In this edition of Litigation Roundup, Samsung is fighting a $287 million state court verdict against it in federal court, a Collin County jury awards a man who alleged a botched spinal surgery left him paraplegic $6.2 million and an intermediate appellate court hands ExxonMobil a win in a lawsuit brought by workers injured in a plant explosion.
Have a development we should include in the next Litigation Roundup? Please let us know at tlblitigation@texaslawbook.net.
Collin County District Court
Man Left Paraplegic by Spinal Surgery Awarded $6.2M
A jury in Collin County recently determined a man who was left paraplegic after spinal surgery is entitled to $6.2 million in damages.
William “Bill” Proctor, of Lamar County, filed suit on June 4, 2020 against the doctor who performed the surgery, Dr. Mark Viktor Silver and Advanced Intra-Operative Monitoring Specialists. Proctor was 57 at the time of the surgery and alleged Silver negligently performed the surgery intended to relieve his chronic lower back pain by overly stretching or compressing his nerves. He alleged Advanced Intra-Operative Monitoring Specialists had failed to do certain monitoring procedures on his nerves during the surgery that would have avoided permanent injury.
Collin County District Judge Benjamin N. Smith presided over the trial that began with jury selection Feb. 19 and lasted one week.
The jury found Silver 60 percent responsible for the injuries. His attorneys have challenged the verdict in the trial court.
Proctor’s attorney, Seth McCloskey of Laird & McCloskey, issued a statement saying the evidence in the case clearly supported the jury’s findings.
“These were life-altering mistakes made by medical professionals entrusted with Bill’s health and well-being,” he said. “Although nothing can change what happened, our hope is that this result brings him and his family peace.”
Silver is represented by David Criss of Criss Law Group.
Advanced Intra-Operative Monitoring Specialists is represented by Stan Thiebaud of Thiebaud Remington Thornton Bailey.
Proctor is also represented by Steven C. Laird of Laird & McCloskey.
The case number is 380-02756-2020.
Eastern District of Texas
Samsung Challenges $287M Verdict
Samsung has told a federal judge it was the victim of an “about face” by Koninklijke KPN N.V., which had alleged since filing suit in state court in September 2022 it wasn’t suing Samsung for patent infringement then used that as the basis to secure a $287 million verdict against it.
“As noted above, KPN argued throughout the pre-trial proceedings that ‘KPN did not sue Samsung for patent infringement, it did not ask for patent damages in this case, and is not relying on any analysis of whether Samsung’s products infringe on KPN’s patents,’” Samsung argued in the notice of removal it filed Feb. 26. “But at trial, KPN made an about-face. For example, in its unjust enrichment cause of action, KPN argued at trial that Samsung was unjustly enriched by its use of KPN’s patented 3G and 4G technology without paying KPN for it and without obtaining a license. That is the essence of a claim for patent infringement.”
The Harrison County jury in District Judge Brad Morin’s courtroom returned its verdict against Samsung Feb. 23, finding the electronics giant had breached a contract with Koninklijke KPN. Trial lasted four days and the jury deliberated for about three hours.
Koninklijke KPN had alleged that under the 2016 licensing agreement Samsung was allowed to use some of its patents in exchange for future payments.
In the federal court filings, Samsung told U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap that it wasn’t until it received trial transcripts on Feb. 20 that it became “unequivocally clear and certain” the case presented a federal question making it removable to federal court.
“Thus, as it was argued at trial, KPN’s claims were patent claims masquerading as state law claims,” Samsung told the court.
Samsung alleges the origin of this litigation can be traced to a 2016 settlement agreement between the parties under which Samsung paid $11.5 million to Koninklijke to end patent infringement claims in exchange for the promise Koninklijke wouldn’t sue Samsung for patent infringement until the end of 2024.
Samsung is represented by Melissa R. Smith and Harry Gillam Jr. of Gillam & Smith and Thomas E. O’Brien, Scott D. Powers, Neil P. Sirota and Kevin M. Sadler of Baker Botts.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. is represented by Alexandra G. White, Andres C. Healy, Eliza Rosa Finley, Hunter Vance, Samir Doshi and Tamar Lusztig of Susman Godfrey and Justin K. Truelove of Truelove Law Firm.
The case number is 2:24-cv-00135.
Western District of Texas
Cryptocurrency Miners, DOE Reach Settlement
On March 1, the Texas Blockchain Council, Riot Platforms Inc. and the Digital Chamber of Commerce told U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright a settlement had been reached in their dispute with the Department of Energy over a request for energy consumption data.
The groups had sued the DOE, the Energy Information Administration and the Office of Management and Budget Feb. 22, seeking both a declaration from the court that they are not required to hand over the requested information and an injunction that would bar the federal agencies from further collection efforts.
The groups argued administrator of the EIA, Joseph DeCarolis, eschewed the notice-and-comment period when he asked the OMB for emergency permission to request to collect the data that the cryptocurrency mining companies allege includes sensitive and proprietary information.
The terms of the settlement require the federal government to cease the emergency cryptocurrency mining survey, destroy any already-collected data from the survey, and issue new notice of its proposed rule, which will also start the clock on a 60-day notice and comment period.
Gray Reed partner Chris Davis, who represents the plaintiffs, issued a statement calling the settlement a “substantial victory for our clients and the wider cryptocurrency community.”
“The government mandated the collection of a wealth of proprietary and sensitive information, singling out one industry for political reasons,” he said. “Our clients were denied the opportunity to participate in the process, as was the rest of the public.”
The plaintiffs are also represented by Joshua Smeltzer and Greg White of Gray Reed, Mark D. Siegmund of Cherry Johnson Siegmund James and Kara M. Rollings and Russell G. Ryan of New Civil Liberties Alliance.
The defendants are represented by Jeremy S.B. Newman of the Department of Justice.
The case number is 6:24-cv-00099.
Southern District of Ohio
Jury Returns Complete Defense Verdict in Case Seeking More Than $100M
A jury in Chief U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley’s courtroom has returned a complete defense win for EQT and Gulfport Energy in a mineral trespass lawsuit brought by Ohio landowners who were seeking more than $100 million in damages.
The verdict was returned March 1 by jurors who heard nine days of testimony and deliberated for about four hours before deciding EQT and Gulfport had leases with the landowners that permitted them to drill and produce minerals from the properties they owned. The landowners, whose properties are within the Point Pleasant-Utica Shale Formation, had argued the drilling of wells on their property and converting of natural gas without permission constituted trespass.
The lawsuit was removed to federal court in May 2019, according to court records. Jury selection began Feb. 20. The lawsuit is part of a group of similar related mineral trespass claims where landowners allege the oil and gas leases they entered did not cover the underground shales.
Judge Marbley entered final judgment in favor of the defendants Monday.
The plaintiffs are represented by Craig J. Wilson of C.J. Wilson Law, Elizabeth L. Glick of the Law Office of Elizabeth L. Glick, Richard Myser of Myser & Myser and Brian J. Warner and J. Robert Russell of Shuman McCuskey Slicer.
Anna Rotman and Ragan Naresh of Kirkland & Ellis served as lead counsel for EQT, and the firm’s Dan Donovan was lead counsel for Gulfport Energy.
John Kevin West and John C. Ferrell of Steptoe & Johnson served as lead counsel for another defendant in the lawsuit, Rice Drilling D.
The case number is 2:19-cv-02221.
Central District of California
Western Union, MoneyGram Hit with Proposed Class Action Over Information Sharing
A proposed class action lawsuit filed against Western Union and MoneyGram accuses the money transfer companies of unlawfully providing its customers’ information to law enforcement agencies.
The lawsuit, filed Feb. 21, also names Austin-based software company Forcepoint as a defendant. None of the defendants had retained counsel as of Monday.
Western Union and MoneyGram are accused of sharing the personal information with law enforcement agencies that have not obtained court orders, subpoenas or warrants, and without the knowledge and consent of possibly millions of customers over the past 10 years.
The lawsuit comes after the American Civil Liberties Union released documents last year that it said showed the personal information was being sent by the money transfer companies to an Arizona nonprofit called the Transaction Record Analysis Center. The lawsuit alleges TRAC uses Forcepoint to provide the data to 700 law enforcement agencies across the country, in violation of the California Consumer Privacy Rights Act and the state’s constitution.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes.
The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Charest, Chase T. Hilton and Darren P. Nicholson of Burns Charest and Taras P. Kick and Tyler J. Dosaj of The Kick Law Firm.
The case number is 5:24-cv-00404.
Fifth Court of Appeals
Dallas Files Opening Brief in Short-term Rental Fight
The city of Dallas has appealed a trial judge’s ruling that temporarily blocked it from enforcing a ban on short-term rentals and has asked an intermediate appellate court to find the ruling was an error.
“To find that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their due-course-of-law and equal-protection claims, the trial court inverted the burden of proof and applied the wrong legal standard,” Dallas argued in its Feb. 27 brief. “Ignoring the presumption of validity and the burden of proof inherent in rational-basis scrutiny, the trial court required the city to present conclusive proof that the ordinances would have a quantifiable beneficial impact on legitimate government interests such as traffic, noise, and affordable housing.”
The appeal comes in the same week as Airbnb released data showing searches for stays in major cities along the path of totality for April’s solar eclipse have increased 1,000 percent. Dallas is ranked as the fourth most popular city in the country for guests searching for lodging for the eclipse, according to Airbnb’s data.
Dallas County District Judge Monica Purdy halted Dallas from enforcing ordinances that would ban about 95 percent of all short-term rentals in the city limits Dec. 6, writing that she was unpersuaded by a study the city said it relied on in passing the restrictions.
The Dallas Short-Term Rental Alliance, which filed suit in October, is represented by Michael Hurst, David Coale and Michele Naudin of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann.
Dallas is represented by Andrew Spaniol, Stacy Rodriguez and Ryan Crocker of the city attorney’s office.
The case number is 05-23-01309-CV.
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Exxon Beats Back Subcontractors’ Injury Suits
A three-justice panel has determined a group of workers who were injured in a fire and explosion at an ExxonMobil plant are not entitled to proceed with their lawsuit against the company seeking damages based on the exclusive-remedy defense under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.
The TWCA covers medical bills and lost wages for employees who suffer work-related injuries without regard to fault. For companies that subscribe to Texas workers’ compensation the act provides a defense to any common law claims brought by employees.
The panel rendered a take-nothing judgment for the 23 plaintiffs in its Feb. 29 opinion.
The claims arise from a 2019 fire and explosion at ExxonMobil’s olefins plant in Baytown. At the time of the incident, the plaintiffs were working at the plant for one of four subcontractors: Brock Services, Jacobs Field Services North American, Wood Group USA and BrandSafway, according to the opinion.
Chief Justice Tracy Christopher and Justices Kevin Jewell and Frances Bourliot sat on the panel.
“ExxonMobil was not the actual employer of any of the plaintiffs,” the court wrote. “Instead, ExxonMobil was a general contractor, and the plaintiffs were the employees of four separate subcontractors. But for purposes of the Act, a general contractor may be deemed the employer of the employees of a subcontractor if there is ‘a written agreement under which the general contractor provides workers’ compensation insurance coverage to the subcontractor and the employees of the subcontractor.’”
The court held ExxonMobil proved such an agreement existed in this case.
“ExxonMobil was not required to prove that any of the plaintiffs had already received benefits,” the court held. “And the evidence that some of the Plaintiffs may have received such benefits does not negate the evidence that all of the Plaintiffs had workers’ compensation insurance coverage.”
ExxonMobil is represented by Mark Trachtenberg, Lynne Liberato, Michele Scheffler and Ryan Pitts of Haynes Boone, Stephen M. Fernelius of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, Kenneth Tekell Sr. of the Law Office of Kenneth Tekell Sr., Murray Fogler of Fogler Brar O’Neil Gray and C. Robert Mace of Copeland and Rice.
The plaintiffs are represented by Jody Sanders of Kelly Hart & Hallman, Wallace B. Jefferson and William J. Boyce of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson, Misty A. Hataway-Coné of Coné PLLC, Jonathan Sneed and Benny Agosto of Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner and Kurt B. Arnold, J. Kyle Findley, John G. Grinnan and Adam D. Lewis of Arnold & Itkin.
The case numbers are 14-22-00863-CV; 14-22-00872-CV; 14-23-00013-CV.