In this edition of Litigation Roundup, a former chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court files an amicus brief in the case where the governor is attempting to remove from office a Democrat who broke quorum in an attempt to block redistricting efforts, and a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals wades into a circuit split involving the National Labor Relations Board’s ability to award full compensatory damages.
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.
Dallas County District Court
Mavericks Released from Jane Doe’s Lawsuit
Dallas County District Judge Martin Hoffman on Oct. 28 granted a motion to dismiss all claims against the Dallas Mavericks in a domestic abuse lawsuit filed by the former girlfriend of a former assistant coach.
The order came about a week after a hearing on the Rule 91A motion.
Jane Doe, described in court filings as a 34-year-old mother of two from California, filed suit in March 2025 against former assistant coach Darrell Armstrong and added the Dallas Mavericks as a defendant two months later, alleging the team was vicariously liable for the abuse and adding claims for negligence hiring, supervision and retention as well as negligent entrustment and gross negligence.
Doe alleges she met Armstrong at a Dallas restaurant, developed a friendship with him that evolved into a romantic relationship and that they moved in together in Dallas in August 2024. In the suit, she accuses Armstrong of being an alcoholic who was verbally and physically abusive on multiple occasions.
His allegedly violent behavior culminated in February, when he allegedly beat her with a gun and was arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, according to the lawsuit.
In its motion to dismiss, the Mavericks argued that the team “has no place in this lawsuit whatsoever.”
“This is a lawsuit based on deeply concerning allegations of domestic violence,” the motion reads. “Importantly, all of the alleged violence occurred in the home of two individuals and between those individuals alone. [Dallas Basketball Limited] has no connection to any of the allegations. Plaintiff’s claims against DBL are plainly frivolous and should be dismissed.”
The case is currently set for an April trial.
Doe is represented by Candice S. Patrick of Tolbert Patrick Law.
The Mavericks are represented by Taj J. Clayton, Carson D. Young, Eugene Temchenko and Clark Pierce of Kirkland & Ellis.
The case number is DC-25-04114.
Final Judgment Against El Rancho Supermercado is $12.6M
A state district judge has entered a final judgment of roughly $12.6 million in favor of a trucking business that claimed it was forced aside when a private equity firm acquired its principal client, the El Rancho Supermercado grocery chain.
The final judgment, entered Oct. 23 by Judge Aiesha Redmond of Dallas, increases a jury award of almost $9.5 million returned in May in favor of Skyward Transportation. The difference largely consists of more than $2.6 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to Skyward from Conecta Logistics, El Rancho’s in-house transportation entity.
Skyward held two separate contracts, one with Mexico Foods, doing business as El Rancho, and one with Conecta. The jurors found that Conecta breached its contract with Skyward, and they awarded the vast majority of the damages — roughly $8.8 million — on the basis of that breach. The jurors found that both Skyward and Mexico Foods had breached a separate contract and that Skyward’s breach occurred first. No damages were awarded related to breach of that contract.
The suit, tried over 10 days before Judge Redmond, alleged that Skyward’s decadelong business relationship with El Rancho had been mutually beneficial, helping both the trucking company and the grocery chain grow geometrically — until El Rancho was acquired in 2023 by Heritage Grocers Group, an arm of the huge private equity firm Apollo Global Management.
Heritage, which operates ethnic grocery companies across the country, wanted to consolidate food delivery services across its properties, the suit said, and, to that end, began “fabricating grounds for Skyward’s default and challenging agreed upon payment terms in a misguided effort to ‘cut costs.’”
“They put profits before people. They can be pretty ruthless,” Skyward’s lead attorney, Michael K. Hurst of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, told the jury in closing arguments.
Skyward’s owner, Curtis Lawrence, testified that losing his contracts with Mexico Foods destroyed his company, which he started 15 years ago with one truck when he was 19. Lawrence said the Mexico Foods contracts accounted for 92 percent of his company’s business.
In addition to Hurst, Skyward is represented by Andy Kim, Jamie Drillette and Jared Eisenberg of Lynn Pinker; and Anthony M. Farmer and D. Robert Jones of the Farmer Law Group of Dallas.
The Mexico Foods entities are represented by William Toles, Greg C. Noschese, Jay D. Evans and Emily C. Meansof Munsch Hardt.
Court records do not indicate whether the defendants plan to appeal the final judgment.
The case is DC-23-15759
Bruce Tomaso contributed to this report.
Eastern District of Texas
Jury Says Samsung Owes $191.4M For Patent Infringement
A jury in East Texas on Monday partially sided with Pictiva Displays International and Key Patent Innovations on claims Samsung Electronics infringed its patent technology used in OLED displays used in phones and televisions.
Pictiva had filed suit in October 2023, alleging infringement of five patents, but the jury only found Samsung infringed two patents. The jury found infringement of the patents was also willful and awarded lump sum royalty damages of $98.8 million for infringement of one patent and $92.6 million for infringement of the other patent.
On Sunday, Samsung filed a motion for a mistrial, arguing statements made by opposing counsel both during closing arguments and throughout trial mandated that result. Samsung told the court opposing counsel continually “attacked the personal integrity of Samsung’s counsel” throughout trial, which “forced the court twice to try to rein him in.”
In the 17-page motion, Samsung pointed to comments from U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap that it argued supported its position.
“I am not going to have this trial devolve into name calling,” Judge Gilstrap said during a sidebar conference according to the motion. “It’s one thing to ask if a witness or a statement was accurate or inaccurate. It’s another thing to cite, were they lying or telling the truth or not telling the truth. We’re not going to get into personal attacks, and this is getting borderline in my view.”
“I understand your instruction,” Jason Sheasby allegedly responded, according to the motion.
“[I]t’s too inflammatory and, quite honestly, I’m probably helping you Mr. Sheasby, because you’re going to offend the jury if you keep doing this,” the motion quotes Judge Gilstrap as responding.
“I understand, Your Honor,” Sheasby replied, per the motion.
Trial began Oct. 27 with jury selection. The jury returned its verdict Monday.
The docket did not indicate any ruling had been issued on the motion for mistrial.
Pictiva is represented by Samuel F. Baxter and Jennifer Truelove of McKool Smith and Jason G. Sheasby, Annita Zhong, Rebecca Carson, Jie Gao and Jeffrey Linxwiler of Irell & Manella
Samsung is represented by Lance Yang, D. James Pak, Patrick Schmidt, Sean S. Pak, Melissa J. Bailey and John Bash of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. Harry Gillam, Melissa Smith and Andrew Gorham of Gilliam & Smith served as local counsel.
The case number is 2:23-cv-00495.
Roblox, Discord Sued by Family of Teen Who Committed Suicide
The family of a 15-year-old boy from Bowie County who killed himself after allegedly being groomed and sexually exploited on Roblox and Discord platforms has filed suit against the companies.
The lawsuit, filed by Jane Doe, was filed Oct. 30 and brings claims for fraudulent concealment and misrepresentations, failure to warn, design defect and negligence.
“Through their pervasive patterns of misrepresentations about safety, defendants portray their apps as safe and appropriate places for children to play,” the lawsuit alleges. “In reality, and as defendants well know, the design of their apps makes children easy prey for pedophiles, and defendants had no appropriate safeguards to ensure that children were in fact safe or that predators were screened.”
According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe’s son was “targeted on Roblox by a male predator who posed as a teenage boy” the same age as her son, John Doe. When John Doe rebuffed the man’s romantic advances, the lawsuit alleges, he threatened self-harm.
“As a result of the predator’s relentless grooming and manipulation — conduct that defendants’ platforms enabled and failed to prevent — plaintiff, overwhelmed and coerced, tragically took his own life in response to that threat,” the suit alleges.
The family is represented by Joshua Bauer, D. Brett Turnbull and Zachary Peagler of Turnbull, Moak & Pendergrass and Matthew A. Dolman, R. Stanley Gipe and Sara D. Beller of Dolman Law Group.
Counsel for Roblox and Discord had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder III.
The case number is 5:25-cv-00165.
Grayson County District Court
Lynn Pinker Wins $16.2M Verdict, Moves for Final Judgment
About a week ago lawyers for Specialty Payments Inc. asked the court to enter final judgment on its $16.2 million jury win, secured in late September, against Paynetworx LLC and ERI Brands LLC in a case involving the diversion of credit card processing transactions.
The case was tried over six days before a jury in Sherman. Specialty Payments, which acted as a sales agent connecting merchants to processors such as Paynetworx, accused the defendants of interfering with its agreements and withholding commission payments. Jurors were told the defendants redirected more than $297 million in processing volume, which effectively cut Specialty Payments out of millions in commissions.
In the verdict returned Sept. 29, the jury found Paynetworx liable for theft of Specialty Payments’ services and owed $723,684 in damages for that conduct. The jury also found there was intentional interference with Specialty Payments’ sales agent agreement with PNX and awarded $7.3 million in damages for that conduct.
Exemplary damages totaling $8.2 were also assessed by the jury.
Specialty Payments is represented by Chris Schwegmann of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegman with Eugene Rome of Rome LLP in Los Angeles serving as cocounsel.
“This verdict affirms that even in a highly technical industry, fairness and transparency still matter,” Schwegman said in a statement. “The jury understood that Specialty built this business, and others tried to take the profits once it became successful.”
Paynetworx is represented by Joe Brown of Sherman.
ERI is represented by Janis Clements of Greenberg Traurig.
The case number is CV-23-0557.
Texas Supreme Court
Former CJ Phillips Files Amicus Brief in Rep. Gene Wu Removal Suit
Baker Botts partner Thomas Phillips, who served as the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court from 1988 until 2004, filed an amicus brief with the state’s high court Thursday in the case where the governor is attempting to remove from office Democratic Rep. Gene Wu.
Gov. Greg Abbott on Aug. 5 filed an “emergency petition for writ of quo warranto,” asking the court to find that Texas Rep. Wu “forfeited his office as state representative for Texas House District No. 137 and thereby created a vacancy.”
“What is at stake here? Nothing less than the future of Texas,” the governor begins in the emergency petition.
“If a small fraction of recalcitrant lawmakers choose to run out the clock today, they can do so for any, and every, Regular or Special Session, potentially bankrupting the State in an attempt to get their way. That means every state budget could be held hostage until the whims of a small fraction of legislators is satisfied. It doesn’t have to be that way.”
Phillips explained in his brief that he was filing it only to “supplement the history presented in other briefs.”
“Intentional quorum-breaking in America dates from colonial times, and in Texas it predates statehood,” the brief reads.
Phillips wrote he was offering no opinion on whether the case is moot considering Wu has since returned to the Capitol, whether the Texas Supreme Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto, “or what punishments might be levied by legislators against their bolting colleagues.”
“Rather, amicus addresses only whether the Texas Constitution permits any non-legislator to seek judicial ejection of a legislator who breaks quorum to prevent a law’s passage,” Phillips told the court. “On that narrow question, amicus respectfully maintains that only other members of the same legislative branch may discipline a legislative quorum-breaker.”
Other amicus briefs filed in the case have come from Harris County Attorney Christian D. Menefee, Texas House of Representatives members Mitch Little and Briscoe Cain, Attorney General Ken Paxton, the League of Women Voters of Texas, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Denton County Democratic Club.
On Aug. 8, Sen. John Cornyn filed an amicus brief in support of the governor’s effort.
“The Texas legislators who have absconded to other states must be held accountable and a quorum restored so that official government business can proceed. The Supreme Court of Texas is a superior forum to expeditiously resolve the issues surrounding these absconding legislators now, and this Court should do so pursuant to the Governor’s request. Therefore, I urge the Court to grant Gov. Abbott’s emergency petition of writ of quo warranto to that end.,” he wrote.
Phillips is represented by Kevin E. Vickers of Austin.
The case number is 25-0674.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Houston Restaurant Co. Gets Compensatory Damages Award Reversed
Judge Edith H. Jones, joined by two colleagues, authored an opinion Friday calling out the National Labor Relations Board for doing something she said it hadn’t done in its entire 90-year history: granted full compensatory damages to fired employees in an enforcement proceeding.
The three-judge panel sided with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a case concerning what type of damages the NLRB can award. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has gone the opposite way. The split developed, Judge Jones explained, after the NLRB board announced in 2022 it would start ordering damages for “all foreseeable harms” stemming from unfair labor practices.
The dispute arose after Hiran Management purchased a “struggling” 80’s-themed karaoke bar and restaurant in Houston, Hungry Like the Wolf, in July 2022, and soon thereafter hired a manager to oversee eight employees, according to the opinion.
Disagreements with the manager, specifically whether some of the eight employees were being required to do tasks outside of their job descriptions without additional compensation, led to a walkout and strike. The eight employees made a list of demands that were to be met in order for them to agree to return to work in September 2022 and were fired in October 2022.
The NLRB then filed an administrative complaint, accusing Hiran of firing the employees “for engaging in concerted activity and to discourage such future conduct.”
An administrative law judge ruled in favor of the NLRB in November 2023, and Hiran’s appeal to the board was unsuccessful. The board’s order “mandated that Hiran cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, reinstate the discharged employees, and make the employees whole ‘for any loss of earnings and other benefits, and for any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result’ of the unfair labor practices,” according to the opinion.
Hiran appealed to the Fifth Circuit in November 2024.
In siding with Hiran, the panel wrote that the NLRB is entitled to award back pay and reinstate employees to their jobs as equitable remedies but that the National Labor Relations Act does not grant the board authority to award legal relief.
“The Board’s previous chairman, Lauren McFerran, admitted that consequential damages include ‘late fees on credit cards, or penalties if [an employee] must make early withdrawals from her retirement account in order to cover her living expenses,’” Judge Jones wrote. “Because the Board’s remedy aims to redress concrete losses to the Employees wholly apart from backpay and pay-related costs, it covers harms typically dealt with in tort suits for compensatory damages, and it operates as a compensatory damages order.”
Judges Carl E. Stewart and Irma Carrillo Ramirez joined in the opinion.
Hiran is represented by Oliver J. Dunford and Kerry Hunt of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
The NLRB is represented by its own Ruth E. Burdick, Elizabeth Heaney, Joel Heller and Timothy L. Watson.
The case number is 24-60608.
Harrah’s on the Hook for Employee’s Collision with Customer
A district court judge in Louisiana determined a casino employee who collided with a customer at Harrah’s Casino in New Orleans was not negligent and tossed the suit alleging otherwise, but because a reasonable jury could have decided the employee was negligent, a panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed that ruling Thursday.
Nellie Legendre was at the casino, playing slots, in May 2023 when she left to cash out her winnings, according to the opinion. On her way, a security guard who is blind in one eye bumped into her and knocked her to the ground. Legendre, who was approaching from the guard’s blind side, suffered a fractured hip, a cut on her scalp and various other muscle injuries, according to the opinion.
The panel explained that the district court was wrong to conclude, based on surveillance video, that there was no fact dispute as to whether the security guard was negligent.
“Giles had a duty to walk through the casino attentively. Yet he admitted that he ‘was walking while looking down fixing [his] facemask[.]’ And that he did not see Legendre when he ran into her. These facts cut in favor of negligence,” the panel wrote.
“The video does not clearly contradict this. Indeed, it shows Giles walking through the casino, not looking where he was going. He looks away from his path for only seconds to be sure. But whether this momentary inattention amounts to negligence is a fact issue, which the district court should not have resolved. From Giles’s testimony and the footage, a reasonable jury could find him negligent. Hence summary judgment was improper.”
Judges Edith H. Jones, James E. Graves Jr. and Irma Carrillo Rodriguez sat on the panel that issued the Oct. 30 per curiam ruling.
Harrah’s is represented by Meredith Durham and Godfrey Parkerson of Plauche Maselli Parkerson.
Legendre is represented by Peter Wanek and Lindsay Faulkner of Wanek Kirsch. The case number is 24-30689.