In this edition of Litigation Roundup, the Texas Supreme Court requests responses in a $15.4 million personal injury appeal involving CenterPoint in a fight over public records involving Highland Park Independent School District and Ken Paxton takes an alleged “political takeover” attempt in Loving County to the courthouse.
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.
Loving County District Court
Paxton Sues Over Loving County ‘Political Takeover’
The state of Texas has sued a man who has been encouraging his followers to join him and move to Loving County in remote West Texas, accusing him of violating the health and safety code by not having utilities, including a sewage system, in place to support the influx of people.
The suit brings claims for violation of Texas Health & Safety Code § 341.011, violation of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 125.063, nuisance and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Malcolm Terall Tanner is the defendant in the lawsuit.
The 22-page filing, which includes three aerial photographs attached as exhibits showing rows of mobile homes parked in a dirt field, opens by telling the court that Tanner “boasts that his goal is to overthrow the local government in Loving County and run for president in 2028.”
Loving County, located in the Permian Basin, is home to only 64 permanent residents but has a taxable value of more than $18 billion. Tanner, according to the lawsuit, purchased two adjoining five-acre tracts of land in Loving County and has been encouraging his followers to join him by “offering a free place to live on the property and $5,000 per month.”
“However, the property lacks sewer access, septic systems, running water, has limited electricity produced by gas powered generators, and has a burn pit dug in the ground to dispose of trash,” the lawsuit alleges. “Due to the lack of septic and sewer access and the increasing number of individuals inhabiting the land, the State believes that Tanner is violating or threatening to violate Chapter 341 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The property is also used as a meeting place for Tanner and his co-conspirators to plan organized criminal activity. The state asks the Court to enjoin Tanner from continuing these illegal activities and assess civil penalties.”
The lawsuit alleges Tanner and his “coconspirators” have violated the law and engaged in “gang activity” by “threatening violence against law enforcement and oil field workers.” The lawsuit also accuses Tanner of violating the DTPA via “misleading” representations he made to his followers to entice them to join him.
Texas is asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order that would:
- Prohibit Tanner or others on the property from discharging sewage in a way that could contaminate the soil or drinking water;
- Prohibit anyone else from moving to the property; and
- Prohibit Tanner from advertising that he’s offering “free” housing in Loving County
In a press release issued Monday announcing the lawsuit, Attorney General Ken Paxton accused Tanner of orchestrating “illegal schemes.”
“His deceptive and unlawful scheme to lure people with free housing for the purpose of conducting a political takeover is a disgustingly fraudulent plot to line his own pockets,” Paxton said. “I will not stand by while frauds try to carve up Texas for themselves and make everyone else sicker and less safe along the way.”
A case number and counsel information for Tanner were not available Monday.
Texas is represented by Lauren McGee and Andrew Brown of the attorney general’s office.
U.S. District Court, Massachusetts
AT&T Beats ERISA Suit
Dallas-based AT&T Inc. recently was granted early dismissal of a lawsuit that had accused it of breaching its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by giving an insurance company authority to fund nearly 100,000 pensions.
A class of plaintiffs had filed suit in March 2024, alleging the telecommunications company had “lost its way and turned its back on its retired workers, choosing to put the pensions of almost 100,000 AT&T retirees in peril, to secure AT&T an enormous profit.”
The plaintiffs’ suit stemmed from AT&T’s decision to purchase group annuity contracts from Athene Annuity and Life Company, a pension risk transfer that relieved AT&T of obligations to account for retirement payments and transferred that responsibility to Athene.
“Although AT&T is worth more than $100 billion … the company decided to fatten its wallet by placing its retirees’ future in the hands of a risky new insurance company that is dependent on its Bermuda-based subsidiary and which has an asset base far riskier than AT&T’s,” the suit alleged.
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that the lawsuit be dismissed Sept. 30, agreeing the plaintiffs “have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
In a notice filed with the court Friday, AT&T said it had no objections to the plaintiffs’ request to file an amended consolidated class action complaint.
“Because the proposed amendment does not cure the defects that led the Court to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its entirety, should the Court grant plaintiffs’ motion, defendants intend to move to dismiss the amended complaint,” the notice reads.
AT&T is represented by Meaghan VerGow, Brian B. Boyle, Shannon M. Barrett and William Pollak of O’Melveny & Myers and Ian D. Roffman and Mark C. Jensen of Nutter, McClennen & Fish.
The plaintiffs are represented by Douglas Brooks and Elizabeth N. Mulvey of Libby Hoopes Brooks & Mulvey and Cyril V. Smith of Zuckerman Spaeder.
The case number is 1:24-cv-10608.
Second Court of Appeals, Fort Worth
Bankruptcy Doesn’t Excuse 15-Year Delay Requesting Reporter’s Record
AutoNation Fort Worth, which does business as Bankston Chevrolet Fort Worth, recently lost an appeal that tried to overturn a damages award in a case involving the sale of an alleged “lemon.”
Linda M. Mitchell had filed a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act suit in 2007, accusing AutoNation and GM of DTPA violations related to her purchase of a 2005 Chevrolet Kodiak that she said had multiple defects. Soon after the jury rendered a verdict against Bankston Chevrolet in 2009, its codefendant in the case, General Motors, filed for bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay that prevented entry of final judgment.
Finally, after the bankruptcy concluded, a Tarrant County district judge in November 2024 entered final judgment in Mitchell’s favor, awarding her $74,518.63 in damages.
As the appellate panel put it, “the timeline of the matter is unusual to say the least.” It rejected AutoNation’s argument that the bankruptcy “absolved” it of fault and “tied its hands in requesting the record.” The panel noted that because the reporter destroyed her notes during the 15-year delay, there was no record it could use to review AutoNation’s challenges.
“At bottom, the principle that AutoNation seems to invoke is that a communication requesting that a document already in existence not be destroyed — the reporter’s notes — constitutes the continuation of a legal action or proceeding,” the panel held. “First, how the preservation notice continues the action is unexplained; after all, the request does not ask the reporter to take an action but to refrain from taking an action, i.e., to simply preserve the status quo. Second, the notice does no more than inform the reporter of the case’s status.”
Justices Dabney Bassel, Elizabeth Kerr and J. Wade Birdwell sat on the panel that issued the 34-page ruling Oct. 9.
Bankston Chevrolet is represented by David F. Farris, John R. Lively Jr. and Daniel R. Aguilar of Lively & Associates.
Mitchell is represented by John P. Knouse of Frisco.
The case number is 02-25-00071-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
CenterPoint Ordered to Respond in Appeal of $15.4M Injury Award
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday ordered CenterPoint Energy to file a response by Nov. 10 to a petition for review filed by a man who is seeking to reinstate a $15.4 million jury award in his favor.
Garrett Wilder was injured in March 2019 while working on a CenterPoint electrical pole and the step bolt he was attached to separated from the pole. Wilder, who was working for an electrical contractor, suffered a traumatic brain injury, fractured his spine and broke multiple bones in his feet and ankles, requiring eight surgeries.
Jurors rendered a verdict in Wilder’s favor on Aug. 15, 2022, but the First Court of Appeals in Houston reversed the result on Aug. 7, 2025, by holding that Chapter 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which limits a property owner’s liability in premises liability cases, applied here in favor of CenterPoint as an easement holder.
In his petition for review filed Aug. 26, Wilder told the state’s high court that the lower court’s holding represents “the first time any Texas appellate court” has determined Chapter 95 applies in this context.
“The court of appeals supported its holding with a brief analysis that cited no on-point authority and simply ignored the many arguments undercutting its conclusion,” the petition argues. “The holding ignores the Legislature’s chosen text and conflicts with Texas law. The Court should grant review.”
In addition to the $15.4 million in actual damages, final judgment awarded Wilder more than $3 million in prejudgment interest.
CenterPoint had told the court on Sept. 3 that it would not be responding to the petition unless the court requested it do so.
Wilder is represented by Matthew C. Matheny and Bryan O. Blevins Jr. of Provost Umphrey, Daniel D. Horowitz III of Houston and Warren W. Harris, Tracy C. Temple and Jacob M. McIntosh of Bracewell.
CenterPoint is represented by R.L. Pete McKinney and H. Dwayne Newton of Newton Jones & McNeely, Christopher C. White of Steptoe and Jessica Z. Barger, Brian J. Cathey and Kelly Clark Morris of Wright Close & Barger.
The case number is 25-0739.
Highland Park ISD Ordered to Respond in Public Records Request Appeal
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday ordered Highland Park Independent School District to file a response by Nov. 10 in a public information case where the Texas Public Policy Foundation is appealing lower court rulings.
In July, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas determined the district would not have to hand over a report regarding financial operations of its Seay Tennis Center, finding the document was protected by the attorney-client privilege.
TPPF had argued that the report wasn’t covered by the attorney-client privilege, and even if it was that the district had waived the privilege. The report was completed by the accounting firm Whitley Penn and provided to the law firm Thompson & Knight, which the district hired to “investigate and provide legal advice” about the district’s operation of the tennis center and its employees’ “handling of the financial operations of the center.”
When TPPF filed a Texas Public Information Act request for the report, the district asked the attorney general for an opinion that it was covered by the attorney-client privilege. The attorney general agreed with the district, and TPPF took its fight to court.
The Dallas appellate court issued a 21-page opinion July 16 upholding Dallas County District Judge Eric V. Moyé’s ruling that the report is privileged and that the district did not waive privilege.
TPPF filed its petition for review Sept. 2. Highland Park ISD had told the court on Sept. 8 it would not file a response to the petition for review unless the court asked it to do so.
TPPF is represented by its own Robert Henneke, Chance Weldon and Christian Townsend.
Highland Park ISD is represented by Meredith Walker of Walsh Gallegos Kyle Robinson & Roalson.
The case number is 05-24-00813-CV.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Dismissal of $7.8B Case Affirmed
On Friday, a three-judge panel affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit where one Israeli electric vehicle company was suing another.
In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright agreed that the lawsuit between OSR Enterprises and REE Automotive didn’t belong in Texas. OSR filed suit in December 2022, seeking $2.6 billion in compensatory damages and $5.2 billion in exemplary damages for REE’s alleged theft of its source code and proprietary files to develop a platform for electric vehicles, according to court documents.
OSR had also accused REE of poaching nine employees who live in Israel, including its head of research and development. Judge Albright had agreed with U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower that, all things considered, Israel “would be a more convenient forum for this dispute.” Judge Albright found there was “little or no local interest in having this case resolved here.”
Judges Edith H. Jones, Carl E. Stewart and Irma Carrillo Ramirez sat on the panel that issued the 16-page opinion.
“Because its evidence does not indicate that OSR will be left with ‘no remedy at all,’ OSR has not overcome the presumption that Israel is an adequate forum,” the panel wrote.
OSR is represented by Paul J. Burgo, Marc. E. Kasowitz and Rachel Bandli of Kasowitz Benson Torres and Andrew Lee and Graham Ryan of Jones Walker.
Ree Automotive is represented by Brad Hancock, Robert Hill, Gabriel Godoy, Maria Gil and Dina McKenney of Holland & Knight and Anthony Sirven of Lawson Huck Gonzalez.
The case number is 24-50779.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Comcast Can’t Undo New Trial Order in Infringement Case
In a one-paragraph order issued Friday, Comcast Cable Communications was denied its request for rehearing and rehearing en banc in its bid to undo an order mandating it face a new patent infringement trial in a dispute with WhereverTV.
In July, a panel of the court revived the lawsuit, reversing the decision of the Florida trial judge who granted a motion ending the case before the jury even heard closing arguments.
WhereverTV, a global TV subscription service, alleged Comcast infringed its patent covering its interactive program guide, and its lawyers had spent two weeks making its case to a jury when U.S. District Judge William Jung of the Middle District of Florida made the rare decision to grant Comcast’s motion for a directed verdict.
On appeal, WhereverTV argued that the district court erred in granting the motion because of its claim constructions of the interactive program guide and “adding and deleting” of channels patent limitations. The patent at issue is a system that employs a global interactive program guide to manage live TV and saved shows or movies via a device connected to the internet from anywhere in the world.
The appellate court agreed with WhereverTV that the district court erred in granting Comcast’s motion by not construing the limitation using the claim construction framework set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., which clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources for claim construction in patent law in 2005.
“The district court’s JMOL cannot stand under the proper construction of this limitation,” the appellate court wrote in its opinion.
Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and Judges Alan D. Lourie, Timothy B. Dyk, Sharon Prost, Jimmie V. Reyna, Richard G. Taranto, Raymond T. Chen, Todd M. Hughes, Kara F. Stoll, Tiffany P. Cunningham and Leonard P. Stark signed off on the order. Judge Pauline Newman did not participate.
WhereverTV is represented by Adam Sanderson, Brett Rosenthal and Jamison Joiner of Reese Marketos.
Comcast is represented by Mark Perry and Robert Niles-Weed of Weil, Gotshal & Manges and David Lisson and Ashok Ramani of Davis Polk & Wardwell.
The case number is 23-2098.
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 jury in the Eastern District of Texas on Friday morning delivered to a company that accused Samsung Electronics of infringing four patents exactly what it asked for: $445.5 million in damages for the telecommunication giant’s willful use of the technology it hadn’t paid for. The technology covered by the patents-in-suit reduces signal interference in cellular network communications, and the idea was conceived of in the early 2000s by inventors and engineers at defense contractor BAE Systems, which intended to sell the tool to the military.
The court-appointed litigation trustee overseeing the GWG Holdings bankruptcy asked a federal judge to approve a settlement with its subsidiary Beneficient that would clear the way for the parties to jointly go after Beneficient’s former director and chief executive officer, Brad Heppner. A Dallas-based financial services firm that sells bonds backed by life insurance policies, GWG filed its Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in April 2022. Dallas-based Beneficient is a financial services firm and a subsidiary of GWG Holdings.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether the state can tax as a tobacco product nicotine pouches that have exploded in popularity in recent years. Whether the tax can be levied on the pouches — which contain nicotine chemically extracted from tobacco — depends on how the court interprets a state tax statute that defines tobacco products as “made of tobacco or a tobacco substitute.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published data that shows between January 2023 and April 2025 nicotine pouch sales nationwide increased 207 percent, from $145.5 million to $446.8 million, illustrating the tax implications of the court’s decision in this case.
Dean Omar Branham Shirley, which has racked up numerous wins on behalf of clients who allege Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused their mesothelioma, got another one last week when a jury hit the company with a $966 million verdict. A California jury determined Mae Moore, who died in December 2021 of mesothelioma, was exposed to Johnson’s baby powder or Shower to Shower, a body powder product, that contained asbestos, that the company was negligent in selling the product and that it was a substantial cause of Moore contracting mesothelioma.
A Montgomery County district judge’s order enjoining construction of a natural gas pipeline and compressor station in Conroe preceded by just a few weeks a decision by Blackfin Pipeline to move the location of the facility. The 193-mile long Blackfin Pipeline is intended to ship gas from Colorado County, just west of Houston along Interstate 10, to Jasper County, just north of Beaumont.
After a 12-day trial in Maricopa County, Arizona, and five hours of deliberations in a dispute between two real estate companies, a jury found ZOM Holding breached its contract with Gray Services and Gray Development and owes more than $296 million in damages. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher attorneys from Texas, many of whom also successfully represented Energy Transfer in a trial against Greenpeace earlier this year, represented Gray.
White & Case partner Sean Gorman is the latest lawyer to participate in The Lawbook’s standing feature Asked & Answered. He spoke about growing up in a small town near Houston, his path to becoming a lawyer and how he celebrates big courtroom victories.
Citing the shutdown of the federal government, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying all proceedings in the litigation brought by U.S. law firms related to presidential executive orders seeking to punish them for representing clients that President Donald Trump opposes. The U.S. Trustee in Houston asked the federal court to issue the same order in the government’s litigation against the Jackson Walker law firm related to the romance scandal involving former bankruptcy judge David Jones.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard its first oral arguments of the new term with a case from Texas. The question presented was whether a trial court violated a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting discussions during an overnight recess.