In this edition of Litigation Roundup, we detail a brawl that took place in the sixth-floor library of the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse in Houston, Deloitte agrees to pay $21.5 million to resolve an employment discrimination case in Dallas, and Texas reaches a settlement with Meta that will total about $1 billion.
Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the Meta deal Wednesday, calling it a “historic settlement and a major win for the safety of Texas children.” He also reminded readers he has secured two other huge settlements against “Big Tech” — a $1.4 billion settlement with Meta in July 2024 over the use of biometric data and an October 2025 $1.37 billion settlement with Google over privacy violations.
Meta’s settlement with Texas is separate from a $17 billion settlement the company reached last week with 51 attorneys general representing various states and U.S. territories. Under the deal with Texas, Meta will implement usage limits for teen users, disable notifications during school hours and at night and hide likes and reactions on posts by default “to limit social comparison.”
“It is my mission to fundamentally change and strengthen the standards for child safety online,” Paxton said in a news release. “And this settlement is a major step forward in the fight to ensure our kids are protected online.”
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
College Athletes Get Fifth Season of Eligibility in NCAA Fight
Dallas County Judge Martin Hoffman granted college athletes’ motion for a temporary restraining order last week, allowing them to participate in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletics during the 2026-2027 season.
“The Court finds that plaintiffs have shown by verified pleading and supporting evidence that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before notice can be served and a hearing held,” Judge Hoffman wrote. “The Court further finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated probable right
to relief and that the threatened injury outweighs any temporary burden imposed by preservation of the status quo pending an expedited hearing.”
Nearly four dozen athletes filed suit against the NCAA and the Southeastern Conference, claiming they’re entitled to a fifth season of competition. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Texas Constitution, tortious interference with prospective business relations and with contract, breach of contract, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, violation of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, and conspiracy.
Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, college athletes lost a season of competition. In an effort to make up for lost time, the NCAA allowed athletes to have a fifth season. In June, the NCAA codified the fifth season on a permanent basis but excluded the class of 2022.
“But in doing so, the NCAA intentionally excluded all current college seniors who are part of the high school Class of 2022 and have not redshirted,” the petition reads. “That decision violates their contractual obligations in connection with the NCAA’s Division I Manual/Bylaws — a contractual agreement between the NCAA and its member schools of which all Division I athletes are intended third-party beneficiaries.”
Athletes who played professional sports after graduating high school in 2022 and then went to college are eligible for a fifth season. But athletes who went straight to college are not eligible for a fifth season.
The plaintiffs play a variety of sports and attend universities across the country, from Southern Methodist University to Indiana University.
“The consequences are particularly stark with respect to financial opportunities. College athletes like plaintiffs who first enrolled in 2022 only had an opportunity to receive one year of the $20.5 million in annual payments that Division I universities are now permitted to pay out to college athletes,” the petition reads. “This selective denial of benefits, when juxtaposed with the windfalls provided to earlier academic year classes, underscores the arbitrary and unfair nature of the NCAA’s application of its four-season rule to plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Jeff Tillotson and Enrique Ramirez of Tillotson Patton and Ryan Downton of The Texas Trial Group
John Millin of Millin & Millin is representing Hali Hartman.
The NCAA is represented by Taylor Askew of Holland & Knight.
The case number is DC-26-16417.
Alexa Shrake contributed this report.
Northern District of Texas
Deloitte to Pay $21.5M to Resolve Employment Discrimination Claims
Programs intended to increase the hiring of minority employees and offer them networking, mentoring and leadership development opportunities were cited by the Department of Justice in announcing it had reached a $21.5 million employment discrimination settlement with accounting and professional-services firm Deloitte.
The DOJ announced the deal Aug. 25.
“Government contractors cannot reward or penalize employees based on race or sex — and labeling the practice DEI does not make it lawful,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a news release. “The Justice Department will aggressively pursue government contractors that have used taxpayer dollars to fund unlawful discrimination.”
The American Alliance for Equal Rights filed the qui tam suit against Deloitte and five related Deloitte entities in April 2025, and the government filed its notice of intervention and settlement Aug. 20. The Alliance will receive $4.3 million of the settlement as the relator.
The government alleged that, as a contractor, Deloitte failed to comply with antidiscrimination requirements and had been discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of their race or sex since 2017. Specifically, the DOJ pointed to a goal the company set to reach parity between the percentage of minorities and non-minorities staffed to federal projects and noted the company’s partners, principals and managing directors were evaluated, in part, based on their contributions to achieving the workforce composition goals.
The case was assigned to Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor.
The federal government is represented by Brian Stoltz and Jamie Yavelberg of the Department of Justice.
Much of the record in the case remained sealed Friday, and counsel information for Deloitte was not available.
The case number is 4:25-cv-00458.
Southern District of Texas
Man Who Punched Courthouse Security Officer Indicted
A man from Florida got into a fight with a courthouse security officer in the law library of the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse in Houston has been indicted on a felony charge and could spend as many as 20 years in prison, if convicted.
Victor Graham was arrested the day of the assault, July 29, and was indicted by a grand jury on one count of assaulting a federal officer Aug. 26. An affidavit filed with the criminal complaint lays out the details.
The government alleges Graham was in the sixth-floor law library when a roving courthouse security officer approached him “and asked whether he was conducting official business within the courthouse.”
“Graham stated that he was not. The CSO instructed Graham to leave the facility; however, Graham refused to comply,” the affidavit reads. The officer called for backup, and several more officers came to help.
“As CSOs attempted to escort Graham from the courthouse, Graham struck one CSO twice in the face with a closed fist before pulling the CSO to the ground,” according to the affidavit. “Approximately six individuals witnessed the incident. The assaulted CSO was evaluated by the onsite nurse and was found to have sustained a bloody nose and a laceration to the leg resulting from the fall.”
The indictment identifies the assaulted officer as Robert Rambo.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge George C. Hanks Jr.
The government is represented by Francisco Rodriguez and Charles Hagerman of the Department of Justice.
Graham is represented by federal public defender Heather Hughes.
The case number is 4:26-cr-00574.
Public Service Commission of South Carolina
Kirkland Gets Win for Data Center Client
The Public Service Commission of South Carolina, which regulates the state’s utilities, determined on Thursday that a petition filed by a group of citizens opposed to the construction of a data center in Spartanburg should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Concerned Citizens of Spartanburg County and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy filed the petition in June against Valara Holdings, which the groups alleged was constructing a “large data center and 450-megawatt gas-fired power plant in Spartanburg County in violation of the clear requirements of South Carolina law.”
The interest groups argued that construction must be stopped and that Valara needed to obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity under the Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act.
In a motion to dismiss filed last month, Valara told the commission it had invested more than $2.7 billion to build a “state-of-the-art high performance computing center” that will create hundreds of jobs. Valara argued the commission had no jurisdiction over it because it is not a public utility. It also argued the interest groups lacked statutory authority to bring the petition.
“This case is not just about Valara,” the motion reads. “It is about whether the Commission will, for the first time in the Utility Siting Act’s 55-year history, discover within that statute a jurisdiction it has never exercised: authority over privately-owned industrial facilities that neither generate electricity for public use nor participate in South Carolina’s public utility system. The statute confers no such jurisdiction. It does not even hint at it. And it certainly does not empower private parties to haul companies before the Commission at will.”
In a directive issued Thursday, the commission agreed.
“The facility at issue in this proceeding, as proposed by Valara, is not subject to the requirements of the Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act, as the facility will not export power generated to the electric grid for public use,” the directive reads. “I further move the Commission find that the Siting Act does not authorize private parties to initiate an enforcement action with the Commission to compel a third party to obtain a Certificate required by the Siting Act or to halt construction.”
The directive indicates six of the seven commissioners on the board voted in favor of the move, with one recused, and states a full order outlining the commission’s decision will be forthcoming.
Valara Holdings is represented by Jeremy Fielding, Michael Kalis, Michael Sciaccotta and Aaron Marks of Kirkland & Ellis, Mitchell Willoughby and Andrew D’Antoni of Willoughby Humphrey & D’Antoni and Charles Terreni of Terreni Law Firm.
The Concerned Citizens are represented by Emily Wyche, Frank Holleman III, Kate Mixson and Susie Carlson of the Southern Environmental Law Center.
The docket number is 2026-158-E.
Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas
20-Month Delay on Motion to Compel Arbitration Gets Rebuke
Dallas County District Judge Dale Tillery has had a motion to compel arbitration pending before him “for an unreasonable amount of time” and has “clearly abused his discretion by failing to rule” on it, a three-justice panel recently determined in conditionally granting a writ of mandamus.
Constantina Cox had petitioned the appellate court in February.
Cox, a financial advisor with JP Morgan Securities, was sued by Marlon and Keli Evans over advice she gave regarding an IRA account. She moved to compel arbitration in the case, and Judge Tillery held a hearing in June 2024, but no ruling followed.
At a later hearing, according to the opinion, Judge Tillery “verbally agreed that Mr. Evans’s claims were ‘subject to arbitration’” and requested a proposed order granting the motion, but the order was never signed. In January, Cox filed an emergency motion for immediate stay of all proceedings and ruling on motion to compel arbitration.
“The trial court held a hearing on the emergency motion on January 16, 2026,” the panel wrote. “At the hearing, the judge declined to rule on the motion to compel arbitration and refused to grant a stay. On January 28, 2026, the judge signed an order denying the emergency motion.”
Justices Dennise Garcia, Nancy Kennedy and Cynthia M. Barbare sat on the panel that issued the Aug. 25 opinion. The justices gave Judge Tillery 30 days to issue a written order on the motion to compel.
“We are confident the judge will promptly comply,” the opinion reads. “Our writ will issue only if the trial judge fails to do so.”
Cox is represented by Jason Jordan and Chloe Warnberg of Haynes Boone.
The Evanses are represented by D. Bradley Kizzia of Kizzia Johnson.
The case number is 05-26-00162-CV.
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.
In the latest edition of Asked & Answered, Tillotson Patton’s Mollie Mallory shares her first trial experience and what it is like working with her brother. She also talks about her favorite Dallas restaurants and her morning routine to get ready for trial.
For more than four years, two competitors in the senior-citizen insurance space battled through a $17 million trade secrets dispute in a Chicago federal court. Last week, a judge held that Bankers Life and Casualty Co. was entitled to a mere $2 in damages.
U.S. District Judge Alan Albright slashed a $9.2 million damages award in a patent infringement case to $1 million after finding the plaintiff’s damages model was legally unreliable. In July 2025, an Austin federal jury returned the $9.2 million verdict for Katana Silicon Technologies after a five-day trial, finding GlobalFoundries infringed one claim of its patent.
A federal jury in Marshall returned a verdict Wednesday in favor of AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Ericsson and Nokia, finding they did not infringe three patents, denying the plaintiffs’ $436 million request. The three disputed patents directed quality of service flow, control resource set configuration and small cell enhancements.
Texas’ reputation as the nation’s top venue for patent disputes hasn’t faded, according to a new report from Lex Machina that shows a remarkable 40.4 percent of all patent litigation in the country from 2023 through 2025 was adjudicated in the state.
Kirkland & Ellis announced Monday that Prerak “Pre” Shah, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas, has joined its Houston office as a partner to focus on state attorneys general litigation. Shah told The Texas Lawbook that he moved to Kirkland because it “has an unmatched litigation platform, an exceptional client base and a real appetite for investing in areas where clients are facing growing risk.”
After Rob Vartabedian brought on Marc Katz and his labor and employment team from DLA Piper in February, he told the Lawbook he was “a little exhausted by expansion.” But that was six months ago. On Monday, Vartabedian Katz Hester & Haynes announced it is bolting on an intellectual property litigation practice with the addition of a trio of partners from McKool Smith.