In this edition of Litigation Roundup, the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to review a Fifth Circuit decision against the Federal Communications Commission, we identify the Dallas lawyers who helped secure a nearly $100 million verdict for the family of Botham Jean, and Vedder Price is tapped to represent NFL quarterback Baker Mayfield in a $12 million family feud.
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.
Collin County District Court
Jury Returns $2.1M Verdict in Family Car Wash Business Dispute
A jury has determined a man who went into business alongside his uncle in 2014 to purchase an oil change franchise and car wash is the 100 percent owner of the business and is entitled to $2.1 million in damages.
Ahmad Zidan filed suit against his uncle, Mohammed “Alex” Zidan, in June 2018, not long after allegedly discovering his uncle was funneling company money for personal use. The duo had gone into business together in 2014 to form Prime United, which operated a Kwik Kar Oil Change franchise and Legacy Car Wash and Detail Center,
Ahmad Zidan is represented by Julie Pettit of The Pettit Law Firm, who noted in a statement that her client had invested his life savings into the venture.
“My client mortgaged his future on the belief that family ties would make for stronger business bonds,” she said. “Instead, he discovered his uncle was using company funds as a personal piggy bank for gambling, hypnosis treatments, a monster truck, speculative investments, and supporting other family members.”
Collin County District Judge Hill Renfro Willis presided over the case.
The jury returned its verdict Nov. 20, determining Ahmad Zidan is entitled to $1.1 million in compensatory damages at $1 million in exemplary damages.
Mohammed Zidan is represented by Christin Petty and Melissa Sternfels of Conklin Sternfels Petty.
The case number is 429-02708-2018.
Maine Business and Consumer Court
A&O Shearman Gets Defense Win for DOW
A team of litigators from A&O Shearman recently claimed victory in a lawsuit brought by the state of Maine, seeking to hold its client, Dow Inc., liable for groundwater, surface water and soil contamination caused by so-called PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Maine filed suit March 29, 2023, against 3M Company, EIDP Inc., The Chemours Company, Corteva and Dupont de Nemours. Dow was involved in the litigation not because it manufactured the substances underpinning the claims but because it had in 2017 merged with and subsequently in 2019 separated from DuPont.
Dow filed two motions for dismissal, arguing there was no jurisdiction to bring it into the case and that Maine had failed to state a claim under which relief can be granted. Maine agreed to dismiss constructive fraudulent transfer claims against Dow but maintained that the company had been involved in fraudulent transfers intended to defraud DuPont creditors.
Judge Michael Duddy, who presided over the case, sided with Dow in an Oct. 30 ruling dismissing the remainder of the claims against Dow after finding Maine had failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the company.
Emily Westridge Black of A&O Shearman, who represents Dow, issued a statement to The Lawbook calling the claims that were lodged against her client in this case representative of a larger trend.
“In recent years, the plaintiffs’ bar has been pushing novel and increasingly aggressive theories of corporate liability and corporate personal jurisdiction,” she said. “Here, for example, the State sought to hold Dow liable for substances it never manufactured in a jurisdiction where it had no contacts, based solely on its fleeting affiliation with DuPont many years ago. We are pleased that the court rejected those efforts and are honored to partner with Dow on this important case.”
Dow is also represented by Billy Marsh, David Garfinkel and Nathan Romo of A&O Shearman.
Maine is represented by its attorney general, Aaron M. Frey, assistant attorneys general Scott Boak and Robert Martin, Matthew Pawa and Benjamin Krass of Seeger Weiss and Kyle J. McGee, Viola Vetter and Jason H. Wilson of Grant & Eisenhofer.
The case number is BCD-CIV-2023-65.
Northern District of Texas
Jury Awards Botham Jean’s Family $98.6M
Dallas lawyers Daryl K. Washington of Washington Law Firm and Brooke Cluse of Ben Crump Law were among the team of attorneys who recently secured a $96.65 million verdict in favor of the family of Botham Jean.
Jean was shot and killed inside his apartment in September 2018 by then-Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who was off duty at the time and maintained she believed she was entering her apartment and fired shots at Jean believing he was an intruder.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the family Nov. 20, awarding $38.65 million in compensatory damages and $60 million in punitive damages. The damages award was predicated on findings that Guyger had used excessive force and had acted with malice, willfulness or callous and reckless indifference to Jean’s safety or rights.
Senior U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn presided over the three-day trial that began Nov. 18. The Jean family filed the federal lawsuit in October 2018.
The Jean family is also represented by Bhavani Raveendran, Colton Taylor and Antonio Romanucci of Romanucci & Blandin in Chicago, and Ben Crump and Gabrielle Higgins of Ben Crump Law in Tallahassee, Florida.
Guyger, who is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence, represented herself. She had previously retained the following attorneys, whose representation was terminated, according to PACER: Joseph Cox of Duane Morris, Mark E. Goldstucker of Richardson, Texas, and Michael Mowla of Cedar Hill, Texas.
The case number is 3:18-cv-02862.
Western District of Texas
Vedder Price Reps NFL’s Baker Mayfield in $12M Suit Against Father
Baker Mayfield has hired Vedder Price to represent him in litigation against Camwood Capital Management, a company owned by his father and brother, and several Camwood subsidiaries, accusing them of breaching the terms of a $12 million settlement agreement.
Mayfield and his wife, Emily Mayfield, filed suit against Camwood Capital Management Group, Texas Contract Manufacturing Group, Unitech Tool & Machine, Apex Machining and Lor-Van Manufacturing on Friday in Austin federal court. According to the nine-page lawsuit, Camwood is owned and operated by James W. Mayfield and Matt Mayfield.
The lawsuit alleges that starting in 2018 the defendants began transferring $12.2 million “belonging to Baker and Emily Mayfield,” into various accounts, including those of Texas Contracting Manufacturing Group, and used them to pay general operating expenses “without proper accounting or explanation.”
“Those funds were taken without authorization and with an apparent belief by defendants that they need not be repaid. Defendants did not book or account for any indebtedness from TCMG (or any other defendant) to plaintiffs, nor did plaintiffs receive any equity interest in any defendant company,” the lawsuit alleges.
Discovery of these unauthorized transfers led to the parties entering a $11.7 million settlement agreement under which the defendants would begin repaying the amounts owed under an agreed-upon schedule.
The first payment, of $250,000, was due Sept. 30, the lawsuit alleges, and a second payment in the same amount is due Dec. 31.
Baker Mayfield alleges he’s received no payment and that he’s also been unable to obtain access to Camwood’s books and records, which is another term of the settlement agreement he alleges has been breached.
Baker Mayfield alleges the breach of the settlement means Camwood is obligated to repay the full $11.7 million immediately. The settlement agreement had given defendants until the end of 2028 to repay the funds.
As of Monday, PACER did not reflect that the case had been assigned to a district judge.
Mayfield is represented by Arianna G. Goodman and Jonathon P. Reinisch of Vedder Price.
Counsel for the defendants had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case number is 1:24-cv-01455.
Google Files Trade Secrets Case Against Former Silicon Engineer
A former silicon engineer who worked for Google in India has been sued by the tech giant for allegedly misappropriating its trade secrets in blatant social media posts.
Google filed suit against Harshit Roy on Nov. 19, four days after it alleges it served him with papers on the University of Texas at Austin campus seeking an out-of-court resolution to the matter.
“Roy ignored Google’s efforts at resolution, thereby forcing Google to seek emergency relief from this court,” the suit alleges.
According to the lawsuit, Roy was hired in Bangalore, India, in June 2020 as a silicon engineer, working on the design, development and deployment of certain chips to be used in Google’s Pixel devices. About three years later, he was assigned to work on the next generation of chips that would be used in Google’s unreleased Pixel products, which gave him access to trade secrets.
“When Google hired Roy, it had no reason to believe that Roy would end up secretly collecting Google’s trade secrets and, years later, publishing the secrets after he relocated to Austin, Texas,” Google told the court. “Nor did Google expect Roy to ignore its attempts at a resolution outside of litigation and to, instead, publicly tout his malfeasance, including by, on X and LinkedIn, admitting that he will use ‘unethical means’ to harm Google, that he would ‘[not] adhere to any confidentiality agreement,’ and publicizing that the impetus for his disclosure of Google’s trade secrets was to see Google ‘fall.’”
Roy is accused of taking photos of trade secret information, namely specifications for hardware and software used in Pixel devices, and disseminating those photographs online. When Roy was still living in India, Google alleges it discovered he had possession of certain photographs containing trade secrets, confronted him about it and said he agreed in December 2023 to delete all photos.
Roy sent proof of the deletions then resigned from the company in February. In August, he moved to Austin to begin a doctoral program in electrical and computer engineering at UT, according to the lawsuit.
That same month, he wrote on X, “I need to take unethical means to get what I am entitled to.”
In the days that followed, Google alleges, Roy began posting photos of Google’s trade secrets online and that information has subsequently been used by various media outlets to publish stories about Google’s technology.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, who on Nov. 20 granted Google’s request for a temporary restraining order. A hearing on the tech company’s motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Dec. 3.
Google is represented by Jason Storck and Matthew Gorman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
Counsel for Roy had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case number is 1:24-cv-01425.
Southern District of Texas
Devon Energy Gets Defense Win in $70M Tort Lawsuit
A team from McGuireWoods secured a defense win for Devon Energy in a two-week trial where Enable Mississippi River Transmission was seeking $70 million in damages.
Enable, which filed suit in April 2023, had alleged Devon had wrongfully produced gas that migrated from its underground storage facility into Devon’s nearby production field in northern Louisiana.
U.S. District Judge Drew B. Tipton presided over the case that ended with the jury’s verdict Nov. 14. The panel deliberated for 15 minutes before deciding Enable had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Devon was liable under Article 667 of the Louisiana Civil Code.
Judge Tipton entered final judgment in favor of Devon Nov. 19.
Devon is represented by Thomas Farrell, Gregory DuBoff and Ryan Frankel of McGuireWoods and Aimee Hebert of Kelly Hart & Hallman.
Enable is represented by Audrey Hendricks, Justin Tschoepe, Matthew Zorn, Pamela Hemphill, Paul Yetter, Susanna Allen, Justin Rowinsky, Reagan Simpson and Shayna M. Goldblatt Proler of Yetter Coleman, Charles A. Beckham Jr. of Haynes Boone, Joseph Shea Jr and Joshua Chevallier of Bradley Murchison Kelly Shea, and Bryan J. Wells and Kiran Phansalkar of Conner & Winters.
The case number is 6:23-cv-00025.
District of Delaware, Bankruptcy Court
$100M Settlement Ends Dispute between Plains All American Pipeline, Venoco
On Nov. 15, a $100 million settlement agreement between Plains All American Pipeline and the trustee overseeing the liquidation of Venoco was reached, bringing an end to the litigation stemming from a 2015 pipeline rupture.
The pipeline, referred to as the Line 901 pipeline, was owned and operated by Plains All American at the time of the incident where oil was spilled along the coastline of Santa Barbara, California. Regulators ordered the pipeline shut down, and the federal government found Plains was responsible for the incident.
Venoco relied on that pipeline to move oil from its offshore oil platform to its buyers, which “accounted for the lion’s share of the company’s revenue,” according to court documents. Venoco sued seeking damages but was forced to file for bankruptcy and liquidate after two years of limited production.
Venoco’s attorneys from Yetter Coleman “overcame significant legal hurdles, including an early complete dismissal that was affirmed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” on the way to securing the eventual $100 million settlement.
Eventually, the team was able to get the case reinstated, based on a new California appellate decision. Then the case was remanded to state court in Santa Barbara for an eight-week trial that began in July.
“After the Yetter Coleman team presented the Liquidating Trustee’s case, based on Plains’ negligence in maintaining Line 901 that caused the pipeline to rupture and spill oil, which caused Venoco’s substantial damages, the parties reached a settlement,” according to court documents.
Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John T. Dorsey presided over the case.
The liquidating trustee is represented by Paul Yetter, Tim McConn, Tracy LeRoy, Wynn McCloskey, Audrey Hendricks, Chris Ward, Jane Ray, Luke Schamel, Bonnie Fraase and Alishan Alibhai of Yetter Coleman, Mark E. Dendinger of Bracewell and Robert J. Dehney, Matthew O. Talmo and Andrew R. Remming of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel.
Plains All American is represented by its own Russell Miller and by Brad Brian, Henry Weissman and Daniel Levin of Munger, Tolles & Olson.
The case number is 17-10828.
Northern District of West Virginia
Class Certification Denied in Suit Against Southwestern Energy, SWN Production
A group of mineral owner plaintiffs suing Southwestern Energy and SWN Production over alleged “well bashing” that curtailed their royalty payments will not get to proceed as a class action against the energy companies.
U.S. District Judge John Preston Bailey issued an order denying class certification Nov. 12 holding “class type issues do not predominate” in the litigation brought by lead plaintiff Craig Yoho. Well bashing is defined in court documents as the act of drilling a “child well” near an older “parent well” that’s already producing natural gas.
Yoho had filed his putative class action complaint in March 2023, according to court records, alleging that the “shoddy drilling and completion practices and engineering” perpetrated by the defendant companies diminished the value of their royalty interests in parent wells operated by Southwestern.
“To determine if there was a decline in the estimated ultimate recovery in each parent well, a well-by-well analysis is necessary to look at each well’s production trends,” Judge Bailey wrote. “Plaintiff’s own expert admits, ‘[e]ach well is going to be a little bit different.’ Analyzing the relevant data for one parent well does not provide answers as to any other parent well because ‘each well is unique’ and ‘every well is different.’ There being no common questions is further highlighted by plaintiff’s decision to pursue damages as to only 10 of the 14 well pairs listed in the complaint.”
Yoho is represented by Athanasios Basdekis, Brian R. Swiger, James Wolfe, John W. Barrett, John A. Budig and Victor S. Woods of Bailey & Glasser.
Southwestern and SWN are represented by Francisco Escobar-Calderon, Paul Yetter, and Robert Woods of Yetter Coleman and Robert M. Stonestreet, Timothy M. Miller and Chelsea Heinz of Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir.
The case number is 5:23-cv-00101.
U.S. Supreme Court
Fifth Circuit’s FCC Ruling Will be Heard by SCOTUS
As experts who spoke to The Lawbook in July predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case where the Fifth Circuit created a circuit split by striking down as unconstitutional the Federal Communications Commission’s delegation of taxing authority to a third party.
The high court granted the petition for writ of certiorari Nov. 22 in the case that may decide the future of the FCC’s universal service fund, which is used to subsidize phone and internet services for rural and low-income areas, as well as schools, hospitals and libraries, across the country.
The Fifth Circuit issued a 9-7 ruling against the FCC and in favor of Consumers’ Research in July, and in September, the entity filed a cert petition to the Supreme Court. With the holding, the conservative Fifth Circuit did what the Sixth, Eleventh and D.C. circuits had declined to do in cases brought by the conservative nonprofit Consumers’ Research against the FCC raising this same issue.
The FCC is represented by Gerard J. Sinzdak, Mark B. Stern. Vivek Suri, Malcolm L. Stewart and Brian M. Boynton of the Department of Justice.
Consumers’ Research is represented by R. Trent McCotter and Jared Kelson of Boyden Gray in Washington, D.C.
The case number is 24-354.