia F. Savo and Mikhael S. Khan of Galloway Johnson Tompkins Burr & Smith.
Eure is represented by Michael A. Gaylen and Kern A. Lewis of Bailey & Gaylen.
The case number is 25-0168.
Texas Asks Justices to Revive DTPA Suit Against Google
Texas has appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, asking it to undo a January ruling from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi that brought an end to its lawsuit accusing Google of violating the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Texas filed its petition for review Feb. 24, arguing that if left to stand, the intermediate appellate court’s ruling would allow Google to “deceptively collect troves of personal data from millions of Texans Google knows to be located in Texas, and potentially make billions of dollars in profits from that deception, as long as some of Google’s deceptive behavior occurs in California.”
“That cannot be correct,” Texas argued. “A foreign defendant is subject to Texas’s jurisdiction for claims based on its business conduct within Texas.”
A three-justice panel had found that a lack of personal and specific jurisdiction over Google meant the case could not proceed in Texas courts. The lawsuit, filed in Victoria County in January 2022, accuses Google of violating state law by making certain representations about how user location information and browsing history data is collected.
Google appealed to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in June 2023, trying to overturn a ruling from Victoria County District Judge Eli E. Garza denying its special appearance.
Google had argued that Texas courts cannot exercise general or specific jurisdiction over it. In support of that contention, Google explained that it isn’t “at home” in Texas, arguing that of the 169,000 people it employs worldwide, only 5,500 are in Texas.
Texas had argued that because one of the tech giant’s four data centers is located in Texas and because Texas accounts for 8.9 percent of Google’s U.S. revenue and 4 percent of its worldwide revenue, general jurisdiction exists.
The panel wrote that Google isn’t incorporated in Texas, doesn’t maintain a principal place of business in the state and that “allegations that the defendant maintains in-state business alone does not suffice to subject a corporation to general jurisdiction.”
Texas is represented by Kristina Williams, Joseph M. Graham Jr., Jeffrey S. Wolff, Marc B. Collier, Julie N. Searle, Josh Owings and Chris Cooke of Norton Rose Fulbright, Kevin D. Cullen of Cullen, Carsner, Seerden and Cullen, Ronald B. Walker of Walker Keeling, and Jacob Beach of the office of the attorney general.
Google is represented by Stephen E. McConnico, Steven J. Wingard, Robyn B. Hargrove, John W. Ellis, Bryan D. Lauer and Shelby Hart-Armstrong of Scott Douglass & McConnico, Jim Cole of Cole, Cole, Easley & Sciba and Benedict Y. Hur, Simona Agnolucci, Jonathan Patchen, Eduardo Santacana, Joshua Anderson and Harris Mateen of Willkie Farr & Gallagher.
The case number is 25-0172.