In this edition of Litigation Roundup, an attorney who cited made-up cases to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas gets sanctioned, American Airlines is sued by a former pilot who alleges he was shortchanged on disability benefits, and the Texas Supreme Court answers a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in one of the final weeks of its term.
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.
Northern District of Texas
Former American Airlines Pilot Sues Over Disability Benefits
American Airlines has been accused by a former pilot of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by “systematically” miscalculating and withholding long-term disability benefits.
Ronald R. Galuppo Jr. filed his putative class action lawsuit June 6 in the Fort Worth Division, naming American Airlines, American Airlines Employee Benefits Committee and third-party claims administrator Harvey Watt & Company as defendants.
Galuppo alleges the defendants shortchanged him and possibly others by “improperly excluding certain forms of compensation, including vacation, ratification bonuses, profit sharing, one-time supplemental payment, bereavement, grievance payouts, extended sick bank and special assignment from the calculation of average monthly compensation used to determine the monthly LTD benefit amount under the plan.”
The miscalculation, Galuppo alleges, has resulted in his receiving about $4,000 less each month than what he’s entitled to.
According to the lawsuit, Galuppo was a pilot for AA for 26 years and became “totally disabled” in August 2023. Galuppo challenged the alleged miscalculation of his benefits through an administrative review process in June 2024, and after that appeal failed, he unsuccessfully appealed again in January 2025.
Galuppo alleges the defendants “refused to engage in a meaningful dialogue” on the issue and “conducted a perfunctory, biased and sham review.”
The suit, which has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman, also brings a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
Galuppo is represented by Andrew B. Stephens and Heather G. Hacker of Hacker Stephens in Austin and Rex A. Sharp and Hammons P. Hepner of Sharp Law in Prairie Village, Kansas.
Counsel for the defendants had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case number is 4:25-cv-00599.
U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Oilfield Technology Co. Gets Complete Win
A team of lawyers from Haynes Boone recently secured a win for Downing Wellhead Equipment in a dispute before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board involving competitor Intelligent Wellhead Systems.
The PTAB win — upholding all 38 claims of a hydraulic fracturing patent — comes as Downing is currently pursuing patent infringement claims against IWS in federal court in Colorado. Downing alleges IWS has infringed two of its patents covering continuous pumping technology.
The PTAB rejected IWS’ arguments that Downing’s patents were invalid based on anticipation and obviousness. IWS also unsuccessfully challenged the patents in three inter partes review cases. The technology covered by the patents, according to Downing, makes fracking “safer and more efficient” by reducing equipment transition times and minimizing personnel exposure.
Haynes Boone partner Scott Jarratt, called the ruling a “resounding win” for Downing “and a clear affirmation of the strength and clarity of its continuous pumping patents.”
“We’re proud to defend a technology that is reshaping the efficiency and safety of modern energy operations,” he said.
The case was decided by administrative patent judges Benjamin D.M. Wood, Carl M. DeFranco and Frederick C. Laney.
Downing is also represented by Laura Vu, Tiffany Cooke, Russ Emerson, Caroline Fox, Brooke Parker and Andrew Drott of Haynes Boone.
Intelligent Wellhead is represented by Tammy Terry and Lisa Margonis of Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton.
The case number is IPR2024-00300.
Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas
Justices Sanction Attorney for Citing Nonexistent Cases
An attorney who cited nonexistent cases in briefing to the Fifth Court of Appeals has been ordered to undergo three hours of ethics training, five hours of technology training and pay $2,500 in attorney fees to the other side.
“While the attorney did not act with intent to deceive, she failed to verify the information before filing it with the court and failed to explain or correct the citations even after the appellee, in its opening brief, pointed out the citations were of non-existent cases,” the panel wrote. “The panel finds that this conduct violated basic duties of competence and candor as contemplated by the rules governing professional conduct. In light of the circumstances, the panel imposes a sanction designed to educate the attorney and uphold the standards of the legal profession.”
A three-justice panel doled out that punishment to Heidi Rochon Hafer in an order issued June 12. Hafer was representing herself and her sister, Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig, in an appeal in a fraudulent transfer case when she cited the fake cases that purported to support her position on Texas gift law. The sisters, according to court documents, received jewelry valued at more than $1 million from their parents, former Mary Kay Cosmetics Chairman John Rochon Sr. and Donna Rochon.
The parents owe JGB Collateral the balance of a $6.7 million judgment, according to court documents, and JGB filed suit to recover the valuables, alleging the transfer violated the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The sisters have argued they’re entitled to keep the jewelry, which was a gift.
Hafer filed the brief in question on May 16, 2024, and JGB’s attorneys told the court in an Aug. 14 brief it should reject the sisters’ arguments because “they rely on cases that do not exist.”
In her response filed April 20, Hafer said that “despite exhaustive research in every reporter, online database and regional archive available to appellants’ counsel, appellants’ counsel has been unable to locate the four authorities.”
She did not “keep a record of all the internet searches done” for the May brief, she explained, “and an attempt to recreate the general internet searches and FastCase searching now is not producing the source of these four cases.”
“Appellants’ counsel accepts full responsibility for the error and has implemented enhanced protocols — including mandatory double-check of all non-primary research — so that no comparable mistake will recur,” she wrote, explaining she was trying to provide the court with case law on what constitutes a valid gift in Texas and “was not attempting to sway the Court with fake cites for unsupported propositions.”
The panel wrote that “every attorney has an ongoing responsibility to review and ensure the accuracy of filings with this and other courts.”
“This includes checking that all case law cited in a brief actually exists and supports the points being made,” the panel held. “It is never acceptable to rely on software or technology — no matter how advanced — without reviewing and verifying the information. The use of AI or other technology does not excuse carelessness or failure to follow professional standards.”
Justices Nancy Kennedy, Emily Miskel and Gino J. Rossini sat on the panel.
JGB Collateral is represented by Jeffrey S. Lowenstein, Gwen I. Walraven and David G. Webster of Bell Nunnally & Martin.
The sisters are also represented by John G. Browning and Ryan G. Cole of Ryan G. Cole Law in McKinney.
The case number is 05-24-00123-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
Justices Answer Fifth Circuit’s Certified Question, Sort Of
The Texas Supreme Court’s newest justice referenced the famous Saturday Night Live sketch featuring Will Ferrell as a member of Blue Öyster Cult when explaining, in a dissent, why he would have declined to answer a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In August, the Fifth Circuit asked the Texas Supreme Court to interpret an amendment to the state constitution that bars the government from enacting any rule that “prohibits or limits” “religious services” by answering the following question:
“Does the ‘Religious Service Protections’ provision of the Constitution of the State of Texas — as expressed in Article 1, Section 6-a — impose a categorical bar on any limitation of any religious service, regardless of the sort of limitation and the government’s interest in that limitation?”
The question arose in a dispute between Gary Perez, a member of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church who worships at a specific place in a public park in San Antonio, and the city of San Antonio, which blocked access to the area and announced it intended to remove a large number of trees in the park. Perez has contended the trees are integral to his religious practice.
In a 36-page opinion issued Friday, the court wrote that “when the clause applies, its force is absolute and categorical, meaning it forbids governmental limitations on religious services regardless of the government’s interest in the limitation or how tailored the limitation is to that interest, but the scope of the clause’s applicability is not unlimited.”
“Without attempting to precisely or comprehensively define that scope today, we conclude it does not extend to the government’s preservation and management of publicly owned lands,” the majority held.
Justice James P. Sullivan did not join the majority, and in an eight-page dissent explained he would have declined the Fifth Circuit’s “expansive invitation to issue an advisory opinion on a ‘new provision’ of our Bill of Rights” that has yet to be interpreted by any Texas court.
“I don’t think this Court should answer the Fifth Circuit’s question,” Justice Sullivan wrote. “Neither do my wise colleagues, judging from the majority opinion. Today’s opinion is characteristically thoughtful but tellingly nonresponsive. Rather than answer a question we wish had been asked, we should exercise our discretion not to issue the advisory opinion that was actually requested.”
The Fifth Circuit’s question asked the Texas Supreme Court to give an “advisory opinion” on “an abstract question of law,” he wrote.
“Perhaps recognizing as much, the majority refuses this certified request to take Section 6-a and ‘really explore the studio space,’” he wrote, attributing the quote to the April 2000 SNL sketch.
Perez is represented by Mark W. Rasmussen, Margaret I. Lyle, Chance McCraw and Timothy M. Villari of Jones Day and John Greil and Steven T. Collis of the University of Texas School of Law.
San Antonio is represented by Jane Webre and Eli Barrish of Scott Douglass & McConnico, Fred R. Jones, Natalie Wilson, Ian McLin, Lee Warren and Sara Murray of Langley & Banack and Debora Klein of the city’s legal department.
The case number is 24-0714.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No Class Notice? No Attorney Fee Award
A failure to notify a class of plaintiffs that an attorney would be receiving $16,020 in attorney fees for work done on the case dooms the award, a panel of judges determined June 10.
The decision came in a lawsuit brought by James Morrow and a group of plaintiffs against the East Texas city of Tenaha alleging violations of the Fourth and 14th amendments related to a “stop and seize” policy that the plaintiffs said targeted “individuals who are or appear to be, members of a racial or ethnic minority or their passengers.”
The lawsuit ended with a settlement, according to the opinion, and the parties entered into a consent decree.
On appeal, Morrow argued that the failure of the district court to provide classwide notice of the motion for attorney fees was an abuse of discretion. The city argued Morrow had waived the issue by failing to raise it in the district court.
“That this is a class action underscores the importance of addressing the notice issue notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ potential forfeiture,” the panel wrote.
“It is impossible to assume how class members who were never informed of the fourth attorney fees motion would have viewed it,” the court held in remanding the case back to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. “They must be given the opportunity to review and object to the motion for attorney fees — as they are entitled by Rule 23 — before we or the district court can decide what fees are reasonable.”
Judges Don R. Willett, Catharina Haynes and Andrew S. Oldham sat on the panel. Judge Oldham concurred in the judgment only, according to a footnote in the eight-page opinion.
The city is represented by Erika Neill of Lufkin and Chad Rook of Tyler.
Morrow is represented by Timothy Garrigan and Timothy Craig of Stuckey & Garrigan in Nacogdoches.
The case number is 23-40546.