In this edition of Litigation Roundup, we offer details on two high-dollar disputes involving the leasing of railcars, the former chief financial officer of a Dallas nonprofit goes to prison for embezzling $2 million, and the parties that lost a patent case seeking more than $400 million in damages ask for a redo.
Also, the Fifth Circuit agrees a referral to a magistrate judge who awarded $125 million in damages after a bench trial by consent must be undone, ruling her disclosure of a relationship with a lawyer for the winning side was “incomplete.”
And, the Texas Center for Legal Ethics announced last week that Marcy Hogan Greer of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson is the 2026 recipient of the Chief Justice Jack Pope Professionalism Award, which is given annually to an appellate attorney or appellate judge who “epitomizes the highest standards of professionalism and integrity.”
Former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, who practices alongside Greer and won the award in 2014, said in a statement that Greer “exemplifies” the “qualities that distinguish the truly exceptional” lawyers and judges.
“She combines exceptional advocacy with sound judgment, humility, and an unfailing respect for the legal system and everyone who participates in it,” he said. “She has earned the admiration of lawyers and judges across the country not only because of her remarkable accomplishments, but because she conducts herself with grace, fairness, and unwavering integrity.”
Greer will be presented with the award at the Texas Supreme Court Historical Society John Hemphill Dinner, taking place in Austin Sept. 10.
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
SEC No Longer a Party in NCAA Fifth-Year Eligibility Case
The Southeastern Conference and its commissioner, Greg Sankey, are no longer parties in the case against the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Plaintiff JaCorey Thomas filed notice Saturday of nonsuit of his claims against the SEC and Sankey. Thomas played all four seasons of his college football career at the University of Georgia.
Plaintiff Avry Tatum filed her notice of nonsuit Sunday. Tatum played volleyball at the University of Cincinnati in the 2022 season. She transferred to Indiana University for the 2023-2025 seasons. She intends to play another year for the Hoosiers.
In late August, Dallas County Judge Martin Hoffman granted the college athletes’ motion for a temporary restraining order, allowing them to participate in NCAA Division I athletics during the 2026-2027 season.
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.
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 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, Dina McKenney, David Zeitlin of Holland & Knight and Ben Mesches, Jason Jordan, Julia Peebles and Victor Vital of Haynes Boone.
Chris Patton, Michael Hurst, Yaman Desai and Daniela Holmes of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann represented the SEC and Sankey.
The case number is DC-26-16417.
Alexa Shrake contributed this report.
Northern District of Texas
Dallas Nonprofit CFO Gets Prison for $2M Fraud
The former chief financial officer of the Dallas-based Child and Family Guidance Center has been sent to prison for embezzling more than $2 million from the organization.
U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade sentenced Jeffrey Scott Keehn, 55, to 60 months in prison on Aug. 26 and also ordered him to pay about $2.1 million in restitution. Prosecutors alleged Keehn made bogus QuickBooks entries to conceal the fraud and used the charity’s checkbook to deposit money into his personal account.
Keehn was indicted in August 2024 and entered a guilty plea to wire fraud in August 2025. The government also seized about $800,000 in assets from Keehn, including bank accounts, precious metals, a car and his interest in a condo in Oceanside, California.
The Child and Family Guidance Center’s mission is to provide mental health services to those who cannot afford it.
“Stealing from a charity that serves families in crisis is unconscionable,” U.S. Attorney Ryan Raybould said in a news release. “Mr. Keehn’s fraud didn’t just drain the charity’s finances; it forced them to divert time and resources away from their mission.”
The case was prosecuted by Marty Basu, Dimitri Rocha, Elyse Lyons and Jonathan Penn of the Department of Justice.
Keehn is represented by Joe Magliolo of Jackson Walker.
The case number is 3:24-cr-00341.
Western District of Texas
Feds Have 2 Mexican Nationals Extradited in $40M Timeshare Fraud case
On Wednesday, two Mexican citizens were extradited from France to the United States to face charges for their involvement in what the federal government says is a $40 million scheme that defrauded individuals who owned timeshares on Mexico’s Pacific coast.
Christian Felipe Rodriguez Peraza and his wife, Brenda Tamayo Corona, are charged alongside alleged coconspirators Michael Ian Hollands and Yorlena Alfonso Cuesta. The husband and wife were arrested in France earlier this year and extradited last week.
The alleged scheme worked like this: The defendants — who posed as U.S. and Mexican government officials or assumed the identities of actual lawyers in the U.S. — told timeshare owners that their properties had been sold and that to recover the proceeds they would need to pay certain taxes and fees in advance.
Many of the victims were elderly, according to the government.
“In case you haven’t noticed, this Department of Justice is uniquely committed to rooting out fraud in all of its forms, especially fraud conducted against Americans by transnational criminal organizations like this one,” U.S. Attorney Justin R. Simmons said in a news release. “The long arm of American justice will continue to reach out and touch those who seek to enrich themselves to the detriment of Americans.”
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Ezra.
The federal government is represented by Christina Playton, Justin Chung and Ray Gattinella of the Department of Justice.
Peraza is represented by Donald Flanary III of Flanary Law Firm.
Corona is represented by John Convery of Hasdorff & Convery.
Cuesta is represented by Juan Hernandez of Hernandez Dauphin Legal.
Hollands is represented by Cynthia Orr of Goldstein & Orr.
The case number is 5:24-cr-00467.
Eastern District of Texas
Patent Licensing Companies Seek New Trial After Jury Rejected $436M Request
ASUS Technology Licensing, Innovative Sonic, Celerity IP and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. have asked for a new trial after a jury last month rejected its $436 million damages request.
Last month, a Marshall jury returned a verdict in favor of AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Ericsson and Nokia, finding the mobile carriers and tech vendors did not infringe three patents, denying the plaintiffs’ damages request.
The plaintiffs sued in 2023, accusing AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile of infringement through their use of Ericsson and Nokia mobile network equipment. Ericsson and Nokia intervened to defend their products and their customers.
Following a three-week trial, the jury found that AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile did not infringe any of the nine asserted claims across the three patents-in-suit and that all nine claims are invalid.
They also found that the carriers, Ericsson and Nokia, had negotiated in good faith, while the plaintiffs and ASUSTeK breached their own obligation to offer a license on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.
The three disputed patents directed quality of service flow, control resource set configuration and small cell enhancements.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided over the trial.
Nick Mathews, Warren Lipschitz, Erik Fountain, Christian Hurt, Matt Cameron, Eliza Beeney, Kevin Hess, Eric Hansen, Blake Bailey, John Briody, Jonathan Powers, Clare Churchman, Sam Moore, Chris Leone, Jamie Levien, Joseph Micheli and R. Arden Seavers of McKool Smith and Deron Dacus of the Dacus Firm represented AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Ericsson and Nokia.
The plaintiffs were represented by Anthony Rowles, Benjamin Monnin, Caroline Radell, Christopher Abernethy, Jason Sheasby, Jordan Nafekh, Nora Chestney, Rebecca Carson, Robert Zhu, Russell Hoover and Stephen Payne of Irell and Manella; Charles Ainsworth and Robert Bunt of Parker Bunt & Ainsworth; and Jill Bindler of Gray Reed.
The case number is 2:23-cv-00486.
Alexa Shrake contributed this report.
Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas
Panel Wipes Out $24.5M Award in Railcar Lease Dispute
An appellate panel last week reversed a $24.5 million judgment that had been awarded to Trinity Industries Leasing Company in a dispute with Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, finding Sunoco had not breached the parties’ agreement.
On Thursday, counsel for Trinity filed a motion asking for more time to file a motion for rehearing en banc.
Trinity had filed suit in July 2019, alleging the terms of an agreement under which Sunoco leased railcars to transport oil and gas required Sunoco to make certain safety modifications to the cars to come into compliance with Obama administration requirements. Sunoco had argued it was not required to modify railcars it was not using.
Judge Sally Montgomery had granted Trinity a directed verdict, holding there was only one way to construe the contract and therefore nothing for the jury to decide. But the appellate panel determined there had been “no breach of contract as a matter of law” and rendered a take-nothing judgment.
“While the lease may have required Sunoco to not use the cars for a purpose other than transporting crude oil, it did not require Sunoco to use the cars,” the panel wrote. “In sum, the lease did not obligate Sunoco to pay for modifications if a change to car design, specification, or appurtenances was ‘made’ by a governmental authority. It obligated Sunoco to pay for modifications ‘required’ by a governmental authority.”
Justices Dennise Garcia, Earl Jackson and Mike Lee sat on the panel.
Sunoco is represented by David Coale, Andrés Correa, Mike Lynn and Chloe Teeter of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann.
Trinity is represented by Jeff Tillotson of Tillotson Patton and Christopher Landgraff, Tulsi Gaonka, Ignacio Sofo and Mac LeBuhn of Bartlit Beck.
The case number is 05-24-00468-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
Parties Reach Settlement in $9M Railcar Dispute
Trinity Industries Leasing Company and Lattimore Materials Corp. have reached an agreement that will bring an end to a more than $9 million fight stemming from the lease of 226 railcars that suffered corrosion damage.
On Aug. 31, the parties filed with the court an agreed joint motion to abate, explaining they had reached a settlement and asked the court to hit pause on proceedings for 45 days while the deal is finalized. According to court documents, Lattimore leased the cars in 2009 to haul wet limestone aggregate from Oklahoma to Texas, and Trinity filed suit for breach of contract in 2020.
At trial, a jury determined Trinity was entitled to $1.6 million in lost rent damages and $9 million for Lattimore’s failure to reimburse it for the corrosion damage. But the jury also found Trinity knew about the damage it sued for in December 2015, and the trial judge relied on that finding to hold Trinity failed to file suit based on those damages within a four-year statute of limitations.
The trial court entered final judgment in February 2023, awarding Trinity the $1.6 million, plus interest and attorney fees, and Trinity filed notice of appeal that May. The Fifth Court of Appeals in July 2024 issued an opinion finding Trinity’s breach claim was not time barred, because the lease agreement was not breached until January 2020, when Lattimore refused to reimburse Trinity for loss and terminated the agreement.
“Lattimore’s argument that it caused legal injury to Trinity when it damaged the railcars is misplaced,” the lower appellate court held. “That construction would follow only if Lattimore had promised it would not damage the railcars. There was no such promise.”
The Fifth Court of Appeals rendered judgment that Trinity was entitled to $10.6 million.
Lattimore is represented by Wallace B. Jefferson, Rachel A. Ekery and Nicholas Bacarisse of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson and Matthew Nowak and Ryan Gentry of Nowak & Stauch.
Trinity is represented by Jason Jordan, Ronald Breaux, Charles Jones II and Christopher Knight of Haynes Boone.
The case number is 24-0953.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Man Whose Home was Demolished by City Will Get Trial
A contractor who was awarded $1 in damages in a bench trial after his home was demolished by officials in Texas City will get a chance to have a jury decide his case after a recent ruling from the Fifth Circuit found he was wrongfully denied that opportunity.
Michael Ramirez owned a home in Texas City that was valued at about $167,000, and he had tools and construction materials inside the home worth about $15,000, according to court records. The home caught fire in April 2022, and the city issued notice three days later that the home was “substandard” and dangerous.
Ramirez’s architect submitted a repair plan to the city, and the city said they needed a report from an engineer to proceed.
“Ramirez, however, never obtained such a report,” the Fifth Circuit panel wrote. “The house ‘languished’ in disrepair for over a year. … In May 2023, the city demolished the house without further notice.”
Ramirez then sued the city in state court and requested a jury trial. After the city removed the suit to federal court, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown agreed with the city that a timely jury demand had not been made in the case and determined he would conduct a bench trial in the case.
Judge Brown “held that the city was justified in demolishing the house, but not in the manner it carried out the demolition,” and awarded Ramirez $1 in nominal damages.
“The City’s argument that it was caught off-guard by the jury demand is baseless,” the panel wrote. “Ramirez had filed numerous documents — at least 13 — with jury demand language in the caption or an even more conspicuous place.”
The panel declined to determine whether Ramirez can recover compensatory damages from the city.
“Here, the destruction of Ramirez’s personal property that was inside the house when it was demolished was arguably a harm that flowed from the violation of his procedural due process rights (a question for a jury on remand),” the panel wrote.
Ramirez filed his notice of appeal in August 2025. The appellate panel heard oral arguments in April and issued its 17-page opinion Sept. 3.
Judges Leslie H. Southwick, James E. Graves Jr. and Cory T. Wilson sat on the panel.
Ramirez is represented by J. David Breemer of the Pacific Legal Foundation and Savannah Robinson of Danbury.
“When the government takes your property without respect for your rights, the Constitution requires a jury of your peers to decide how much the government pays for your losses,” Breemer said in a statement. “[The] ruling upholds that protection and strengthens Texans’ rights.”
Texas City is represented by Kyle Dickson of Murray Lobb.
The case number is 25-40475.
Divided Panel Undoes Referral in Case Where Magistrate Awarded $125M
Noting that it was an “extraordinary remedy,” a Fifth Circuit panel on Tuesday issued a 2-1 decision vacating a referral to U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay in a case where she had awarded IFG Port Holdings a nearly $125 million final judgment after a bench trial by consent.
“Judge Kay’s actions raise serious concerns about the fairness of her proceedings,” Judge James E. Graves Jr. wrote for the majority. “Her unusually harsh order, coupled with the windfall verdict, exacerbates this impression.”
After the bench trial, according to the opinion, the losing party, Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District, “discovered that Judge Kay and IFG’s lead trial counsel had been close family friends for nearly 40 years.”
“All Judge Kay had disclosed about the friendship was that IFG’s lead counsel’s daughter was her law clerk, who would be screened from the case,” the majority wrote. “At best, this disclosure was incomplete.”
This case has been to the Fifth Circuit once before and was remanded to U.S. District Judge Michael Truncale, who, after a three-day hearing, “found that the Port’s consent” to the referral “was not knowing, and vacated the referral.”
The majority agreed Judge Truncale had applied the right standard, explaining that “For the Port’s consent to be knowing, it must have actually known the nature and extent of Judge Kay’s conflict before judgment.”
The majority detailed evidence showing “a close family relationship” between Judge Kay and the lawyer for IFG, including Facebook photos showing the lawyer at Judge Kay’s wedding in 1989, Judge Kay officiating the wedding of one of the lawyer’s other daughters, and tests and Facebook messages where they had wished each other happy birthday and “discussed concerts and shared updates about their children and grandchildren.”
Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote a strong dissent in the case, writing that the majority’s decision siding with Lake Charles Port will encourage parties to “scrutinize judges’ private affairs, and jeopardizes virtually all magistrate and bankruptcy judge orders.”
He wrote that Lake Charles Port had orchestrated a “years-long — and now successful — scheme by the loser of that trial to undo a large, adverse judgment by Facebook-stalking a jurist.”
Judge Oldham likened the Port’s actions after trial to throwing a Hail Mary pass.
“Still, the point of the Hail Mary pass is that it sometimes works. And for the Port, that sometime is today,” he wrote.
Judge Oldham wrote that the majority’s holding will require magistrate and bankruptcy judges to disclose “any and all social relationships dating back decades” in a waste of time and resources that would also create “obvious, perverse incentives.”
“Recall the facts. The Port’s lawyers repeatedly searched for a legitimate, on-the-merits way out of this judgment. And after exhausting all legally meritorious options, they were able to overturn a $112 million judgment based primarily on wedding photos from the 1980s,” he wrote. “As amici explain, such gamesmanship could be the rule in future cases, not the exception.”
There was one amicus brief filed in the case. The brief supports IFG and was signed by five former judges — Judge Royal Furgeson Jr., Judge Mildred Methvin, Judge Brian Owsley, Judge Viktor Pohorelsky and Judge Stephen Smith. They wrote in the brief that they had served in districts “where many if not most attorneys and judges were professional or socially acquainted — situations common in smaller legal markets.”
“Several have overseen proceedings involving counsel they knew casually or through bar associations. Amici thus can offer insight into the real-world consequences of a rule requiring exhaustive disclosures of every professional or social connection,” the 24-page brief begins.
The judges wrote that the “actual knowledge standard” imposed by the district court in this case is “unworkable in practice and would diminish the functionality and integrity of magistrate judge proceedings.”
“It would also negatively impact district courts whose own time would be burdened by an onslaught of vacatur motions from disgruntled litigations; the need to conduct invasive discovery into their magistrate judge colleagues; and wasted resources from having to retry entire cases based on information that a diligent litigant could have discovered at the outset,” the brief argues.
“Accordingly, amici support appellant’s request that the court adopt a constructive knowledge standard for consent to magistrate judge referrals.”
Judge Oldham wrote in concluding his dissent that it was “hard to imagine” how any magistrate or bankruptcy judge adjudication “could survive the standard set out in today’s opinion.”
“The Port set a trap: muddy the waters with facts and hope the resulting mess justifies some rule that vacates the judgment,” he wrote. “It is a mistake to follow that course.”
Judge Carl E. Stewart joined in the majority’s opinion.
IFG is represented by Gregory Garre, Samir Deger-Sen and Peter Trombly of Latham & Watkins and Thomas Flanagan of Flanagan Partners.
Lake Charles is represented by Michael Rubin of Adams & Reese, Douglas Cochran of Stone, Pigman, Walther & Wittman, Michael McKay of Long Law Firm, Marcelle Mouledoux of Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn and Nicholas Wehlen of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.
The amici judges are represented by David Carpenter and Chelsea Priest of Sidley Austin.
The case number is 24-30552.
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.
Congress passed legislation that could bring a new courthouse to College Station. The act passed Monday, 378-10, and awaits President Donald Trump’s signature. Longtime Texas trial lawyer Gaines West said he’s been trying to get a federal courthouse in College Station for 40 years.
Last week, The Lawbook published a series on the Texas Business Court, examining operations on its two-year anniversary. One story looked at whether lawmakers will have an appetite to fund dedicated courtroom space for the new court when the legislative session begins next year, and another asked whether the court will be expandedto cover the entirety of the state.
Former Judge Alan Albright spoke to The Lawbook about what led him to step down from the federal bench last month, and why he chose A&O Shearman as a landing spot.
A jury in Houston will decide whether deposition video and production company SmartDisk is owed about $6.4 million in breach of contract damages or if its former business partner, Lexitas, properly terminated the parties’ agreement and owes nothing.
A nine-year fight to recover a judgment that now exceeds $40 million from a Dallas private equity firm entered a new chapter recently, when SunTx Capital Management was named in a lawsuit and accused of violating the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.
Kirkland & Ellis announced last week 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, who worked a year in the Texas attorney general’s office in 2016, told The Texas Lawbook that he lateraled 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.”
Vartabedian Katz Hester & Haynes announced it has grown again, adding a trio of partners from McKool Smith who practice intellectual property litigation.