In this edition of Litigation Roundup, Dr. Phil’s son taps Jackson Walker to defend him from claims he breached a contract with New York City in the making of a television show about the city’s police department and an Energy Transfer subsidiary settles claims that violations of federal pipeline safety rules led to the death of an employee.
In litigation-adjacent news, former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson has been elected president of the American Law Institute. Jefferson, a partner at Alexander Dubose & Jefferson, will continue his appellate practice while serving in the new role that he will assume at ALI’s annual meeting in May.
“I am deeply humbled by this opportunity,” Jefferson said in a news release. “For more than a century, the American Law Institute has strengthened the foundations of our legal system through careful research, spirited deliberation, and a steadfast commitment to the public good. I look forward to working with the extraordinary lawyers, judges, and scholars who volunteer their time to improve the administration of justice.”
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.
Bexar County District Court
Texas Gets $6.8M in Settlement of Veterans Assistance Fraud Case
About three years after the state sued VA Claims Insider, accusing it of defrauding veterans who were seeking disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Attorney General Ken Paxton last week announced a $6.8 million settlement has been reached in the case.
The parties entered an agreed final judgment and permanent injunction Jan. 15, according to court records. The deal requires VACI to forego debt collection efforts on more than $6.8 million from disabled veterans.
When the state brought the lawsuit, alleging violations of the state’s deceptive trade practices act, prosecutors argued VACI’s advertisements “mislead and confuse veterans” into thinking they are receiving certain services for free, while a 12-page contract VACI used “charges exorbitant fees — including the requirement that a veteran pay VACI six times the amount of any disability increase he or she receives after signing up with VACI.”
The state said at the time that VACI was not accredited by the VA, could not provide claim preparation services and that it had previously received a cease-and-desist letter from the federal government for potential violations of the law.
“Disabled veterans are our nation’s heroes who put their lives on the line for our country, and no company will be allowed to pose as a legitimate VA service in order to scam and deceive them,” AG Paxton said in a statement announcing the deal.
Bexar County District Judge Laura Salinas presided over the case.
VACI is represented by Jay Dewald and Ashley Dahlberg of Norton Rose Fulbright.
Texas is represented by Matthew Childrey and Joselyn Mathews of the attorney general’s office.
The case number is 2023CI25316.
Northern District of Texas
Energy Transfer Subsidiary Pays $1.4M, Resolves Pipeline Safety Claims
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer, has agreed to pay the federal government $1.425 million to resolve claims that violations of federal pipeline safety laws resulted in the death of an employee.
Prosecutors filed a complaint against the company in April, after an employee performing maintenance on a pipeline in Meade, Kansas, in March 2020 was struck and killed by a so-called “cleaning pig,” which is a cylindrical object that moves through a pipeline to remove debris and deposits.
According to the complaint, the pig was ejected from a partially pressurized receiver barrel. The government alleged the company failed to follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting such operations.
U.S. Attorney Ryan Raybould issued a statement that the settlement “reflects our commitment to impose accountability in regulatory matters.”
“The outcome here illustrates the importance and necessity of compliance and appropriate enforcement actions to prevent and address tragic circumstances such as those alleged in this case,” he said.
The parties entered a joint stipulation of dismissal Jan. 12 dismissing the allegations.
U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay presided over the case.
The federal government is represented by Brian Stoltz and Saurabh Sharad of the Department of Justice.
Panhandle Eastern is represented by George M. Kryder, Jason J. Fleischer and William S. Scherman of Vinson & Elkins.
The case number is 3:25-cv-01001.
Garland Couple Cops to $2.4M Pesticide, Pet Meds Smuggling Scheme
Lam Mai and Thao Duong of Garland have pleaded guilty to conspiracy to smuggle and sell unregistered and misbranded pesticides and veterinary drugs that were brought into the country from Mexico, prosecutors said.
The couple enlisted coconspirators to get the products from Mexico into California via the Calexico Port of Entry, where they were placed in storage units near the border until other coconspirators would ship the items to Texas, according to the federal government. From there, the couple would sell the products online. The veterinary medications were primarily purchased by those engaged in rooster fighting, prosecutors allege, and the pesticides they sold cannot be legally sold in the United States.
The total value of the products the duo smuggled into the United States between 2018 and 2022 is $2.4 million, according to the government.
U.S. District Judge Ada Brown will preside over Mai’s sentencing in May and Duong’s sentencing in June. Mai and Duong entered their guilty pleas Jan. 20.
Mai is represented by Michael J. Todd of Dallas.
Duong is represented by Danial Gividen of Gividen Law.
The federal government is represented by Vincent J. Mazzurco and Lauren Steele of the Department of Justice.
Mai’s case number is 3:25-cr-00511; Duong’s case number is 3:25-cr-00512.
Southern District of New York
Jackson Walker Defends Dr. Phil’s Son in Breach, Infringement Suit
Jordan McGraw, the son of Dr. Phil McGraw, has hired a legal team from Jackson Walker to defend him in a lawsuit brought by the city of New York alleging he breached a contract and infringed trademarks in his making of a television show about the city’s police department.
The city filed suit in state court Jan. 21, and the case was removed to federal court the following day. According to the lawsuit, in April McGraw, McGraw Media and the chief of staff for former mayor Eric Adams entered a contract that gave McGraw “special, behind-the-scenes, exclusive access to film NYPD operations” with the footage to be used in a multi-episode program tentatively titled “Behind the Badge.”
“Given the sensitive nature of the Department’s work, the express contractual understanding between the parties was that the City, through the Mayor’s Office, would have the opportunity to review rough cuts of the episodes and that certain material, in the reasonable discretion of the City, would not be aired or otherwise disseminated,” the lawsuit alleges. “Now, Defendants have disavowed their obligations to allow the City its say in what material becomes part of the Project, risking immediate and irreparable harm to the City, its employees, and the public at large.”
In particular, the city takes issue with footage that does not obscure the “faces, voices and names of undercover officers” and does not blur the faces of individuals who were in police custody or who are victims of crimes who did not consent to be filmed.
The trademark claims stem from McGraw’s use of the NYPD name and logos, which the city alleges McGraw had permission to use only “in contemplation of compliance with the contract.”
The docket did not indicate on Monday which judge had been assigned to the case.
The city is represented by Amanda Papandrea, Blake Ahlberg and Elisa Lee of the New York City Law Department.
McGraw and McGraw Media are represented by Chip Babcock, Tori Emery, Duncan Robinson and Joel Glover of Jackson Walker.
The case number is 1:26-cv-00598.
First Court of Appeals, Houston
Mootness Ends Appeal in Crown Act Case
When a student at Barbers Hill Independent School District graduated in May 2025, an appellate court recently determined it mooted his lawsuit alleging the district’s hair policy violated the Crown Act, a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of hair texture or discrimination against certain protected hairstyles, such as locs and braids.
The Jan. 22 ruling in the case brought by Darryl George and his mother also vacated the trial court’s rulings, which had held the district’s policy that limits the hair length of male students was not unlawful under the Crown Act.
“The parties have raised important questions of first impression, and they have done so with commendable clarity and rigor,” the panel wrote. “Ordinarily, such questions would warrant a decision on the merits. Yet the judicial role is bounded by constitutional and prudential limits. Because the case has become moot, those limits prevent us from answering the important questions before us.”
In a footnote, the panel also addressed an argument George had raised after oral arguments in a letter brief: that because of how long it takes appeals to be determined, if this case is dismissed on mootness grounds it will have the practical effect of meaning only freshman or sophomore students subjected to the district’s hair policy “will likely ever be able to obtain relief from Texas courts.”
“We note that if a live controversy arises between the district and another student who is adversely affected by the policy, nothing prevents those parties from seeking an expeditious resolution of their dispute in a trial court,” the panel wrote. “And in the event either party appeals the trial court’s judgment, appellate courts, including this court, routinely consider requests for accelerated consideration of appeals when hearing the appeal in due course could have the undesirable result of depriving the court of jurisdiction.”
Justices Veronica Rivas-Molloy, David Gunn and Jennifer Caughey sat on the panel.
George is represented by Dylan O. Drummond of Langley & Banack and Allie R. Booker of Booker Law Firm.
The district is represented by Sara Leon, Michelle Alcala and Hans P. Graff of Leon Alcala.
The case number is 01-24-00789-CV.
Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas
Panel Rejects Immunity Argument, Says Katten Must Face Suit
Katten Muchin Rosenman lost an appeal in a case where it argued a trial court had wrongly denied its Rule 91a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by two individuals who were indicted in a criminal proceeding.
As Katten explained in its petition for writ of mandamus filed in November, it successfully represented a client who was the subject of a criminal investigation related to potential healthcare fraud involving Trinity Clinical Laboratory but was not indicted. The two other individuals, who were subject to the same criminal investigation, were represented by separate counsel and were indicted. Two years later, those charges were dismissed with prejudice, according to court documents, but the men filed suit against Katten and two of its former lawyers related to their indictment.
“Despite that they are now free from prosecution, plaintiffs seek to cash in by suing experienced defense counsel for successfully representing another client,” the firm argued in its petition.
The two non-clients, Katten told the court, alleged they had an oral joint defense agreement that “required protection of confidential information shared among the parties.”
In the two-page opinion issued Jan. 22, the panel denied Katten’s petition for writ of mandamus and wrote that the firm’s pleadings had failed to establish “that attorney immunity conclusively bars their claims as required for Rule 91a dismissal.”
“Although the alleged conduct falls within the scope of legal representation, the pleadings raise a legitimate question whether the relationship between relators’ client and the real parties was adversarial for purposes of attorney immunity,” the panel wrote. “Where immunity turns on that unresolved adversarial-context inquiry, it is not a clear legal bar apparent from the pleadings, and mandamus relief is unavailable.”
Justices Emily Miskel, Nancy Kennedy and Mike Lee sat on the panel.
Katten is represented by Eric W. Pinker, Leo Park and Paulina Nenclares of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann.
The real parties in interest are represented by Michael P. Lyons of Lyons & Simmons and Matthew A. Nowak of Nowak & Stauch.
The case number is 05-25-01525-CV.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Panel Rejects Environmental Group’s Challenge to LNG Project
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality did not run afoul of controlling requirements when it granted a third extension of a deadline to begin construction to Texas LNG, a liquid natural-gas terminal project in Brownsville, an appellate court has determined.
The South Texas Environmental Justice Network had appealed the TCEQ decision to the Fifth Circuit in November 2024, arguing Texas LNG’s permit had become void prior to the granting of the third extension, that the state agency’s executive director failed to comply with procedural requirements for granting extensions and that TexasLNG also failed to meet the requirements to receive a third extension.
The appellate court determined the executive director was within her authority to grant the extension and that the relevant law “imposes no procedural requirements on the executive director before she may grant an extension.”
“Subsection 116.120(c) governs third extensions and plainly requires only two conditions,” the panel wrote. “As ‘the evidence as a whole is such that reasonable minds could have [concluded]’ Texas LNG received a litigation-related extension and satisfied the expenditure requirements, TCEQ did not err in denying STEJN’s motion to overturn. Even applying the more rigorous standard urged by STEJN, we find substantial evidence in the record supports TCEQ’s action.”
Judges Patrick E. Higginbotham, James C. Ho and Dana M. Douglas sat on the panel that issued the Jan. 14 opinion. The panel heard oral arguments in November.
South Texas Environmental Justice Network is represented by David Bookbinder of the Environmental Integrity Project.
Texas LNG Brownsville is represented by Beth W. Petronio of K&L Gates.
TCEQ is represented by Catherine Hobson, Amanda Cagle, Kelly Keel, Eno Peters and Wesley Williams of the office of the attorney general.
The case number is 24-60580.
Panel Revives Allstate’s RICO Suit Over Attorney-Doctor Billing Situation
Allstate Indemnity Company will get another chance to proceed with a lawsuit alleging it was the victim of a billing scheme that caused it to pay for fraudulently billed services as part of settlements between the insurer and certain patients.
A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit revived the RICO lawsuit against a Houston emergency medical center and several affiliated entities Jan. 14.
Allstate filed its notice of appeal Jan. 21, 2025, seeking to overturn a ruling from U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt that had dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and denied Allstate leave to amend its complaint.
The main defendants in the lawsuit are Memorial Heights Emergency Center and Dr. Akash Bhagat, who in 2018 after entering agreements with personal injury attorneys guaranteeing payment for medical services from future insurance settlements created two corporate entities to bill facility and physician fees to car accident patients referred by the attorneys.
“Via those entities, defendants charged the referred patients using emergency billing codes, sometimes at rates nearly triple those normally charged,” the opinion reads. “Visits from car accident patients to Memorial Heights doubled. … Memorial Heights typically gave the patients several expensive diagnostic tests — including multiple CT scans — without properly documenting the need, only to discharge them without further treatment.”
Between August 2018 and November 2022, Allstate settled with 635 claimants who had been treated at Memorial Heights and later filed a suit to recover about $4.7 million in settlement money, in addition to treble damages, according to the opinion.
Judge Hoyt dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, finding Allstate failed to allege it relied on the fraudulent bills when settling the claims, that the failed to adequately plead the fraudulent bills caused an injury and that Allstate was “complicit” because it continued to engage in settlement negotiations when it knew about the fraud.
The appellate panel wrote that the judge had wrongly found that a fraud-based RICO claim requires Allstate to prove it relied on the allegedly fraudulent bills in settling each claim.
“Allstate sufficiently alleged the Memorial Heights scheme proximately caused it to pay for fraudulently billed services as part of the settlements between Allstate and the relevant patients. … the district court here erred by finding the settlements were an intervening cause barring Allstate’s claims,” the panel wrote.
Judges Stuart Kyle Duncan, Don R. Willett and Rhesa H. Barksdale sat on the panel.
Allstate is represented by Wade Crosnoe and John Wiggins of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons and Laura Sherry, Katherine Frank, Taylor Steele and Bret Weatherford of Knox Ricksen.
The defendants are represented by Brian Humphrey II of Humphrey Law, Brian A. Baker of Stacy & Baker and Randy Sorrels and H. Victor Thomas Jr. of Sorrels Law.
The case number is 25-20020.
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.
Commissioner John Wiley Price is facing a lawsuit seeking up to $1 million in damages for alleged defamation of Dallas County District Judge Vonda Bailey. Judge Bailey’s lawsuit points to comments Price made during Commissioners Court meetings last year regarding her clearance rate and attendance as the basis of her claims.
Earlier this month, a jury in East Texas determined that BOE Technology Group owes $66.8 million in damages for infringing three patents owned by Longitude Licensing that cover semiconductor devices and methods for configuring pixel electrode orientations in LCD displays that are used in computers, monitors and televisions.
A proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Texas claims former bankruptcy Judge David Jones, former Jackson Walker bankruptcy partner Elizabeth Freeman and major law firms allegedly hid the romantic relationship between Jones and Freeman. Jones resigned from the bench in 2023 after news of his relationship with Freeman was publicly reported.
Dorsey & Whitney bolstered its litigation practice with the addition of Chelsea Hilliard from McGuireWoods. Hilliard serves on the Dallas Bar Association board of directors. She is the immediate past president of the Dallas Women Lawyers Association.
Chrysta Castañeda, who closed her law firm at the end of 2025, spoke with The Lawbook about what her next chapter will look like and what she hopes her legacy will be.