A Trinity Industries spinoff company is gearing up to possibly defend a $12.6 million trial judgment it obtained last month against a customer in a contract dispute.
In a motion filed last week, defendant Siemens Energy and affiliate Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy asked a Dallas district court to grant a new trial in a case that concluded in favor of Dallas-based Arcosa Wind Towers because the judgment was contrary to the law and the evidence.
Following a weeklong Zoom trial before Christmas, Dallas District Judge Craig Smith on Dec. 22 ruled that Siemens breached an agreement with Arcosa when it didn’t purchase the full amount of wind towers from Arcosa that Siemens had committed to in a 2016 contract.
The dispute turned out to be Judge Smith’s final trial before becoming an appellate justice in the Fifth Court of Appeals this month.
Now before visiting Judge Ray Wheless, Siemens argues that Judge Smith improperly compelled a few of its witnesses to appear out of order, made several findings of facts and conclusions of law that were either not supported by the evidence or went against it and awarded excessive damages.
Deborah Deitch-Perez, a partner in Stinson’s Dallas office who represented Siemens at trial, declined to comment on the litigation.
The eight-figure judgment exclusively comprised actual damages — profits that Arcosa said it missed out on as a result of Siemens not meeting its end of the deal.
“Arcosa respects the ruling of the court, is grateful for the fair trial it received and is pleased that the court’s ruling validates the sanctity of contracts in the wind industry,” Bryan Stevenson, Arcosa’s chief legal officer, told The Texas Lawbook.
Alan Dabdoub, Arcosa’s lead outside lawyer, explained that because the wind industry is a very concentrated market, supply and reservation agreements — the contracts at issue in this case — provide certainty and stability to both parties.
“Arcosa reserved production capacity in its facility to build the wind towers under the supply agreement,” said Dabdoub, a partner at Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann in Dallas. “When the volume commitment in the contract is not honored, Arcosa cannot immediately use that production capacity on another customer.”
Arcosa filed the lawsuit in 2019 as a last resort, Dabdoub said.
“Arcosa did everything it could to avoid litigation,” he said, including “speaking to Siemens on different occasions to try to resolve the dispute [without] litigation.”
Dabdoub said the parties were originally preparing for an in-person trial, but because of the renewed spike in COVID-19 cases, conducted the trial through Zoom instead. Both parties engaged technology consultants to attempt to avoid any technical issues during trial, he said.
“We tried to present Arcosa’s case as close as we possibly could to an in-person trial, including direct and cross examinations as well as the presentations of exhibits in a seamless way,” Dabdoub said.
“Prevailing in a complex business litigation matter in the midst of a global pandemic requires a trial team that is nimble, creative and has command of the facts,” added Lynn Pinker partner Josh Sandler, who was also on the trial team. “It was our privilege to try the case before Judge Smith, especially as it was the last trial he presided over as judge of the 192nd district court.”
The trial team for Arcosa also included Lynn Pinker associates Josh Lang and Danielle Vera and Arcosa General Counsel Justin Allen and Hal Fonville, who is general counsel of Arcosa’s energy equipment segment.
The case is DC-19-13334 in Dallas County’s 192nd district court.