In this edition of Litigation Roundup, Exxon petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to halt climate change cases, a former Honeywell International employee had religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccine, Tesla faces a federal class action lawsuit over robotaxi safety, and a $15 million jury verdict was reversed in favor of CenterPoint Energy.
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.
Supreme Court of the United States
Exxon Asks SCOTUS to Stop State Climate Change Cases
Lawyers for Houston-based Exxon Mobil and Canada-headquartered Suncor Energy have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put a stop to a Colorado state court climate change lawsuit brought by the city and county of Boulder.
Dozens of such cases, each seeking billions and billions of dollars in damages, have been filed across the U.S., but many have been dismissed because state court judges have ruled that such cases should be handled in federal courts.
But the Colorado Supreme Court in May agreed with the plaintiffs and said the case against the large oil and gas companies, which are accused of misleading the public about their role in climate change, can proceed to trial. In January, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in a similar case from Hawaii, allowing that litigation to move forward.
In its 34-page petition for certiorari, lawyers for Exxon Mobil and Suncor argue federal law preempts these state lawsuits.
“This case provides the Court with its best opportunity yet to resolve one of the most important questions currently pending in the lower courts,” Exxon Mobil and Suncor argue. “Energy companies that produce and sell fossil fuels are facing numerous lawsuits in state courts across the nation seeking billions of dollars in damages for injuries allegedly caused by the contribution of greenhouse-gas emissions to global climate change. But as the Court has recognized for over a century, the structure of our constitutional system does not permit a state to provide relief under state law for injuries allegedly caused by pollution emanating from outside the state. This case presents the question whether that longstanding principle precludes the state-law claims in the nationwide climate-change litigation. The answer to that question is surely yes.”
“The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was incorrect, and it provides this Court with the opportunity definitively to address whether the state-law claims asserted by dozens of states and municipalities can even proceed — and to do so before the energy industry is threatened with potentially enormous judgments,” the energy giants state. “Boulder, Colorado, cannot make energy policy for the entire country. The Court should grant review and clarify that state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality. At a minimum, the Court may wish to call for the views of the Solicitor General in order to receive the perspective of the new Administration on whether certiorari should be granted.”
“This Court’s guidance is urgently needed,” Exxon Mobil and Suncor told the justices. “The arguments on both sides of the question presented have been fully ventilated in lower-court opinions, including the dueling opinions below. Meanwhile, state courts and parties are devoting enormous resources to the litigation of these cases, and the energy industry is facing the threat of damages awards that could run into the billions of dollars.”
Paul Weiss is representing Exxon Mobil, and Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell represents Suncor.
The case is Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Former Honeywell Employee had a Religious Exemption to the COVID-19 Vaccine, Fifth Circuit Finds in Reversal
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Middle District of Louisiana’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Honeywell International in regard to a former employee’s religious discrimination claim.
Donald Wright worked for Honeywell International for 14 years as a Dock B operator at the company’s special materials facility in Louisiana. When the company implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in 2021, he applied for a religious exemption but was denied.
Wright was subsequently fired from Honeywell for not receiving the vaccine.
He then sued Honeywell under Title VII for religious discrimination and disparate treatment based on religion.
The Middle District of Louisiana granted summary judgment for Honeywell and denied Wright’s motion to reconsider.
The Fifth Circuit disagreed with the district court and reversed.
“His discussion in his exemption request form of a religious reason for his vaccine objection — specifically, his belief in God-given bodily autonomy and freedom of choice — and his daughter’s third-party affidavit constitute sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict finding that Wright informed Honeywell that his belief was religious,” Chief Judge Jennifer Elrod wrote for the court.
The court has remanded the case for further proceedings.
Daniel, Williams & Associates partners Helen Daniel Holman and Kathryn Williams represented Wright.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart shareholder Hal Ungar and associate Caroline Donze represented Honeywell.
The case is Donald Wright v. Honeywell International Inc., 24-30667.
Question of Whether Baby’s Shoulder Dystocia Received Emergency Medical Care Returns to Western District
The Fifth Circuit reversed the Western District of Texas judgment in a Federal Tort Claims Act case for obstetrical medical care a woman received during childbirth.
Destiny Robledo claimed her doctor’s ill-judged response to her baby’s shoulder dystocia resulted in a severe and permanent injury.
The district court found the shoulder dystocia constituted an obstetrical emergency and that under Texas law a plaintiff must show “willful and wanton negligence” to sustain a claim.
The appellate court found the district court had erred in two ways.
The first error was presuming that Robledo’s doctor provided emergency medical care as a matter of law.
“At bottom, the district court’s approach appears inconsistent with how the Supreme Court of Texas has analyzed shoulder dystocia for the purposes of applying § 74.153(a),” Judge Cory Wilson wrote for the court.
Wilson further wrote that whether the evidence will show that the doctor provided emergency medical care is a question it leaves for the district court.
Second, the court found the district court erred by conflating the resulting heightened standard Robledo must meet to prove liability.
“[T]he district court nonetheless erred by extending its reading of Texas law to hold that Robledo’s claims were barred because the only damages she may recover for willful and wanton negligence are punitive in nature and thus proscribed by the FTCA,” Wilson wrote.
The appellate court wrote in its opinion that the FTCA does not bar Robledo from her claims, for which she seeks compensatory damages for her child’s injuries.
The court reversed the dismissal of Robledo’s claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Tennyson Law Firm attorney Chester Tennyson Jr. represented Robledo.
U.S. Attorney Darryl Vereen represented the government.
The case is Destiny Robledo, individually, and in her capacity as next friend of her minor child, H.R. v. United States of America, 24-50810.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Tesla Robotaxi Service Faces Class Action Over Safety
A lawsuit filed with the Western District of Texas claims Tesla Inc. and Elon Musk have made false or misleading statements about the safety of the robotaxi service.
Denise Morand alleges Tesla’s robotaxis violated traffic laws in Austin during testing, including speeding, making improper lane changes and driving in the wrong lane.
Morand claims the company, Musk, Chief Financial Officer Vaibhav Taneja and former CFO Zachary Kirkhorn violated federal securities laws by making false statements.
The lawsuit was filed as a class action to represent all investors who purchased Tesla securities from April 19, 2023, to June 22, 2025, and suffered losses. The complaint does not specify a damages amount. Morand is seeking a jury trial.
“During the Class Period, Defendants had both the motive and opportunity to commit fraud. For example, during the Class Period, while disseminating the materially false and misleading statements alleged herein to maintain artificially inflated prices for Tesla’s securities, Defendants Kirkhorn and Taneja enriched themselves by engaging in insider sales of the Company’s shares while those shares traded at artificially high prices,” the complaint stated.
Morand claims that during the class period, Kirkhorn sold at least 7,403 shares of Tesla stock for total proceeds of at least $1.59 million and Taneja sold at least 8,192 shares of Tesla stock for total proceeds of at least $2.51 million.
“Defendants also had actual knowledge of the misleading nature of the statements they made, or acted in reckless disregard of the true information known to them at the time,” the complaint stated.
Dallas-based Willie Briscoe with The Briscoe Law Firm is representing Morand.
Attorneys for the defendants have not yet filed appearances.
The case is Denise Morand v. Tesla Inc., Elon Musk, Zachary J. Kirkhorn, Vaibhav Taneja, 1:25-cv-01213.
U.S. District Court of Delaware
Online Dating Website Did Not Commit Patent Infringement
The District Court of Delaware ruled in favor of an online dating website last week, granting summary judgment and finding no patent infringement.
British Telecommunications sought $113 million in damages, claiming the dating website Match.com committed patent infringement in the methods used to update user profiles.
The case was filed in 2018. British Telecommunications claimed infringement on several patents, but throughout the litigation, it narrowed to just one patent.
After seven years of litigation, Judge William Bryson ruled the patent was invalid.
Bryson found the claims were directed to abstract ideas and that the patent failed both steps of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice test, finding no inventive concept beyond implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer.
“This order ends the litigation in this long-running case,” Bryson wrote.
Potter Anderson attorneys Philip Rovner and Nicole Kathleen Pedi represented British Telecommunications.
Norton Rose Fulbright attorneys Robert Greeson, Jim Renard, Erik Janitens, Jackie Baker, Peter Hillegas and Gabe Culver represented Match Group. Morris Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell attorneys Jennifer Ying, Lucinda Cucuzzella and Jack Blumenfeld represented IAC/InterActiveCorp.
The case is British Telecommunications PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp; Match Group Inc.; Match Group LLC; and Vimeo Inc., 1:18-CV-00366.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas
Trinity Broadcasting, TCT Ministries Push to Toss Merit Street Media’s Claims
Fort Worth-based Trinity Broadcasting of Texas and TCT Ministries are asking a federal bankruptcy judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Merit Street Media, the television network launched last year by celebrity television psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw, arguing that the case lacks proper court authority and that its contract breach claims are unenforceable.
In court filings with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Christian broadcasters said the adversary complaint, which seeks declaratory and monetary relief, should be dismissed because it was filed without the approval of Merit Street’s full board of directors.
They claim Gary Broadbent, the company’s chief restructuring officer, was never validly appointed to the “special committee” that authorized the Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and the lawsuit.
Trinity and TCT stated that Merit Street’s corporate governance rules — along with a voting agreement between McGraw’s Peteski Productions and Trinity — required that directors appointed by Trinity could not be removed without its approval. They argue that the two Trinity-appointed directors were ousted in violation of that agreement, leaving McGraw as the sole director to appoint Broadbent.
“The bottom line is that Merit Street has no explanation — and certainly no consistent explanation — for how the removal of directors was accomplished in conformity with its governing documents. And since TBN’s directors were not properly removed from Merit Street’s board, Broadbent’s appointment (and his subsequent actions including causing the filing of this adversary proceeding) were unauthorized, ultra vires, and null and void. This Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case,” the filing argued.
Merit Street filed for bankruptcy July 2 in the Northern District of Texas, listing debts linked to its launch and operations. The network debuted in April 2024, a year after McGraw ended his two-decade run of Dr. Phil on CBS.
Merit’s lawsuit accused Trinity and its affiliate TCT Ministries of failing to fulfill their obligations under a 2023 Binding Letter of Intent, which established Merit Street. The claims include charging for production services, not covering distribution costs and delivering “shoddy” production work.
The Fort Worth-based startup founded by McGraw also alleges breaches of a December 2024 “Outline of Proposed Terms” aimed at restructuring their partnership and seeks to subordinate TCT’s claims in the bankruptcy.
The legal filings come just over a year after the two companies celebrated their partnership launch — featuring Dr. Phil — and plans to develop a new nightly show.
According to its bankruptcy filing, Merit has between $100 million and $500 million in assets but also has liabilities in the same range.
Several creditors are listed, including DirecTV, which is owed $1.7 million, and Dish Network, which is owed $900,000. Merit Street also owes $700,000 to Peteski Productions — the Wichita Falls-based production company owned by McGraw that supplies Merit Street with content, the filing said.
Peteski Productions and TBN formed the joint venture named Merit Street Media in 2023, with Peteski producing episodes and TBN distributing them to a nationwide audience, the filing said.
Merit Street has hired Sidley Austin lawyers Thomas Califano, Jeri Miller, Parker Embry and Chelsea McManus as its lead legal advisors. Trinity has hired Foley & Lardner Dallas lawyers Holland N. O’Neil, Robert Slovak, Steven C. Lockhart, Mark C. Moore and Stephanie L. McPhail as its legal advisors. The judge is Scott Everett in Dallas.
The case is Merit Street Media, Inc. v. Trinity Broadcasting of Texas Inc. et al, 8:25-ap-08006.
Supreme Court of Texas
Susman Godfrey: Gov. Abbott ‘Has No Legal Basis’ for Removal of Texas Lege Dems
If President Donald Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey was meant to intimidate the Houston-based litigation powerhouse, it has failed.
Justin Nelson, a Susman Godfrey partner, filed an amicus brief Thursday with the Texas Supreme Court in the case in which Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is seeking the removal of Houston Democrat Gene Wu and dozens of other Texas legislators who have fled the state to keep the Texas House of Representatives from having a quorum and thus unable to enact redistricting.
The 20-page brief, which Nelson filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters, the Texas NAACP, Asian Texans for Justice and the League of United Latin American Citizens, states that the governor “lacks the power to bring quo warranto petition against a state legislator.”
“This case is not about redistricting. It is about whether the Governor of Texas can remove a state legislator for exercising one of his legislative prerogatives granted by the Texas Constitution — participating in a quorum break in order to deprive the Texas House of Representatives of its necessary quorum to prevent a vote from taking place,” Nelson wrote, along with Skye Perryman of the Democracy Forward Foundation in Washington, D.C. “A ruling granting the governor the power to remove here would render the quorum requirement a nullity, upend the carefully-crafted separation of powers in the Texas Constitution, and overturn the will of the voters by gubernatorial fiat.”
“The matter before the court effectively requests the disenfranchisement of Texas voters because it would remove a duly elected official — chosen by a majority of voters in his district — from office when he has not abandoned his office,” the brief states. “This request is directed at a member who has seen fit to exercise a legislative option enabled by the Texas Constitution. It should alarm every Texan and all Americans alike.”
The case is In re Greg Abbott, 25-0674.
First Court of Appeals, Houston
$15M Jury Verdict Reversed, Appellate Court Finds Negligence Claim Does Not Hold
The First Court of Appeals reversed the 269th District Court’s judgment in favor of Garett Wilder last week.
Wilder was working for L.E. Myers near Tomball when CenterPoint instructed him to work on a transmission pole, which required him to climb the 100-foot pole.
When Wilder was about 40 feet up the concrete transmission pole, one of the step-bolts detached, and he fell to the ground. Wilder’s heart stopped when he hit the ground, and another L.E. Myers employee performed CPR on Wilder and revived him.
Wilder then sued CenterPoint, alleging negligence which caused his injuries.
The jury awarded Wilder $15.4 million.
However, the appellate court disagreed and reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded that Wilder take nothing on his claim against CenterPoint.
“Accordingly, we hold that Wilder did not meet his burden of establishing that chapter 95 did not bar his negligence claim against CenterPoint, and the trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor of Wilder,” the opinion read.
Justices Veronica Rivas-Molloy, Kristin Guiney and Clint Morgan reviewed the case.
Provost Umphrey partners Matthew Matheny and Bryan Blevins Jr., Daniel Horowitz with Law Office of Daniel D. Horowitz III, Bracewell partner Warren Harris and counsel Tracy Temple represented Wilder.
Wright Close & Barger partners Jessica Barger and Brian Cathey, Newton, Jones & McNeely managing partner H. Dwayne Newton and Steptoe & Johnson member Christopher Charles White represented CenterPoint.
The case is CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC v. Garett Wilder, 01-22-00853-CV.
61st District Court, Houston
HPD Bans Handgun Following Officers’ Lawsuit
Last month, a Houston police officer filed a lawsuit against a Houston firearms dealer and gun manufacturer for an alleged defective weapon.
Houston police officer Richard Fernandez Jr. was shot in the leg by a SIG P320 semiautomatic pistol on Jan. 20 while directing traffic in advance of a Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade.
The bullet went through Fernandez’s right calf and lodged in his ankle, and he needed emergency surgery to remove it. He now requires ongoing medical care.
Fernandez claims the incident has also caused him shame and embarrassment, knowing that others may believe he was at fault, even though the gun was never removed from its holster.
He is seeking $10 million in damages from Sig Sauer and CTC Gunworks and a jury trial.
The Houston Police Department has now banned the SIG P320 and pointed to Fernandez’s lawsuit as its reasoning.
HPD officers receive a firearm allowance to purchase the gun of their choice for their duty weapon, which then is registered with the department. The P320 is not a department-issued firearm.
The Houston Chronicle reported that Houston Police Officers Union President Doug Griffin said about 1,200 officers have the P320 registered. They have two months to replace it.
This case is one of many against the gun manufacturer for its P320 pistol.
In June, Sig Sauer stated that 17 separate P320-related cases have been dismissed.
Rusty Hardin and recently-minted partner Kendall Speer of Rusty Hardin & Associates is representing Fernandez along with J. Scott Siscoe.
“After Officer Fernandez was shot in the leg by his Sig Sauer P320, the Houston Police Department conducted a thorough investigation of the incident. We were not surprised by the Department following up on its investigation by taking the drastic, but necessary, step of requiring other officers who currently carry the P320 as their duty weapon to replace it with a different weapon. The Department is clearly prioritizing the safety of its officers and the citizens they serve through this decision,” Siscoe told The Texas Lawbook.
The case is Richard Fernandez Jr. v. Sig Sauer Inc., and CTC Gunworks LLC, 2025-51394.
Monroe County Court, Ohio
After Attempted Appeals, an Ohio Trial Court Confirms $70M Verdict in Trespass Case
An Ohio trial court confirmed a $70 million jury verdict and judgment against Westlake Chemical Corporation.
The issue in the case was a subsurface brine cavern created by Westlake’s solution mining operations in West Virginia. That cavern crossed under the Ohio River and trespassed onto Triad Hunter’s property and disrupted its oil and gas operations.
Irving-based Triad Hunter sued Houston-based Westlake, Eagle Natrium and Axiall Corporation in 2018, claiming Westlake trespassed and damaged its wells or made drilling them unsafe.
After a three-week trial in 2022, a jury found Westlake liable for negligence and trespass and awarded damages and lost profits.
Westlake hired new counsel and filed post-trial motions, which were all denied. It lost in the Ohio Court of Appeals. It tried to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which declined to take up the appeal. Westlake returned to the state trial court with a post-appeal motion to vacate the judgment based on “new” testing data that it said showed the brine caverns were “nowhere near” Expand’s property.
Monroe County Court found Westlake’s motion was untimely, didn’t exercise due diligence and that its new evidence didn’t show it would have changed the verdict.
Westlake has paid the full amount of $76 million, which includes interest.
Westlake was represented by Jones Day partners Yvette McGee Brown, Louis Chaiten and James Saywell, Susman Godfrey partners Ryan Caughey and William Merrill, Meyer Unkovic Scott partner Chad Michaelson, Roetzel shareholder Stephen Funk, Steptoe & Johnson member Ben McFarland and Beck Redden partner Mark Rodriguez.
Yetter Coleman partners Tracy LeRoy, Connie Pfeiffer and R. Paul Yetter represented the plaintiff. Babst Calland shareholders Timothy Miller and Robert Stonestreet also represented Triad.
The case is Triad Hunter LLC v. Eagle Natrium LLC, et al., 2018-149.
Mark Curriden and Mark Smith contributed to this report.
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.
A Texas ER doctor won a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversal against Blue Cross Blue Shield. Fifty-six Texas emergency medical physician groups will get to pursue legal claims that two dozen Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance plans underpaid them for treating patients.
Daimler Truck Financial Services filed a lawsuit in the Texas Business Court against Vanguard National Trailer Corporation in June, alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Vanguard has moved to dismiss the $28 million case.
GWG Holdings bondholders call for Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur to recuse himself from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, recent filings show. They also request that former Jackson Walker attorney Elizabeth Freeman be removed as the wind down trustee.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems’ lawsuit alleging patent infringement against Downing Wellhead Equipment was dismissed by an Eastern District Court judge last week. It is the second win Haynes Boone has seen for Downing this summer.
The Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in the decade-long political and legal feud between local enemies that resulted in arrests, criminal charges and a federal civil rights lawsuit that now splits the appellate judges. A primary legal issue in dispute is whether the lead defendant, Justice of the Peace Amber King, has judicial immunity.