In this edition of Litigation Roundup, a man who kidnapped his attorney and demanded a $1 million ransom gets 24 years in prison, Texas warns the state’s high court of dire consequences in a bid to revive its suit against Google, and a jury in rural West Texas awards more than $1 million in an oil and gas contract dispute.
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.
Upton County District Court
Jury Sides with Driftwood Energy Operating in Contract Dispute
Jurors in a rural West Texas county south of Odessa recently determined that Driftwood Energy Operating is entitled to about $1.35 million in damages from business partner KLX Energy in a breach of contract dispute.
Before jurors got the case, Upton County District Judge Pedro Gomez Jr., who presided over the case, determined a valid contract existed between the parties under which KLX agreed to provide pressure pumping services, which stimulates oil and gas production in wells, for Driftwood on eight wells at a rate of $8,000 per pump hour.
The judge cited a March 3, 2022, email chain and a 2018 master service agreement as proof of the existence of the contract.
The judge also found KLX had failed to comply with that contract and owed damages to Driftwood as a result. Driftwood had to hire a replacement vendor to do the work KLX failed to do, according to court documents.
The jury was tasked with determining damages and in a verdict returned April 9 awarded Driftwood $1,356,816.
The jury also awarded $800,000 in attorney fees and costs for taking the case to trial and a conditional award of $335,000 for work done on appeal through to the Texas Supreme Court.
Driftwood filed suit June 15, 2022, according to court records.
Upton County District Judge Pedro Gomez Jr. presided over the case.
KLX Energy is represented by David Whittlesey of A&O Shearman.
Driftwood Energy Operating is represented by Corey F. Wehmeyer of Santoyo Wehmeyer.
The case number is 22-06-U4942-ANC.
Eastern District of Texas
Man Who Kidnapped His Former Attorney Gets 24 Years Prison
A man who had been convicted of a 1984 kidnapping and sentenced to 50 years in prison was recently sentenced to serve nearly a quarter century in prison for the subsequent kidnapping of his former attorney in July 2024.
Putnam Darwin Richardson, 79, of Orange, Texas, pled guilty on Nov. 20 to the crime.
Richardson was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone, who entered judgment April 11 that he serve 210 months in prison for kidnapping and 84 months for brandishing a firearm during the commission of that crime, for a total of sentence of 24 and a half years in prison.
“Thanks for the quick and outstanding work of the FBI, in concert with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s office and the Orange Police Department, an innocent victim was rescued from the clutches of a gun-wielding kidnapper and returned safely home to his family, and a now twice-convicted armed kidnapper is returned home to prison,” Acting U.S. Attorney Abe McGlothin Jr. said in a statement.
The attorney, identified in court documents only as M.S., has been identified by Beaumont media outlets as Mel Shelander, who has practiced locally for more than 35 years and handles family, personal injury and business law cases.
According to the Department of Justice, the attorney was kidnapped the morning of July 15, 2024, after arriving at his office. His wife was told over the phone that he was being held hostage for a $1 million ransom and would be killed if payment wasn’t received.
Richardson was charged with the crimes in July 2024, according to court documents, and prosecutors opted to drop a count of transmission of extortionate communication and a count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person prior to sentencing.
Richardson is represented by Thomas Berg of Moreno Gracia & Berg of Houston.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Reynaldo Morin of Beaumont prosecuted the case.
The case number is 1:24-cr-00074.
Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas
Justices Can’t Locate Four Cases Cited in Fraudulent Transfer Appeal
In an order issued April 10, Justice Nancy Kennedy told an appellant in a fraudulent transfer case there was an issue with the briefing in the case.
Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig and Heidi Rochon Hafer are involved in litigation with JGB Collateral. According to court documents, their father and mother, John Rochon Sr. and Donna Rochon owe JGB the balance of a $6.7 million judgment. JGB alleges the Rochons transferred jewelry valued at more than $1 million to their daughters, Rochon-Eidsvig and Hafer, and filed this lawsuit to recover the valuables alleging violations of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.
“After reviewing the parties’ briefs, we note that appellants’ May 16, 2024 Brief cites the following cases, none of which could be located by appellee or this court:
- Macy’s Texas, Inc. v. D.A. Adams & Co., 584 S.W.2d 716 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e);
- Stephens v. Beard, 158 Tex. 229, 309 S.W.2d 189 (1958);
- Gaston v. Monroe, 89 Tex. 539, 35 S.W. 658 (1896);
- Estate of Malpass v. Malpass, 917 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no writ).”
The court gave counsel for Rochon-Eidsvig and Hafer until April 20 to file copies of those cases with the court. In a brief filed in August, JGB told the court it should reject the daughter’s arguments that they’re entitled to keep the jewelry because “they rely on cases that do not exist” that even after “a diligent search” JGB’s lawyers couldn’t locate.
In a reply brief filed in September, Rochon-Eidsvig and Hafer did not cite those four cases and did not address the contention that the cases “do not exist.”
A trial court granted JGB summary judgment on its TUFTA claim and signed judgment in its favor in January 2024.
JGB Collateral is represented by Jeffrey S. Lowenstein, Gwen I. Walraven and David G. Webster of Bell Nunnally & Martin.
Rochon-Eidsvig and Hafer are represented by Heidi Rochon Hafer.
The case number is 05-24-00123-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
State Tells Justices the Need to Review Google Ruling Has Been Amplified
In a letter filed with the Texas Supreme Court Friday, the state argued some of the dire consequences it said would follow in the wake of an intermediate appellate court’s decision to dismiss its consumer protection lawsuit against Google have already come to fruition.
Texas appealed to the state’s high court in February, 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. In its petition, Texas told the court that the ruling would allow Google and others 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.”
On Friday, Texas reminded the court that in its petition for review it argued that the lower court’s ruling would also provide “‘a roadmap to violate Texas consumer-protection laws with impunity,’ such that other defendants ‘paying attention’ would rely on Google to evade civil enforcement actions.”
“That prediction is already proving true,” Texas wrote. “In just three short months since the Thirteenth Court of Appeals issued its decision, defendants in at least two separate enforcement actions brought by the State under Texas consumer-protection statutes cited Google to argue that they are not amenable to specific jurisdiction in Texas.”
Those other two cases, according to the letter, are State of Texas v. 3M et al. in the Northern District of Texas and State of Texas v. The Allstate Corp. et al. in Montgomery County District Court.
“3M Company claims that ‘Google is on all fours’ with the State’s claims against it because any employees responsible for its deceptive practices are outside Texas. And Arity 875, LLC makes the same argument,” Texas told the court. “That multiple defendants have already seized on Google so quickly to thwart the state’s authority to protect its citizens amplifies the need for review here.”
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.
Dallas Restaurant Cleared in Drunken Driving Injury Suit
On Friday the state’s high court issued an opinion freeing Dallas restaurant Cadot from a lawsuit brought by an injured motorist accusing the establishment of overserving a customer.
Raoger Corporation, which operates Cadot, had appealed to the Texas Supreme Court in September 2023 seeking to overturn a ruling from the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas that revived the lawsuit brought by Barrie Myers.
Myers was seriously injured in November 2018 when his car was crashed into by a car driven by Nasar Khan, who was at the restaurant and consumed alcohol there earlier in the night. After Khan rear-ended Myers, causing his vehicle to roll several times, responding police determined his blood-alcohol content was .139, above the legal limit of .08.
The trial judge had dismissed the lawsuit after finding Myers failed to produce any evidence that Khan was obviously intoxicated at Cadot. Citing the “onerous burden” of proof in Dram Shop Act cases, the Texas Supreme Court agreed.
“We conclude that Myers submitted no competent evidence to establish liability under the Dram Shop Act’s high bar,” Justice Jeff Boyd wrote for the court. “We therefore reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and reinstate the trial court’s summary judgment in Cadot’s favor.”
Raoger Corporation is represented by Steven J. Knight and AmyJo Foreman of Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry.
Myers is represented by solo practitioner Matthew J. Kita.
The case number is 23-0662.