In this edition of Litigation Roundup, a Dallas-based lender can’t escape a $6.7 million judgment, and a man injured on the job asks the Texas Supreme Court to reinstate his $15.4 million win against 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.
Western District of Texas
Judge Albright Hits Pause on Texas’ ESG Disclosure Rule
U.S. District Judge Alan Albright has sided with Glass, Lewis & Co. and Institutional Shareholder Services, who allege a new Texas law violates the First Amendment and constitutes viewpoint discrimination, and has granted an injunction to bar the law from taking effect.
The judge issued the ruling from the bench following a hearing Friday afternoon, writing in a text order in the docket that the firms had “satisfied the standard for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” The proxy advisory firms had filed separate lawsuits challenging the law, known as S.B. 2337, in July.
Glass Lewis, in a 45-page suit, called SB 2337 a “novel, first-of-its-kind law” that was passed by lawmakers as “part of a wave of political pushback against ESG and DEI initiatives.” Under the law, proxy advisers are required to tell clients their recommendations are “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders” if they have made the recommendation “wholly or partly based on … one or more nonfinancial factors, including … an environmental, social or governance goal, factor or investment principle” or “diversity, equity or inclusion.”
“Whenever Glass Lewis’ speech reflects certain viewpoints disfavored by the government, the Act compels Glass Lewis to broadcast the government’s contrary viewpoint and publicly condemn itself: Glass Lewis must tell its clients that its services are ‘not being provided solely in the financial interest of the company’s shareholders’ and ‘conspicuously disclose’ this warning on the firm’s website homepage,” the company alleged.
ISS said in its 38-page lawsuit that the law “identifies particular investment objections that the state of Texas disagrees with, labels them ‘nonfinancial factors,’ and imposes onerous regulations on proxy advisors who consider — at their clients’ request — these objectives as part of their service of providing proxy advice to those clients.”
ISS said the law will subject it and others to “burdensome regulatory requirements for the act of giving investment advice that Texas does not like.” The company asked the court to rule on its motion for a preliminary injunction by Sept. 1.
The lawsuits also reference comments lawmakers — Texas Sen. Bryan Hughes and Texas Rep. Jeff Leach — made when the bill was being discussed and debated in the Legislature.
“[T]he point here is to make sure that proxy advisory firms, when they’re rendering advice . . . that they’re focused on economic factors. … So, when they’re focused on non-economic-type factors, whether it’s ESG, whether it’s DEI … that’s what we want to prevent,” the lawsuit states, purportedly quoting Leach.
Hughes allegedly said during a debate on the bill April 24 that “proxy advisory firms have become increasingly political with a hard left bent.”
Days before Judge Albright’s ruling, on Aug. 22, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement calling the new law “critical for promoting transparency in corporate America” and vowing to “continue to defend it aggressively in the courts.”
“The role of a proxy advisor is to provide sound guidance based on financial considerations, not use their position to promote woke, left-wing ideology,” the statement reads. “S.B. 2337 stops liberal activists posing as proxy advisors from giving guidance based on their ideological goals without making that clear to their clients.”
In a motion to dismiss filed Aug. 15, Paxton argued neither firm had suffered any injury as a result of the new “consumer protection law,” depriving the court of jurisdiction over the case. He also argued that the firms “failed to plausibly allege any causes of action against the attorney general.”
“SB 2337 is sound,” the motion argues. “It does not violate the U.S. Constitution, and it is not preempted by any federal law.”
Institutional Shareholder Services is represented by Bruce D. Oakley, Jessica L. Ellsworth, David M. Foster, James Yates and Sam Zwingli of Hogan Lovells.
Glass Lewis is represented by Bryce L. Callahan, Grant Martinez, Jared LeBrun and Lily Hann of Yetter Coleman.
Counsel for Paxton had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case numbers are 1:25-cv-01160 and 1:25-cv-01153.
Southern District of Texas
Plaintiff Drops Infringement Suit Against BMW
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown issued an order Aug. 18 dismissing without prejudice an infringement lawsuit Ad Innovation had lodged against BMW of North America in June.
Ad Innovation had alleged BMW’s 7 Series sedans included technology that infringed its patent covering systems and methods for “selectively switching between a plurality of audio channels.” The company moved to voluntarily dismiss its suit Aug. 15.
In a new release touting the dismissal, BMW’s lawyers at Finnegan said, “as confirmed by public sources, the allegedly infringing feature was entirely missing” from the 7 Series vehicles Ad Innovation accused of infringing.
BMW is represented by Lionel Lavenue of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner.
Ad Innovations is represented by David R. Bennett of Direction IP Law and Benjamin Deming of Dnl Zito.
The case number is 3:25-cv-00179.
Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas
Dallas Lender Loses Appeal of $6.7M Judgment
In a 48-page ruling, a Fifth Court of Appeals panel recently affirmed a $6.7 million judgment against Dallas-based lender PrimaLend Capital Partners LP and LNCMJ Management.
Dallas County District Judge Monica Purdy found the lender’s foreclosure of an Ohio auto dealership had violated loan agreements and entered judgment in favor of Meir Benit, a former obstetrician who came to the United States after fleeing persecution in Iraq, and his son Ron Benit after a seven-day bench trial in May 2023.
According to court documents, Meir Benit had loaned his other son, Tahl Benit, a total of $3 million in 2015 for his auto dealership. When that financing wasn’t enough to get the business on solid ground, Tahl Benit sought and received a loan from PrimaLend in November 2016.
The agreement required that, in the event of a default, PrimaLend had to first give Tahl Benit written notice via a demand letter, and if that wasn’t successful then PrimaLend was required to exhaust “its security rights and interests with respect to all collateral, other than equity interests.”
But instead, the Benits alleged, the defendants went to the auto dealership when Tahl Benit was out of town, changed the locks, foreclosed on the business and sold it.
“There is no ambiguity,” the lawsuit alleged. “Upon default, PrimaLend was required to pursue all of Tahl’s businesses’ assets prior to seeking collection through Tahl’s pledge of the equity interests.”
Those interests, according to the lawsuit, included $6.5 million in accounts receivable assets, which would have satisfied the $2.9 million owed to PrimaLend.
On appeal, PrimaLend argued the loan documents “bestowed it with the unfettered right to foreclose first on the equity interest subject only to Texas UCC requirements of commercial reasonableness and good faith,” according to the opinion.
The panel — Justices Craig Smith, Tina Clinton and Cynthia N. Barbare — issued its ruling Aug. 20.
“We conclude as a matter of law the pledge agreement required PrimaLend to foreclose on the equity interests only after foreclosing and exhausting other collateral,” the panel wrote. “The parties do not dispute — and the appellate record demonstrates — PrimaLend foreclosed on the equity interests before foreclosing on other collateral.”
PrimaLend is represented by Jacob Sparks of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, R. Scott Seifert, Laurie N. Patton and Kimberly H. Kerns of Spencer Fane and Marcy Hogan Greer of Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend.
The Benits are represented by Brian P. Shaw and Brent M. Rubin of Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal and Daniel Bennett of Bennett Law Group in Gahanna, Ohio.
The case number is 05-23-01261-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
Man Appeals Panel’s Undoing of $15.4M Injury Award
Last week a man who had been awarded $15.4 million in a personal injury jury trial against CenterPoint Energy asked the Texas Supreme Court to undo an intermediate appellate court’s recent ruling that wiped out the award.
Garrett Wilder was injured in March 2019 while working on a CenterPoint electrical pole after the step bolt he was attached to separated from the pole. Wilder, who was working for electrical contractor L.E. Myers at the time, 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 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.
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. Cathay and Kelly Clark Morris of Wright Close & Barger.
The case number is 25-0739.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Panel Revives Covid Death Suit Against Tyson
The family of a man who died after contracting Covid while working at a meatpacking plant in Carthage, Texas, will get another chance to bring negligence claims against Tyson Foods
According to the opinion, David Williams Sr. tested positive for the virus on Nov. 20, 2020, but continued going to work. He died Dec. 12, 2020. His family filed a negligence suit against Tyson, which operated the meatpacking plant, alleging unsafe working conditions had caused Williams Sr. to contract the deadly virus.
U.S. District Judge John Barker issued final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice on July 17, 2024, finding the claims against Tyson were preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
The panel determined the PPIA did not preempt the claims against Tyson here but wrote that there “may be workplace safety regulations that implicate food safety which are preempted” by the act.
“Tyson, however, makes no argument that there is a connection between the duty to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and food product safety,” the panel wrote. “This is fatal. The power to preempt state law is ‘an extraordinary power in a federalist system,’ especially as here where the preemption arguments advanced would preempt the state’s traditional ability to regulate ‘matters of health and safety ‘ under their ‘historic police powers.’ The district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ state law negligence claims against Tyson as preempted.”
Judges James L. Dennis, Carl E. Stewart and Catharina Haynes sat on the panel that issued the Aug. 26 opinion.
The Williamses are represented by Joshua D. Lee and Scott Armstrong of Armstrong Lee & Baker.
Tyson is represented by Michael Huston, Eric Wolff, Samantha Burke, Christopher Coleman and Zachary Mayer of Perkins Coie.
The case number is 24-40531.
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.
Barbara Lynn, who recently retired from the Northern District of Texas bench after more than 25 years as a judge, hasjoined the law firm founded decades ago by her husband, Mike Lynn. Her first day as a partner at Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, where her hourly rate will be $2,500, was today. “A couple of law firms heard that I was leaving [the bench] and wanted to become involved [in recruiting] — and I was flattered, but I never wanted to go shopping,” she told The Lawbook. “This was the only firm on my list.”
A week after U.S. District Judge David Godbey announced he would take senior status and that U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor would take over as chief, U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle followed suit. Judge Boyle, a former state and federal prosecutor, served on the federal bench for more than 21 years. A 1981 graduate of the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, Judge Boyle served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District from 2002 to 2004 and was then nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush. She was confirmed by the U.S. Senate 99-0.
On the same day it was reported that Lynn was joining Lynn Pinker, The Lawbook was in court in U.S. District Judge Karen Gren Scholer’s courtroom when it was announced Lynn would be mediating an insurance dispute involving the Boy Scouts of America. The lawsuit was brought by the trustee of the Boy Scouts’ $2.4 billion bankruptcy settlement, retired bankruptcy judge Barbara J. Houser, against scores of insurance companies over who is potentially liable for more than 82,000 claims of sexual or other abuse in the Boy Scouts program.
Last week, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Trey Cox was profiled in The Lawbook’s newest feature, Asked & Answered. Every other week, readers will see a new edition highlighting the work of leading Texas lawyers and offering insight into their lives outside the courtroom. In the inaugural edition, we sat down with Vinson & Elkins partner Quentin Smith. If you or someone you know would like to be featured in an upcoming edition, please let us know at tlblitigation@texaslawbook.net.
Rachael Jones, the former deputy chief of the criminal division of the U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of Texas, has joined the law firm McKool Smith, where she will practice on its white collar and complex commercial litigation team. Jones joined the U.S. attorney’s office in 2015 and was named deputy chief of the criminal division last year. In that role, she supervised fellow prosecutors and helped manage the division’s hiring and budget while maintaining her own active caseload. “At my core, I love being in the courtroom,” she told The Lawbook. “I look forward to working with my experienced trial colleagues at McKool Smith and to mentoring younger attorneys.”
Elizabeth Freeman and her law firm filed a motion asking the court to dismiss a RICO lawsuit brought by some GWG Bondholders. The bondholders had filed suit in June, alleging she was among a group of individuals “work[ing] together to prey upon distressed entities for their own financial gain.” The bondholders named as defendants Freeman, her firm, former Bankruptcy Judge David Jones and the law firms Jackson Walker and Porter Hedges as defendants. Freeman had a previously undisclosed live-in relationship with Jones that, once publicly reported in October 2023, prompted him to resign the bench.