In this edition of Litigation Roundup, a bench trial to determine whether the U.S. Trustee can clawback millions in fees awarded to Jackson Walker for work done on certain bankruptcy cases is officially canceled, personal injury lawyer Thomas J. Henry hires David J. Beck to defend his trademark and a longtime Dallas judge makes a big announcement.
Last week Dallas County District Judge Emily Tobolowsky announced that after nearly 20 years presiding over the 298th District Court she will not be seeking reelection next year.
“I wanted you to learn the news from me, and I wanted you to know something of what this journey in public service has meant to me,” reads the announcement from the judge who won reelection five times. “Once again, thank you. Your support all these years has meant so much to me, and I am honored to have had the opportunity to serve you.”
She was first elected in 2006, and her current term will end Dec. 31, 2026. The graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law called her judicial career “gratifying beyond all my expectations.”
“From a young age, it was always my dream, instilled in me by my parents, to be in public service,” she wrote. “They supported my goal of becoming an attorney, and they taught me the value of giving back to the community. I am thankful for their example, and I am also thankful to you.”
Tarrant County District Court
As July Trial Nears, Settlement Reached in I-35 Fatal Pileup Case
Cintra US, the North Texas Express TEXpress tollway operator, has reached a settlement that will allow it to avoid a July 21 wrongful death trial stemming from a fatal pileup on Interstate 35 that occurred during an ice storm in February 2021.
Jason Stephens of Stephens Law Firm, who is lead plaintiffs lawyer in the consolidated litigation, represents the family of Tiffany Gerred, who died after being struck by a FedEx 18-wheeler in the pileup. The terms of the settlement with Cintra, reached last week, are confidential.
“The Gerred family and I are very pleased to have resolved this part of the case,” he said in a statement. “While we believe the Toll Road certainly played a part in this tragedy, there is no question that an 18-wheeler is what killed Tiffany.”
The pileup involved more than 130 vehicles and killed six people. Stephens has alleged the ice storm that caused the dangerous road conditions was “widely predicted” and that more could have been done by authorities to avoid the disaster.
FedEx Corp. remains a defendant in the lawsuit that accuses the company of placing an untrained driver behind the wheel.
Tarrant County District Judge Josh Burgess will preside over the trial, and Tarrant County District Judge Susan McCoy has been appointed MDL judge in the case for all pretrial matters.
Cintra is represented by Kirsten M. Castañeda of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson, William R. Jenkins Jr., Gracie Garcia, Marilyn Brown, Christopher Mugica and Sam Richards of Jackson Walker and Keith C. Cramer, Soña J. Garcia and Christopher S. Norcross of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani.
FedEx is represented by Bradley E. Chambers, Bobbie L. Stratton and Kimberly A. Chojnacki of Baker, Donnelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz and Jessica Z. Barger, Brian J. Cathay and James C. Marrow of Wright Close & Barger.
The master case number is 153-000000-22.
Dallas County District Court
Telecom Infrastructure Co. Executive Draws Suit
The president of communications for Dallas-based Future Infrastructure, which specializes in telecommunications infrastructure contracting work, has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the company’s former president.
Ricky Riggs sued Scott Comley April 14 and asked for more than $1 million in damages. Riggs accuses Comley of illegally accessing confidential emails between Riggs and Riggs’ attorney under the guise of an investigation.
“This case concerns every employee’s worst nightmare, where the employer acting as big brother invades the employee’s constitutional privacy rights. This is not a case of an employer simply monitoring an employee’s emails on its server,” the lawsuit alleges. “In this case, the employer secretly accessed an employee’s email, then intentionally snooped further by clicking on a confidential private link in the employee’s personal email.”
Riggs alleges the information gathered by reading his emails was used as the basis to fire him from Future Infrastructure.
But Riggs was not the first to file suit. In October, Primoris Services Corporation — which in 2021 purchased Future Infrastructure, the company Riggs cofounded, for more than $600 million — filed suit against Riggs, Echelon Infrastructure and Echelon Telecom.
As Primoris told the court, keeping Riggs on as president was “an essential component of that deal” and included the negotiation of a five-year employment agreement and agreements not to compete with Primoris and to keep certain information confidential.
“In September 2024, Mr. Riggs’s conduct at work led plaintiffs to question whether Mr. Riggs was adhering to his employment agreement, noncompete agreement, and fiduciary duties,” Primoris alleges. “An initial internal investigation, based on review of Mr. Riggs’s work email account, confirmed plaintiffs’ fears. Mr. Riggs had founded the competing companies Echelon Infrastructure, LLC and Echelon Telecom, LLC. Like plaintiffs, the Echelon defendants provide customers with infrastructure services, including construction, maintenance, and engineering services. Shockingly, Mr. Riggs was working with current and former employees of plaintiffs (some of whom have their own protective covenants) to establish and operate the Echelon defendants.”
Ten days before Riggs filed his lawsuit, Dallas County District Judge Aiesha Redmond had entered a temporary injunction against Riggs, Echelon and other defendants barring them from “directly or indirectly” working for or offering consulting services for any company that “directly or indirectly competes” with Future Infrastructure of Primoris Services.
According to the lawsuit, Riggs was fired in October. In his lawsuit against Comley, Riggs informed the court of the related lawsuit and asked that it be transferred to Judge Redmond.
Riggs is represented by Rogge Dunn, M. Patrick McShan and Alec E. Pedigo of Rogge Dunn Group.
Counsel for Comley had not filed an appearance as of Monday. The case has been assigned to Dallas County District Judge Bridgett Whitmore.
The cases are Primoris Services et al. v. Ricky Riggs et al., case number DC-24-17823; and Ricky Riggs v. Scott Comley, case number is DC-25-05746.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Jackson Walker Fee Trial Officially Canceled
Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Eduardo V. Rodriguez, issued an order April 16 officially canceling a two-week bench trial that was slated to begin in his court May 12.
The move was expected after Chief U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas Alia Moses issued an order April 9 withdrawing from the bankruptcy court 34 cases where the U.S. Trustee is trying to clawback millions in fees awarded to the law firm Jackson Walker in cases where former bankruptcy judge David Jones served as mediator or judge.
Jones resigned his bench, and the U.S. Trustee began efforts to recoup the fees, after his previously secret romantic relationship with a former Jackson Walker bankruptcy partner, Elizabeth Freeman, became public.
The removal of the cases came at the request of the U.S. Trustee, which is the watchdog of the bankruptcy system.
“The court knows of no reason to think that the bankruptcy judges, after Nov. 15, 2023, who have overseen these proceedings thus far have done so other than ably and honorably, to the highest standard of judicial professionalism,” Chief Judge Moses’ order reads. “No party claims otherwise. This memorandum order and opinion should not be read to cast doubt on their service or on any order or decision they have made in these proceedings to date.”
She wrote that “this unique case nevertheless requires stiff measures.”
“The need to reestablish public trust and confidence in the court system alone impels withdrawal in this highly unusual case,” the order reads.
Jackson Walker is represented by Jason L. Boland, William R. Greendyke, Julie Harrison, Maria Mokrzycka, Paul Trahan and Emily D. Wolf of Norton Rose Fulbright and Rusty Hardin, Leah M. Graham, Jennifer Brevorka and Emily Smith of Rusty Hardin & Associates.
The U.S. Trustee is represented by Vianey Garza, Alicia L. Barcomb, W. Joel Charboneau and Brian P. Thill of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The case number in the Southern District of Texas is 23-00645. The case number before Chief Judge Moses is 4:23-cv-4787.
Southern District of Texas
Personal Injury Firm Sued Again Over Use of Other Lawyer’s Name
Angel L. Reyes, who operates his own personal injury law firm with offices in Houston, Dallas, Austin and Fort Worth, has been sued twice in recent weeks by lawyers who allege he is wrongfully profiting off their name and reputation.
Most recently, personal injury lawyer Thomas J. Henry filed suit against Reyes’ firm April 14 in federal court in Houston, bringing claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
“This lawsuit arises out of defendants’ intentional use of plaintiffs’ registered trademark to knowingly deceive and confuse consumers who are searching specifically for plaintiffs’ services,” Henry alleges. “Defendants’ fraudulent scheme involves buying keyword advertisements using plaintiffs’ registered marks for Google searches made from mobile devices, and using them in conjunction with confusingly similar advertisements which often incorporate plaintiffs’ marks into the text of defendants’ advertisements.”
And on March 14, personal injury law firm Arnold & Itkin sued Reyes in Harris County District Court. A&I explained it has worked for years to develop and grow its reputation within Texas and nationally as a personal injury firm at the “pinnacle of the practice of modern plaintiffs’ law.”
Reyes’ firm, A&I told the court is “a small plaintiffs’ personal injury firm with little in the way of reputation (or results) of its own.”
“Rather than build its own reputation the honest way — i.e. through dedication, discipline, hard work and getting results — defendant decided to take a shortcut in hopes of obtaining clients,” A&I allege. “Defendant ‘purchased’ plaintiff’s name so potential clients performing internet searches for AI would be mistakenly directed to defendant’s website.”
A search of court records showed one other related lawsuit.
Jim Adler, whose ubiquitous daytime TV commercials bill him as the Texas Hammer, had filed a similar trademark infringement suit against Reyes in August 2019, alleging Reyes was intentionally trying to “deceive and confuse customers who are searching specifically for plaintiffs using a mobile device.”
After U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade in August 2020 accepted a magistrate’s recommendation and report that Adler’s claims for misappropriation of name or likeness and misappropriation of business opportunity be dismissed, the parties went to mediation.
Reyes was represented by Christopher Schwegmann of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann and Adler retained Jered E. Matthysse of Pirkey Barber. The parties announced they had settled the dispute in March 2021.
Henry is represented by David J. Beck, Alex B. Roberts and Catherine Buthod of Beck Redden. U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison has been assigned to that case and set an initial conference for early August.
Arnold & Itkin is represented by its own Kurt Arnold, Jason A. Itkin and Cory D. Itkin. That case has been assigned to Harris County District Judge Dedra Davis. Records do not reflect that counsel for Reyes has filed an appearance in any of the ongoing litigation.
The cases are Thomas J. Henry et al. v. Angel L. Reyes & Associates PC et al., case number 4:25-cv-01719, in the Southern District of Texas; Jim S. Adler PC v. Angel L. Reyes & Associates PC et al., case number 3:19-cv-02027, in the Southern District of Texas; and Arnold & Itkin v. Angel L. Reyes & Associates PC., case number 2025-17670, in Harris County District Court.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
AT&T’s Seventh Amendment Argument Sees $57M FCC Fine Vacated
Agreeing with telecommunication giant AT&T that its Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial had been violated by the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to slap it with a $57 million fine, the Fifth Circuit recently vacated the penalty.
“No one denies the Commission’s authority to enforce laws requiring telecommunications companies like AT&T to protect sensitive customer data,” the judges wrote in the 20-page opinion. “But the Commission must do so consistent with our Constitution’s guarantees of an Article III decisionmaker and a jury trial.”
The FCC had assessed the fine against AT&T after determining the company mishandled customers’ location-based data in violation of section 222 of the Telecommunications Act. Both before the Commission and on appeal, AT&T argued the fine cannot stand because it was handed down after in-house adjudication by the FCC, in violation of its right to have a judge and jury hear the case.
In agreeing with AT&T, the panel cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which affirmed a Fifth Circuit decision and held the SEC violated the Seventh Amendment by subjecting George Jarkesy Jr. to in-house adjudication of securities fraud claims.
“If AT&T wants an Article III court to review the forfeiture order’s legality, it has to give up a jury trial,” the panel wrote. “If it wants a jury trial, it has to defy a multi-million dollar penalty, wait for DOJ to sue, and, even then, relinquish its ability to challenge the order’s legality. Either way, AT&T’s Seventh Amendment rights have been denied.”
AT&T filed its petition for review May 9. The court heard oral arguments in the case Feb. 3 and issued the opinion in favor of AT&T April 17.
Judges Stuart Kyle Duncan, Cory T. Wilson and Catharina Haynes, who concurred only in the court’s judgment, sat on the panel.
AT&T is represented by Pratik A. Shah, Z.W. Chen and Margaret Rusconi of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.
The FCC is represented by Adam Sorensen, James Carr and P. Michele Ellison of the FCC’s Office of General Counsel.
The case number is 24-60223.
U.S. Supreme Court
Judge Albright’s Ruling for Amazon Will Stand
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition for review from Broadband iTV Inc., which alleged Amazon was infringing five of its patents covering “enhanced electronic program guides,” or libraries that allow television viewers to see and find programming of their choice.
The high court’s denial means U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright got it right when he granted Amazon’s motion seeking to have the patents declared invalid in September 2022.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Albright’s decision in September 2024.
“The claims recite the use of a computer to do what humans — i.e., clerks at video rental stores — have done for years: recommending certain types of videos based on a user’s rental history,” Judge Albright wrote in his 36-page order. “… The Federal Circuit has held patents directed to collecting information about a user’s past behavior and providing content based on that information to be abstract and ineligible under § 101.”
“The Court generally credits BBiTV’s arguments that its inventor was the first to implement certain existing business practices on computer systems to make the process faster and scalable, but this alone is insufficient to transform those business practices into something more than a computer implementation of an abstract idea.”
Broadband iTV filed suit against Amazon in October 2020.
Broadband iTV is represented by Jeffrey A. Lamken, Rayiner Hashem and Walter H. Hawes IV of MoloLamken.
Amazon is represented by J. David Hadden and Todd R. Gregorian of Fenwick & West.
The case number is 24-827.