• Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Sign up for email updates
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

The Texas Lawbook

Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury

  • Appellate
  • Bankruptcy
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corp. Deal Tracker/M&A
  • GCs/Corp. Legal Depts.
  • Firm Management
  • White-Collar/Regulatory
  • Pro Bono/Public Service/D&I

Litigation Roundup: Texas Attorneys Notch Wins in California, Utah 

July 8, 2025 Michelle Casady

In this edition of Litigation Roundup, the Northern District of Texas sees a busy week prosecuting those who allegedly file false tax returns, a trade dress fight between competing carnicerias with ties to Texas moves forward in California, and the city of Dallas secures a favorable ruling at the Fifth Circuit in its fight to regulate short-term lenders like TitleMax.   

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.

Northern District of Texas

Arlington Trio Among Those Charged in Tax Refund Scheme 

The Department of Justice has announced that a grand jury in Fort Worth indicted four family members for their roles in allegedly carrying out an $8.5 million fraud involving the filing of bogus tax returns. 

David Hunt, of Arlington, and his twin sons, Brandon Hunt and Baylon Hunt, also of Arlington, were indicted on charges of conspiracy and aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns. The half brother of the sons, Corey Burt, of Mississippi, also was indicted. 

The conspiracy charge carries a maximum sentence of five years, and the false tax return charge is punishable by up to three years in prison. 

The same day those indictments were announced, July 1, the DOJ in the Northern District of Texas also announced the sentencing of four tax preparers who were given prison sentences of one to four years for defrauding the IRS out of nearly $8 million. 

Festus Adenisimi, 65, of Mansfield, owed FA Tax in Grand Prairie and pled guilty to preparing false returns. He was sentenced earlier this year to 57 months in prison by Senior U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn, who also ordered he pay $10.2 million in restitution. 

In late June, Judge Lynn also sentenced three coworkers and coconspirators of Adenisimi to prison: Sunshyne Endurance Ogungbemi, 37, of Waxahachi, received an 18-month prison sentence and was ordered to pay $7.5 million in restitution; Chris Mary Tijerina, 40, of Crandall, received a 15-month sentence and was ordered to pay $7.5 million in restitution; and Cynthia Bradley, 45, of Belleville, Illinois, received a 15-month sentence and was ordered to pay $5.7 million in restitution. 

Baylon Hunt is represented by Mark R. Danielson of Mansfield. Brandon Hunt is represented by J. Warren St. John of Fort Worth. David Hunt is represented by Roderick White of Fort Worth. Counsel for Burt had not filed an appearance as of Monday. 

Matthew Weybrecht of the DOJ in Fort Worth is the lead prosecutor on the case. 

The case number for the Hunt and Burt defendants is 4:25-cr-00146. 

Ogungbemi is represented by Scott H. Palmer and Russell Turkel of Addison, and the case number is 3:24-cr-00323. Adenisimi is represented by Lynette Byrd and Ellen Karp of Oberheiden, and the case number is 3:24-cr-00210. Tijerina is represented by Michael Villa Jr. and Reid Diaz of Meadows Collier Reed Cousins Crouch & Ungerman, and the case number is 3:24-cr-00324. Bradley is represented by federal public defender Jason Hawkins, and the case number is 3:24-cr-00512. 

The lead prosecutor is Marty Basu of the DOJ in Dallas. 

Central District of California 

Porter Hedges Houston Team Gets Win in Meat Market TM Suit

In a trademark and trade dress infringement lawsuit between dueling meat markets, a judge in California recently declined to enter a preliminary injunction that would have shuttered a competitor’s location. 

La Carniceria Meat Market, which operates 22 locations in California and Texas, filed suit May 5. It alleged the “clean, minimalist,” black-and-white aesthetic it has used since opening its first location in 2017 was ripped off by Carniceria Prime. 

In its 37-page lawsuit, La Carniceria alleges its owner, Jose Luis Ruiz, was considering expansion into Texas in 2022 and visited a butcher shop in Cypress that he said some customers had mistaken as a La Carniceria outpost.  

“Upon entering Carniceria Prime, Ruiz was quickly greeted by [Branco] Ramirez, who was on site and recognized Ruiz. Ramirez expressed his longtime admiration for Ruiz and the success of Carniceria Prime, readily admitting that he had copied the LCMM Branding to create Carniceria Prime,” the suit alleges. “In surveying Carniceria Prime, it became clear to the LCMM Group personnel that Defendants had copied the overall look and feel of La Carniceria, meaning LCMM Group’s protectable Trade Dress, to create a nearly identical copy in the form of Carniceria Prime, and did so to directly compete with La Carniceria.”

La Carniceria also alleges Carniceria Prime poached one of its store managers, who divulged the store’s trade secrets in violation of a written agreement. 

In its motion for a preliminary injunction, La Carniceria asked the court to prevent Carniceria Prime from opening its first California location in Norwalk. 

U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton issued an order June 13 denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, explaining in part that La Carniceria had failed to show the interior of its stores is “one purchasers associate with plaintiff as the ‘particular source.’” 

“Plaintiff’s evidence submitted to support this point — nothing more than a few customers on social media who have praised its sleek, modern feel — does little to evidence that customers associate a ‘clean’ look with plaintiff’s stores alone,” she wrote. “Indeed, absent evidence to the contrary, it appears that plaintiff’s design elements are common in many contemporary restaurants and stores, undermining any claim to exclusivity in plaintiff’s trade dress. The same can be said for the fact that plaintiff’s employees wear dark polo shirts featuring its logo; plaintiff has not shown that such an aesthetic is distinctive to it in the food industry.”  

The judge had denied La Carniceria’s motion for a temporary restraining order in May. 

La Carniceria Meat Market is represented by Daniel Lifschitz of Gipson Hoffman and Pancione. 

Carneiceria Prime Meat Market is represented by Sarah Ring, Elliott Deese and Michelle Wolff of Porter Hedges and Shane Tseng of Prospera Law. 

The case number is 2:25-cv-04018. 

Utah District Court

Investor Class Action Against Renewables Co. Tossed 

Renewable Innovations Inc., a business that designs and manufactures “modular, scalable, zero-carbon green renewable solutions,” and a company that later acquired its assets, FNA Group, will not have to face a putative class action brought in investors in Utah. 

U.S. District Judge David Barlow issued the order dismissing the case without prejudice June 30. The investors had brought claims for securities fraud and tortious interference with shareholder rights, stemming from Renewable Innovations’ September 2023 delisting and October 2024 asset sale to FNA for $4.6 million.  

The investors filed suit in September 2024 on behalf of those who purchased stock in the company between December 2022 and September 2023. Judge Barlow found that some of the plaintiffs lacked standing because they didn’t purchase stock during the class period and that the complaint didn’t identify any “actionable” misstatements by Renewable Innovations. 

As for the claims against FNA, Judge Barlow wrote that “even if FNA purchased REII’s assets at a discount, it is not actionable or evidence of an attempt to defraud for a company to zealously negotiate with a company in financial distress and purchase the assets at a low price.” 

“The fact that some of the funds went to repay REII’s creditors — who happened to be insiders — is insufficient to draw a strong inference of scienter,” he wrote. 

The investors are represented by John German of Cole Scott & Kissane and Matthew J. Morrison of Orem, Utah. 

Renewable Innovations is represented by Jack Nunn, Maxwell Milavetz and Thomas M. Melton of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless. 

FNA Group is represented by Jacqueline Vallette, Mark E. Hindley and Jordan Hilton of Mayer Brown. 

The case number is 2:24-cv-00716.

Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas

Dallas Attorney Beats Sanctions, Contempt Finding

Dallas attorney Armando De Diego recently saw orders assessing sanctions against him and holding him in contempt undone by a unanimous three-justice panel who found the judge who handed down the punishments had abused her discretion. 

According to the opinion, Al Dodds sued State Farm Mutual Insurance alleging violations of the Texas Insurance Code and De Diego was defense counsel for State Farm. Dodds filed a motion requesting sanctions of $1,700 in attorney fees, accusing De Diego of “knowingly, intentionally and purposefully” sending an untimely request for deposition on written questions, two days after the close of discovery, and refusing to withdraw it. 

At a hearing on the motion, Dallas County Court-at-Law No. 3 Judge Sally Montgomery told De Diego “I don’t care what your reason was. You didn’t do it right,” when he began to defend himself against the allegations by explaining opposing counsel had filed a notice of business records affidavits after the discovery period. 

“But the proper way to do this is to request … leave of court, and you didn’t,” Judge Montgomery said, according to the opinion. “So that’s what the problem is. … I don’t care. You should have requested leave of court because you asked for it after the end of discovery. And I would have probably granted it. So that’s just how we follow the rules.” 

The appellate panel determined there was nothing in the record that showed “bad faith” to support the sanctions order. 

“The record contains no evidence of intent to engage in conduct for an impermissible reason, willful noncompliance, or willful ignorance of the facts,” the panel wrote in vacating the $1,087.50 sanctions order. 

Judge Montgomery later awarded Dodds additional sanctions against De Diego totaling $7,500 after he missed the deadline to pay the $1,087.50 sanction. De Diego’s counsel had argued it “simply escaped his mind” that the deadline had come and gone and that he paid three days after receiving a reminder from opposing counsel. 

The panel found there was “no evidence of bad faith to support the order” and vacated it, too. 

Judge Montgomery’s contempt order against De Diego did not fare better. De Diego had argued on appeal that the court held him in “constructive contempt” without affording him notice or a hearing, and the appellate panel agreed. 

On the issue of contempt, during trial De Diego had made an offer of proof that included MRI images and a document, according to the opinion, and Judge Montgomery allowed the images into the offer of proof but not the document. 

The contempt finding was based on plaintiff’s counsel’s assertion that after proceedings concluded for the day and when the judge was outside the courtroom, De Diego had placed a document into the envelope that contained the images. 

“De Diego did not receive show-cause notice of the Nov. 17, 2022 proceeding in which the trial court held him in contempt, and the trial court refused to allow him to defend himself at that proceeding,” the panel wrote. “Additionally, the trial court did not provide De Diego a hearing at the  Feb. 27, 2023 show-cause hearing because the trial judge refused to hear argument or evidence at that time concerning whether De Diego engaged in contemptuous conduct.”

Justices Nancy Kennedy, Tina Clinton and Gino J. Rossini sat on the panel. 

Dodds is represented by Carlos R. Cortez and Meghana Wadhwani of Cortez Law Firm. 

De Diego is represented by M. Micah Kessler of Nistico, Crouch & Kessler. 

The case number is 05-23-00289-CV. 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Divided Panel Sides with Dallas in TitleMax Suit

In a dispute over the regulation of the short-term lending industry, a panel of judges recently determined that TitleMax of Texas is not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a new city ordinance. 

The 2-1 ruling in favor of the city of Dallas was issued July 1 and affirms an earlier ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Karen Gren Scholer. The Dallas ordinance was an amendment to one passed in 2011 and added two new restrictions on the short-term lending industry: Any fees charged for unsecured loans can’t exceed 0.1 percent per day of the outstanding balance of the loan and loans secured by vehicle titles must be repaid in four installments or less. 

TitleMax alleges the fee-cap provision would require it to operate at a loss and has resulted in it no longer offering those loans in Dallas. As for the repayment requirements, TitleMax has contended that most customers aren’t confident they could repay a quarter of the loan amount within 30 days “and therefore are likely to forgo a title-secured loan.” 

In its lawsuit, TitleMax is seeking a ruling that Dallas exceeded its authority in enacting the new restrictions and deprived it of due course of law and due process in violation of the constitution. 

The majority determined TitleMax failed to show a “likelihood of success on the merits.” 

“With great respect, there is an important distinction between the allegations TitleMax made in the declarations — that its loan business is untenable under the amending ordinance — and the categorical prohibitions of the regulated businesses in McDonald and Murphy,” the court held. “TitleMax has not alleged that the amending ordinance effectively prohibits all [credit services organizations] or [credit access businesses] in Dallas from profitably operating. Instead, Titlemax’s declarations only speak to the effect of the amending ordinance on its business; the company alleges that it could no longer profitably offer unsecured loans under the amending ordinance but does not offer any evidence that other CSOs or CABs cannot operate at a profit.” 

Judges Priscilla Richman and Jacques L. Wiener Jr. were in the majority, while Judge Don R. Willett authored a dissent explaining that he disagreed with his colleagues on the issue of preemption. 

“The unrefuted evidence shows that the Ordinance does more than merely regulate — it makes it effectively impossible for TitleMax to operate its unsecured-loans business,” Judge Willett wrote. “Whether that conclusion will hold up on a fuller record remains to be seen. But at this early stage, I would hold that TitleMax has made a sufficient prima facie showing of preemption.”

Dallas is represented by Gary Powell, Nicholas Palmer and James Pinson of the city attorney’s office. 

TitleMax of Texas is represented by T. Ray Guy of Frost Brown Todd. 

The case number is 21-11170. 

Craving more Texas Lawbook litigation coverage? Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered. Take a look at these stories you may have missed in the past few days.

A fight over a $1 billion distribution rights deal between Dr Pepper/Seven Up and Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling that was slated for trial this week was ended by Collin County District Judge Christine Nowak, who signed a summary judgment order in favor of Dr Pepper June 30. When the relationship between Dr Pepper and Reyes — which dated back to the inking of an October 2017 exclusive licensing agreement — hit a snag, Dr Pepper filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas in April 2024, seeking a ruling it had a right to cancel the distribution deal, and two days later Reyes filed suit in California arguing Dr Pepper had breached the agreement. 

Attorneys who have practiced in the Texas Business Court speak to The Texas Lawbook about how new tweaks to the court will impact operations. In a few months, cases filed prior to Sept. 1, or before the business courts opened, can be transferred to the courts. Additionally, cases with $5 million in controversy can be filed in the business courts. Filings are expected to increase due to these changes.

Texas Lawbook research shows that, for the second year in a row, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit were among the most reversed jurists in the United States — and that’s despite the fact there is a strong conservative majority on the court. The Supreme Court heard 11 oral arguments on appeal from the Fifth Circuit during this past year and the justices reversed eight of them. Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority in all 11 cases.

The Department of Justice and Boeing have filed responses to briefs from some of the families of the 346 people killed in two 737 Max crashes opposing the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal fraud case against the aerospace manufacturing company. Some of the families have requested a special prosecutor be appointed to take on the case, a move the government and Boeing oppose. 

A Dallas County district court judge has issued a standing order barring a Frisco attorney from handling cases in her courtroom — a move the judge said was necessary to ensure “the impartial and efficient administration of justice.” But the attorney says the order constitutes oppression. On June 25, Dallas County District Judge Vonda Bailey issued a “standing recusal order” that Michelle May O’Neil, an appellate and family law specialist, may not appear before the court.

Michelle Casady

Michelle Casady is based in Houston and covers litigation and appeals — including trials, breaking news and industry trends — for The Texas Lawbook.

View Michelle’s articles

Email Michelle

©2025 The Texas Lawbook.

Content of The Texas Lawbook is controlled and protected by specific licensing agreements with our subscribers and under federal copyright laws. Any distribution of this content without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.

If you see any inaccuracy in any article in The Texas Lawbook, please contact us. Our goal is content that is 100% true and accurate. Thank you.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Stories

  • Mediation Fails in Jackson Walker, U.S. Trustee Bankruptcy Fee Dispute
  • Fifth Circuit Tells Judge O’Connor More Analysis Needed in Media Matters, X Corp. Venue Spat
  • Willkie Continues to Expand its Dallas Office with Veteran Dealmakers
  • FBFK Adds Two Lawyers to its Austin Office
  • Litigation Roundup: CEO Indicted in Alleged UT Austin Arena Bid Rigging Conspiracy

Footer

Who We Are

  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Submit a News Tip

Stay Connected

  • Sign up for email updates
  • Article Submission Guidelines
  • Premium Subscriber Editorial Calendar

Our Partners

  • The Dallas Morning News
The Texas Lawbook logo

1409 Botham Jean Blvd.
Unit 811
Dallas, TX 75215

214.232.6783

© Copyright 2025 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.