In this edition of Litigation Roundup, an East Texas scammer who prosecutors said lied about representing the late Major League Baseball player Pete Rose and about owning cannabis dispensaries in Las Vegas is sentenced to prison, and the decision of a Collin County jury in a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over a rat infestation is undone by a Dallas appellate court.
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.
Harris County District Court
Buzbee Reps Houston Media Personality in $10M Suit Over Deepfake Explicit Videos
A Jane Doe plaintiff described in a new lawsuit as a TV personality, a “force in the city’s radio market” and a “staple in Houston’s media world” has hired Tony Buzbee to sue a man she alleges created deepfake images of her engaging in explicit sexual acts.
Doe alleges in the lawsuit filed Jan. 5 that she repeatedly rebuffed romantic advances from Jorge Abrego for years.
“Despite these rejections, Abrego became obsessed with the idea of possessing Doe,” the suit alleges. “So much so, he began a sinister campaign of harassment. The primary thrust of his harassment was Abrego impersonating Doe by creating fake online accounts in her name and using artificial intelligence to create and alter her images to show her engaging in explicit sexual acts and publishing fake nude photos, also known as ‘deepfakes.’”
When Doe informed Abrego of the online harassment, he allegedly “pretended to be a trusted friend who could be confided in.” But investigating officers eventually traced the electronic data to an IP address at HTX Tactical, the gun store owned and operated by Abrego. A search of his electronics revealed more than 50 explicit deepfake images and multiple communications with others where Abrego was pretending to be Doe.
The lawsuit is seeking more than $1 million in actual damages and more than $10 million in putative damages.
The case has been assigned to Harris County District Judge Nathan J. Milliron.
Doe is represented by Tony Buzbee and Thomas Holler of The Buzbee Law Firm.
Counsel for Abrego and HTX Tactical had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case number is 2026-00523.
Eastern District of Texas
Acer Files Trio of Infringement Lawsuits
Three separate patent infringement lawsuits were filed Friday by Acer Inc. against Verizon Wireless, AT&T and T-Mobile, accusing the companies of infringing technology covered by six patents related to cellular networks.
According to a news release, Acer did attempt to engage each of the defendants in licensing discussions before turning to the court to settle the dispute.
“We are deeply committed to innovating and delivering high-quality telecommunications solutions,” Acer’s IP leader Kate Shang said in a news release. “These companies have benefitted from cellular technology that Acer has developed through many years of sustained research and development.”
Each of the cases was assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
Acer is represented by Warren J. McCarty III, Jason McManis, Weining Bai and Louis Liao of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing.
Counsel for the defendants had not filed an appearance as of Monday in any of the cases.
The case numbers are 2:26-cv-00026; 2:26-cv-00025 and 2:26-cv-00027.
Lufkin Man gets 8 years for $9M Pete Rose, Cannabis Fraud
A 50-year-old Lufkin man who employed a variety of schemes to defraud more than 100 victims out of more than $9 million will be spending the next 97 months in federal prison, U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Cone recently determined.
Judge Cone sentenced Matthew Jess Thrash Jan. 6 and ordered he pay $8.1 million in restitution.
Thrash was indicted in November 2024 on five counts of wire fraud and one count of engaging in a monetary transaction with criminally derived property. He entered a guilty plea in May to two counts of wire fraud.
Prosecutors alleged Thrash represented himself to some victims as a sports management agent for the Major League Baseball Association and established a string of companies that purportedly operated as sports management companies, including Thrash Sports Management, Thrash and Henderson Sports Management and Harvey & Thrash Sports LLC.
Thrash was also accused of running a Pete Rose memorabilia scheme, telling some victims he had an ownership interest in a sports memorabilia store at the Mandalay Bar Casino in Las Vegas that sold Rose items and that he also represented Rose as an agent. Victims would give Thrash money, believing they were investing in the store, according to the indictment.
“He falsely claimed on numerous occasions to represent Pete Rose and that Pete Rose was involved in Thrash’s businesses and investment opportunities,” the indictment reads. “Thrash did not have any interest in such a sports memorabilia store and never had business dealings with, or represent[ed], Pete Rose.”
But wait, there’s more.
Prosecutors also alleged in the indictment that Thrash falsely claimed that he had an ownership interest in “planned or existing” cannabis dispensaries in Las Vegas. Many victims gave Thrash money they believed was being invested in the stores.
“Thrash provided documents in furtherance of the scheme, including stock purchase agreements, floorplans, photographs, and a video recording of Thrash touring the purported location of a new dispensary,” the indictment reads.
Lastly, prosecutors also alleged Thrash applied for and received a Paycheck Protection Program loan through the Small Business Administration that he was not entitled to.
All the money Thrash received from victims was used to “gamble, pay personal expenses and to repay other victims to avoid detection,” the Department of Justice said.
Thrash is represented by Sean Hightower of Nacogdoches.
The federal government is represented by Lauren Gaston of the Department of Justice.
The case number is 9:24-cr-00015.
Married Couple Convicted of Running $25M Pyramid Scheme
A jury in Sherman last week determined LaShonda and Marlon Moore defrauded more than 10,000 victims out of more than $25 million via a Covid-era pyramid scheme operated through their company, Blessings in No Time.
Prosecutors alleged the couple, “through lies and deceit,” “recruited vulnerable people and defrauded them of millions of dollars.”
Jurors were presented with evidence that Frisco residents LaShonda Moore, 38, and Marlon Moore, 39, cofounded and ran BINT as an illegal chain-referral pyramid scheme from June 2020 until June 2021 that promised investors 800 percent returns on investments of $1,4000.
The Moores were accused of representing that BINT was an invitation-only community established to bestow “blessings” on those who needed economic help during the pandemic.
Trial began before Chief U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant with jury selection and testimony Jan. 5. Jurors returned the verdict Jan. 8, convicting both of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, five counts of wire fraud and three counts of money laundering. As of Monday, a sentencing date had not been set.
The couple each face up to 20 years in prison for conspiracy and wire fraud counts and 10 years for each money laundering count.
The Moores were federally indicted in November 2023.
LaShonda Moore represented herself with assistance from Michelle Allen-McCoy, a federal public defender. Marlon Moore represented himself with two lawyers serving as standby counsel: Kyle Therrian and Aubrey Noonan of Rosenthal Kalabus & Therrian.
The case was prosecuted by Abe McGlothin Jr., Adam L.D. Stempel, Robert Wells and Theodore M. Kneller of the Department of Justice.
The case number is 4:23-cr-00243.
In July 2023, Collin County District Judge Andrea K. Bouressa entered a final judgment and permanent injunction against the couple requiring that they pay $10.76 million to the state of Texas and stop operating the pyramid scheme.
The couple was sued by the Texas attorney general in 2021, accused of operating a pyramid scheme that promised investors returns as high as 800 percent. The state alleged the Moores had used an appearance on a reality show that was aired on the Oprah Winfrey Network to bolster their credibility and that they represented themselves as a faith-based wealth building organization that would “bless” investors who made up-front monetary contributions.
Southern District of Texas
Aviation Co. Finance Director Gets Prison for Defrauding Employer
U.S. District Judge Drew B. Tipton last week sentenced to prison the former finance director of McCreery Aviation for defrauding her company out of $1.2 million.
According to court documents, Elizabeth Batten, 57, of Mission, pleaded guilty in July to mail fraud for diverting company funds to pay for her personal expenses, including personal debt. The scheme, which unraveled after another employee noticed irregularities in the handling of company checks, took place between 2019 and 2023, while she served as director of financing for the Rio Grande Valley aviation company. She had been a 16-year employee of McCreery.
Prosecutors alleged Batten used blank company checks to pay off credit card debts. She was indicted in September 2024.
Judge Tipton ordered Batten to serve 25 months in prison and pay $1.2 million in restitution.
Batten is represented by Christopher Sully of McAllen.
The federal government is represented by Jose Garcia of the Department of Justice.
The case number is 7:24-cr-01337.
Western District of Texas
Dispute Over $10M Attorney Fee Spills into Federal Court
On Wednesday, the law firm Williams Simons & Landis filed a lawsuit against Riskon International and Zest Labs accusing the former clients of failing to pay attorney fees and expenses they owe for the successful settlement against Walmart Inc.
“After securing the benefit of WSL’s work, claimant-defendants undertook a concerted course of conduct to avoid payment, conceal settlement proceeds, and place assets beyond WSL’s reach,” the 19-page lawsuit that seeks more than $10 million in damages alleges.
According to the lawsuit, Zest contacted Fred I. Williams in 2018, when he was a partner at Vinson & Elkins, and in July the parties entered into a contract for legal representation in the trade secrets lawsuit against Walmart over technology that extends the shelf-life of food and reduces food waste.
In November 2019, according to the lawsuit, Zest agreed orally to retain WSL, the new law firm Williams and two other V&E lawyers were departing to form. The new firm opened in January 2020, and Zest became one of the firm’s inaugural clients via a contract and engagement letter “on the same terms as had been agreed between the clients and V&E,” the suit alleges.
In April 2021, WSL “delivered on its promises” and obtained a $115 million jury verdict in judgment in the case against Walmart. After that, according to the lawsuit, the defendants asked WSL to represent it in a previously filed lawsuit against Deloitte, and in March 2023 the parties entered an agreement to do so.
Under a heading titled “trouble in paradise,” the lawsuit alleges that the defendants claimed in 2023 that they lacked funds to pay invoices for work WSL did in the Deloitte case. In December 2023, a new trial against Walmart was ordered, and the defendants hired a new lawyer to represent it in the retrial.
“WSL dutifully assisted the new lawyers in taking over the Walmart case,” the suit alleges.
Then, in early 2024 a member of the new legal team called Williams and asked if WSL “would agree to waive its claim over its entitlement to fees in an amount exceeding $10 million accrued in the Walmart Case — Mr. Williams declined,” and he reminded the new lawyer that WSL was owed about $300,000 for work in the Deloitte case.
In May 2025, the retrial of Walmart yielded a $223 million jury verdict “using the same evidentiary record originally created by WSL,” the suit alleges.
“While Zest Labs, Ecoark Holdings, and Walmart refuse to disclose the amount of
their settlement, on information and belief, it involves a multi-million-dollar payment from
Walmart,” the suit alleges. “That payment triggers the right of WSL to be paid additional amounts for its work and expenses in the Walmart case in an amount to be determined by the Court.”
The lawsuit brings claims for breach of contract against Zest Labs, Ecoark Holdings and Zest Holdings, a claim for tortious interference against the law firm that handled the retrial, Bartko Pavia, and unjust enrichment against all defendants.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman.
Williams Simons & Landis is represented by Joshua Harris and William A. Brewer III of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors.
Counsel for the defendants had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case number is 1:26-cv-00034.
The day after WSL filed its federal lawsuit against Zest Labs, Ecoark Holdings and Zest Holdings, Zest filed a lawsuit in Harris County District Court against Vinson & Ellkins, WSL, Fred Williams, Michael Simons, Todd Landis and Jonathan Hardt, bringing claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and seeking exemplary damages.
In that lawsuit, which the defendants removed to federal court in the Southern District of Texas Jan. 9, Zest alleges the defendants “bungled the representation of Zest from the start, failing to seek the most basic, obvious relief to which Zest was entitled.”
In that case, Zest is represented by David Wynne and Kenneth R. Wynne of Wynne Law.
Vinson & Elkins is represented by Barrett H. Reasoner of Gibbs & Bruns.
The case number is 4:26-cv-00186, and it has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge.
Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas
Panel Axes $1.9M Win in Rat Infestation Suit
Because there was legally insufficient evidence to support a jury’s damages award to a tenant in a lawsuit accusing the landlord of failing to address a rat infestation, the $1.9 million win must be reversed, an appellate panel recently determined.
In an 11-page opinion issued Jan. 8, a three-justice panel rendered a take-nothing judgment for Harris Ventures, which does business as Staff Zone. In February 2024, a Collin County jury had awarded $1.9 million in lost profit damages to construction staffing company Staff Zone.
The jury was asked to determine whether Staff Zone or landlord JM-RB Properties violated the lease agreement. JM-RB was seeking to recover about $15,000 in unpaid rent and $120,000 in attorney fees, while Staff Zone asked the jury to award about $1.3 million in lost profits and $450,000 in attorney fees.
The jury awarded Staff Zone about $1.3 million in lost profits, $151,000 in expert fees and $450,000 in attorney fees.
The appellate panel wrote that the evidence for lost profits damages, based on testimony from certified public accountant Stephen Jaquess, could not support the jury’s award. The panel wrote that “an expert’s simple ipse dixit is insufficient to establish a matter; rather the expert must explain the basis of his statement to link his conclusions to the facts.”
“While Jaquess explained the methodology that he used in reaching his lost profit amount, the record is devoid of any objective facts, figures, or data explaining how he arrived at his $1,332,514 figure,” the panel wrote. “We hold Tenant’s lost profits evidence was conclusory and cannot support an award of lost profits.”
Because the court determined there was no evidence to support the lost profits damages award, the award of fees for experts and attorneys also must be reversed.
The appellate panel’s ruling mirrors an argument trial counsel for JM-RB told The Lawbook would be raised on appeal. Former Dallas County trial judge David R. Gibson, now of The Gibson Law Group, was JM-RB’s lead attorney.
“The verdict is based largely on legally and factually insufficient evidence and will be challenged through a motion for new trial and on appeal, if necessary,” he said.
Justices Bonnie Lee Goldstein, Maricela Moore Breedlove and Nancy Kennedy sat on the panel.
JM-RB is represented by David Coale and Campbell Sode of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann.
Staff Zone is represented by Paul R. Genender and Jake Rutherford of Paul Hastings and Christopher D. Kratoviland Brooke Bohlen of Dykema Gossett.
The case number is 05-24-00631-CV.
Homeowners Preserve Win on Appeal in Insurance Coverage Row
A jury’s decision to award two homeowners $1,126 in actual damages and $60,000 in attorney fees was affirmed by a three-justice panel last month in a lawsuit against the Texas FAIR Plan Association.
The win on appeal affirms what a Dallas County Court-at-Law jury determined in 2023: that Meagan Novak and Adam Wright were entitled to the damages stemming from sudden and accidental water damage to their home that was not excluded by the policy. After the verdict, the insurer had argued that damages awarded below a policy deductible require a take-nothing judgment and meant the homeowners also were not entitled to attorney fees.
“The court made clear that insurers cannot erase jury verdicts by relying on deductibles after the fact,” said Chad Baruch, the managing shareholder at Johnston Tobey Baruch who argued the appeal. “This opinion gives trial courts and policyholders clear guidance on how to interpret the court’s charge in this situation.”
Chief Justice J.J. Kock and assigned Justices Carolyn Wright and David W. Evans sat on the panel.
Texas FAIR Plan Association is represented by J. Stephen Barrisk, Eric Grant and D. Ryan Cordell Jr. of Hicks Thomas.
The homeowners are also represented by Randy Johnston of Johnston Tobey Baruch and by Derrick J. Hahn and Matthew S. Hahn of Hahn Law Firm.
The case number is 05-24-00239-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
Certified Question Answered in Judge’s Appeal
In a per curiam opinion issued Friday, the Texas Supreme Court determined that — in accordance with an order it issued in October clarifying it is not a violation of Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief — the state’s judicial code of conduct does not prohibit judges from refusing to perform same-sex marriages.
The opinion was issued in response to a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sent in April. In the underlying case, Jack County Judge Brian Keith Umphress has filed a federal lawsuit against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, alleging it has unconstitutionally applied Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. That canon requires judges “to conduct their extra-judicial activities in a manner that does not call into question their impartiality.”
Umphress alleges the commission’s application of that rule to a judge who refuses to perform same-sex marriages, as he does, is unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit explained in a 21-page per curiam opinion that Umphress’ lawsuit “raises a threshold issue of state law for which there is no controlling precedent,” meaning guidance from the Texas Supreme Court is needed.
Umphress filed his notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit in December 2020 after U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman dismissed his suit for lack of standing.
The court heard oral argument in July 2021, and the docket shows the case sat stagnant until Umphress filed supplemental briefing almost two years later, in June 2023.
In October 2024, the court requested supplemental briefing on four issues, including whether the Texas Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct or the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s withdrawal of the public warning against Hensley had an impact on the court’s ability to hear this appeal.
In Hensley, the Texas Supreme Court determined 8-1 that Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Waco who was sanctioned by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for her refusal to perform same-sex marriages, could proceed with her lawsuit against the commission, rejecting arguments that either her failure to appeal the Commission’s public warning or sovereign immunity barred the action.
The ruling spurred two concurring opinions and one dissenting opinion. Justice Debra Lehrmann wrote she would have upheld the trial court’s decision dismissing Hensley’s suit based on her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies by appealing the public warning to the Special Court of Review.
Umphress is represented by the former solicitor general of Texas, Jonathan F. Mitchell, and by Charles Fillmore and Hartson Fillmore III of Fillmore Law Firm.
Hall is represented by Douglas Lang of Thompson Coburn, Roland K. Johnson of Harris, Finley & Bogle, Ross Reyes of Littler Mendelson and David R. Schleicher of Schleicher Law Firm.
The case number is 25-0288.
Houston Restaurant Kicked Out of Airport Sees Challenge Revived
In another per curiam opinion issued Friday, the state’s high court revived a lawsuit brought by Pappas Restaurants against the city of Houston where the company alleges it was wrongly kicked out of Houston’s Hobby Airport.
The win for 4 Families of Hobby and Pappas comes in a lawsuit that’s been ongoing since 2023 and stems from the city’s decision in March 2023 to award a contract to Areas HOU JV to operate concessions at the airport for 10 years.
Pappas had, for more than 20 years, operated eateries at the airport and has accused the city of violating Section 252.021(a) of the Texas Local Government Code by entering into a contract that requires an expenditure of more than $50,000 without following certain prescribed procedures.
Pappas is seeking a declaration that the contract awarded to Areas is void as a result of the failure to comply. The Texas Supreme Court agreed more discovery is needed in the case.
“If there is a reasonable reading of the contract that could result in required expenditures by the city of more than $50,000 depending on the facts, Pappas is entitled to jurisdictional discovery,” the court wrote. “We conclude two articles of the Areas Agreement can reasonably be read to require city expenditures of more than $50,000.”
Specifically, the court pointed to portions of the agreement with Areas that require the city to “provide and maintain all utilities” and “maintain all public areas and facilities.”
“These provisions could reasonably require an expenditure by the City to provide and maintain all utilities, public areas, and facilities,” the court held. “Pappas is entitled to jurisdictional discovery to gather evidence regarding whether these provisions will in fact require expenditures of more than $50,000 over the life of the contract.”
Pappas is represented by Nikki L. Morris, Alexandra L. Trujillo and Rachel Palmer Hooper of BakerHostetler.
Houston is represented by Donald B. Hightower, Arturo G. Michel and Suzanne R. Chauvin of the city’s legal department.
The case number is 24-0796.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Sanction Undone in Experian ID Theft Case
A sanction entered against a plaintiff who alleged he was the victim of identity theft in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case was granted a reprieve Jan. 6 when a three-judge panel undid the punishment.
Robert Fletcher filed suit against loan holder and servicer, Bridgecrest Credit Company, and the credit bureau that reported the loan, Experian Information Solutions, alleging he was the victim of identity theft and had never opened the car loan in his name that became delinquent.
Fletcher filed notice of appeal in March, challenging the decision from U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal, who sanctioned Fletcher for about $33,000 in attorney fees incurred by opposing counsel after determining his claims were baseless.
According to the opinion, two months after Fletcher filed suit, Bridgecrest sent his lawyer a letter stating that its investigation showed Fletcher had purchased the vehicle and signed the loan documents, and noted he used the same photo ID for that purchase that he used in four separate credit-reporting disputes, that he provided his email address and created a Bridgecrest account with that email address, and that he had provided his personal phone number to the dealership, booked the appointment from that number and communicated with Bridgecrest from that number.
One month later, Bridgecrest served a copy of its Rule 11 motion to the law firm, triggering a 21-day deadline for lawyer Shawn Jaffer to withdraw or correct the complaint.
On the last day of the safe-harbor period, according to the opinion, Jaffer filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, explaining to the court he hadn’t been able to reach Fletcher for 18 days.
At a case management conference before Judge Rosenthal, a different lawyer at Jaffer Law, Stephen Jones, told the court the evidence presented by the defendants “came to light after we had already filed the complaint” and he wasn’t able to withdraw the lawsuit without Fletcher’s “knowledge and consent.”
Judge Rosenthal asked whether Jones had any basis for disagreeing with the assertion that the allegations in the pleading are false, and Jones answered in the negative. Judge Rosenthal then granted the motion for sanctions.
“Fletcher argues that the district court imposed Rule 11 sanctions without providing adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. We agree,” the panel wrote. “… The district court did not give Jaffer an adequate opportunity to explain the reasonableness of his investigation before imposing sanctions, and Jaffer’s due-process rights were therefore violated.”
As for Fletcher, the panel found he also “did not have adequate notice that sanctions were contemplated against him personally.”
But it’s not a complete victory for Fletcher; the panel remanded the case back to Judge Rosenthal to determine whether Experian should be awarded sanctions under the court’s inherent powers.
Fletcher is represented by Heather Hersh of FCRA Attorneys and Shawn Jaffer and Stephen Jones of Jaffer Law.
Experian is represented by Analeigh Barnes and Nathaniel P. Garrett of Jones Day.
Bridgecrest is represented by Joseph Diedrich, Sabrina Neff and Brandon S. Stein of Husch Blackwell.
The case number is 25-20086.
Racial Discrimination, Retaliation Suit Against Enterprise Products Revived
Enterprise Products Company will have to face claims brought by a former employee who alleged he was fired in retaliation after accusing his supervisor of favoring white employees, a panel determined in reviving the suit.
The Jan. 9 panel decision reversed a ruling from U.S. District Judge David Cleveland Joseph that had granted EP a summary judgment win in the lawsuit brought by truck driver Justin Phillips. Phillips filed notice of appeal in April.
Admitting that reversal was a “close call,” the panel wrote that there was a “genuine dispute of material facts” that required remanding the case for further proceedings.
Phillips alleged he was fired after making the accusation against his supervisor, while EP told the court Phillips was fired “because of poor work performance.”
“But at summary judgment, we must make every justifiable inference in favor of Phillips’s version of events,” the panel held. “Though Phillips’s job performance may well have played a role, a reasonable juror could find that Enterprise fired him because he complained of racial discrimination. We stress that we do not decide whose version is correct. Indeed, the evidence at trial may well show that Enterprise terminated him solely because of his poor performance.”
According to the opinion, Phillips, who previously worked for the company in 2014, was hired in May 2022 and soon began accumulating disciplinary write-ups. By January 2023, he had seven infractions documented in write-ups for starting his shift too early, using the incorrect trailer, responding with an “attitude” when he was told to wear personal protective equipment and for leaving early.
In January or February 2023, Phillips confronted his supervisor for allegedly disciplining Phillips and another Black driver for starting early while ignoring a white driver who did the same thing. According to the opinion, Phillips had raised the issue of favoritism six times prior, too.
Phillips’ supervisor initiated termination proceedings within a month of that conversation, according to the opinion.
“And Enterprise fired Phillips just four days later, on March 3. We find this timing suspicious, but, again, Phillips needs more,” the panel wrote.
Judges Rhesa H. Barksdale, Don R. Willett and Stuart Kyle Duncan sat on the panel.
Phillips is represented by James Sudduth III and Kourtney Kech of Sudduth & Associates.
Enterprise Products is represented by Gerald Jodon and Lance Bowling of Littler Mendelson.
The case number is 25-30222.
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.
Hicks Johnson attorney Dave Finkel’s passion for riding horses took him 6,000 miles away from his home in Houston last year. He was among 45 brave souls who participated in the 10-day Mongol Derby, which is the world’s longest equestrian endurance race.
The Texas Supreme Court released an order last week stating it will no longer rely on the American Bar Association accreditation to determine which law schools’ students can sit for the bar exam. Right now, all ABA-accredited law schools are on the list, but non-accredited schools could be added depending on what the justices decide. Law firm leaders and law school deans weighed in on the change.
A&O Shearman partner Billy Marsh discusses trends he’s seeing in shareholder, securities and mass tort litigation in the latest edition of Asked & Answered. He also talks about what it was like as a first-year associate to defend the NFL against fraud claims brought by a group of fans.
Joe Ahmad of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing sat down with The Lawbook to discuss his extensive, and expensive, collection of maps dating back to the 1400s. The maps fill the walls of his office, the law firm and his homes.
Taking a look back at 2025, The Lawbook compiled a list of the largest verdicts juries in the state doled out. The largest single award was handed down in a DUI-related personal injury trial in Bexar County, where a Seguin Independent School District employee was left partially paralyzed following a motorcycle crash.
Separately, The Lawbook also compiled a roundup of the Top 10 white-collar crime cases from 2025. Healthcare fraud prosecutions, many stemming from the pandemic, stood out among the biggest white-collar cases in Texas last year.
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced last week that it is recommending a fine of more than $9.6 million against a Houston-based company for a November 2023 deepwater oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. The penalty is the result of an investigation by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safe Administration, and the recommended levy of $9,622,054 is described as the “largest civil penalty ever proposed” by the agency.