In this edition of Litigation Roundup, a lawsuit is filed against the organizers of a cheer competition that took place at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center and ended in what plaintiffs call a chaotic stampede, and the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling that rescinded punishment doled out by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.
Also in litigation-related news, Harris County District Judge Beau Miller was recently named trial judge of the year by the Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists. Judge Miller, who presides over the 190th District Court, was elected to the bench in 2019 and won reelection in 2023. A past recipient of the award, former Harris County district judge and current partner at Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, Daryl L. Moore, said in a statement that Judge Miller’s recognition “speaks volumes.”
“Judge Miller is being honored because of his temperament, his work ethic, and his dedication to the legal profession,” he said. “Judge Miller not only upholds the highest standards of civility in his courtroom — he maintains a forum where lawyers can practice effectively and ethically. He understands that civility isn’t just a courtesy; it’s essential to being an effective advocate.”
At its annual awards banquet last month, TACTAS also recognized Nathan Hecht, former Texas Supreme Court chief Justice and current partner at Jackson Walker, as the state’s Appellate Judge of the Year.
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.
Dallas County Court-at-Law
Cheer Competition Organizer Sued in Wake of Stampede
A lawsuit has been filed against the organizer of the 2025 National Cheerleaders Association All-Star National Championship by people who allege they were among the hundreds injured during a “chaotic crowd stampede.”
The competition took place in Dallas at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center from Feb. 28 through March 2. An estimated 38,000 spectators attended, including 25,000 participants, most of whom were under the age of 18. Those in attendance came from Texas, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia.
The lawsuit points to poor security as a root cause of the incident. Defendants in the lawsuit brought by lead plaintiff Katie Albold include Varsity Spirit, Varsity Brands, OVG Facilities, Oak View Group, Omni Hotels Management and Global Spectrum.
Chaos ensued, according to the lawsuit, after reports of gunfire swept through the crowd and triggered “dangerous stampedes.” Police and organizers later said it was the sound of metal poles crashing to the concrete floor of the convention center that many present mistook for gunfire.
“This wasn’t a little something. This was mass chaos,” said Ashlea Schwarz of Paul LLP, who represents the plaintiffs. “You had parents separated from their kids for hours. You had a facility that had no plan for reunification in place. People had no idea where they would go to find their children.”
Injuries included broken bones, concussions, brain bleeds and more, the suit alleges, in addition to trauma-related injuries.
Charla Aldous of Aldous Law also represents the plaintiffs.
“It really doesn’t matter what started the panic,” Aldous said in a statement. “What matters is the chaos and crowd crush happened because Varsity and the convention center were not prepared. And that resulted in the injuries these people suffered.”
The 47-page lawsuit was filed June 6.
The plaintiffs are also represented by Caleb M. Miller and Eleanor O. Aldous of Aldous Law and Richard M. Paul III and Benjamin S. Wietharn of Paul LLP in Kansas City.
Counsel information for the defendants wasn’t immediately available Monday.
The case number is CC-25-04400, in Dallas County Court at Law No. 3.
Texas State Securities Board
Texas Joins $9.3M Settlement with Edward Jones, TD Ameritrade, Others
The Texas State Securities Board announced Monday that it was among the states that reached a $9.3 million settlement with financial advisory firms Edward Jones, LPL Financial, RBC, Stifel and TD Ameritrade to resolve allegations that the firms charged unreasonable commissions.
Texas, Alabama, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana and Washington together investigated the firms and alleged that over a period of five years they had charged retail customers about $19 million to process just slightly more than $1 million worth of equity transactions and trades and that many of the transactions included a commission in excess of five percent of the principal value of the transaction.
“This was a long, complex and thorough investigation,” TSSB Commissioner Travis J. Iles said in a statement. “We appreciate the coordination among the working group states and the willingness of the firms to correct the wrong that was done here and get money back to the harmed investors — not only in Texas, but across the country.”
According to the TSSB, 27 states have opted to join the settlement.
TSSB Deputy Commissioner Cristi Ramón Ochoa and Elliott Wolf, led the case.
Counsel information for the firms wasn’t immediately available Monday.
Dallas County District Court
Jury Sides with Relative in Adverse Possession Trial
The grandson of a couple who died while a home they owned was being rented by longtime tenants is the rightful owner of the property, a jury in Dallas County recently determined.
The 12-person jury unanimously sided with defendant Dee King in the lawsuit brought by Francisco Valdez and Linda Pahcheka-Valdez in September 2020. According to court documents, the Valdezes moved into the home on Kingston Street, owned by J.D. and Thelma King, in 1992 under an arrangement with Sonia Ybarra, who was the Kings’ power of attorney and neighbor.
J.D. King died in 1993 and Thelma King died in 1996. The Valdezes filed a quiet title action, seeking ownership via adverse possession. Dee King was added as a defendant in the action in 2021.
Julie Pettit of The Pettit Law Firm, who represented Dee King, said the verdict in her client’s favor reaffirms that “inheritance rights cannot be lost simply because family members are unaware of property owned by deceased relatives.”
“The jury recognized that permission-based occupancy cannot transform into ownership, regardless of how long it continues,” she said.
The jury also awarded King’s lawyers $20,000 in legal fees.
Dallas County District Judge Gena Slaughter presided over the trial that began May 19. The jury returned its verdict May 20.
King is also represented by David B. Urteago of The Pettit Law Firm in Dallas.
The Valdezes are represented by D. Kimberli Wallace of Fort Worth and Jason LeBoeuf of Dallas.
The case number is DC-20-14355.
Western District of New York
Reese Marketos Notches $3.5M FCA Settlement
After more than four years of litigation, Catholic Health System last month agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle allegations it violated the False Claims Act’s “physician self-referral law,” also known as the Stark Law, by submitting certain claims to Medicare for reimbursement.
The lawsuit was filed in October 2020 by Gary Tucker, who served as the chief executive officer of Mount St. Mary’s Hospital, which CHS acquired in 2015. The Stark Law prohibits hospitals from being reimbursed for services if they were referred by a physician who has a financial relationship with the healthcare entity.
Tucker alleged CHS and affiliated hospitals maintained financial relationships with non-employee doctors who would refer lab testing and other hospital services to CHS. CHS would then bill Medicare for those referred services, Tucker alleged.
“The Stark Law is designed to protect Medicare by ensuring that physician referrals are not influenced by financial interest,” U.S. attorney for the Western District of New York, Michael DiGiacomo said in a statement. “The office is committed to holding health care providers accountable who engage in such conduct.”
New York and the United States intervened May 7 for the purpose of settlement. U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. presided over the case.
Tucker and the federal government are represented by Joshua Russ, Brett Rosenthal and Allison Cook of Reese Marketos, Mark Frentzel of Costello & Frentzel and David M. Coriell of the Department of Justice in Buffalo, New York.
Counsel information for Catholic Health System wasn’t immediately available Monday.
The case number is 1:20-cv-01482.
Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston
Energy Transfer Wins Bid to Arbitrate Personal Injury Claims
In a 44-page opinion issued June 3, a panel of justices determined Harris County District Judge Sonya L. Aston should have granted Energy Transfer’s request to send to arbitration the personal injury claims brought by Clay Moock.
Moock, a geologist, signed a document that contained an arbitration agreement when he onboarded with the company in 2021, according to court documents. In April 2022, while riding in a vehicle on his way to inspect a leak in a natural gas pipeline near Haughton, Louisiana, an ignition source from the vehicle “allegedly caused a massive fire explosion,” engulfing Moock in flames, leaving him with “life-threatening, disabling and permanent injuries,” according to the opinion.
After Moock filed suit, Energy Transfer moved to compel arbitration. Judge Aston denied the motion “without specifying the grounds for this ruling.”
“The evidence proves as a matter of law that an arbitration agreement — the agreement — was formed and that Moock, ET Partners, and Energy Transfer are parties to the agreement,” the appellate panel wrote, going on to explain the agreement also leaves the determination of whether certain disputes are arbitrable to the arbitrator.
“Because Moock has not asserted any challenge to the validity of Rule 6 itself or to the delegation provision itself, courts must enforce Rule 6 and the delegation provision and require the arbitrator to decide the arbitrability disputes.”
Justices Randy Wilson, Brad Hart and Katy Boatman sat on the panel.
Energy Transfer is represented by Brett J. Young, Devin Wagner and Will Martin of Norton Rose Fulbright and Jessica Z. Barger, Eva M. Guzman and Brian J. Cathay of Wright Close & Barger.
Moock is represented by Daryl L. Moore of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing and Jane Langdell Robinson of Langdell Robinson.
The case number is 14-23-00858-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
Justices Decide 7-2 Illinois Attorney’s Texas Reciprocal Discipline Came Too Late
On Friday, a divided Texas Supreme Court determined that a limitations rule does apply to a Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure that governs reciprocal discipline in a case brought by attorney Nejla Lane.
The court’s majority held that the discipline imposed by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against Lane was time barred because the misconduct underpinning the punishment happened in 2017, more than four years before the CLD received the grievance that was the basis for its punishment.
Lane, who now lives in Kyle, Texas, was an attorney in Illinois when she was suspended by the Northern District of Illinois in 2020 and later by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2023 for sending emails to U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan in 2017 critical of certain rulings.
As Justice Brett Busby, who authored a 12-page dissent, laid out, Lane called the judge’s rulings “‘outrageous’ and ‘fraudulent’ said the judge ‘ha[d] done [her] wrong’ and was ‘in this to delay and deny justice for [her] client,’ exclaimed ‘[h]ow dare you do that to me?!’, and threatened ‘[w]hat goes around comes around.’”
In 2023, after Lane self-reported the misconduct, the CLD sought to suspend Lane for that conduct, just as the authorities in Illinois had. After CLD imposed the suspension, Lane appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
CLD argued that limitations doesn’t apply to reciprocal discipline proceedings. The majority of the Texas Supreme Court disagreed.
“Ultimately, under the CLD’s interpretation of the Rules, no limitations period would govern reciprocal discipline cases, and the CLD would be authorized to file a complaint based on stale — even decades-old — misconduct whenever it sees fit,” Justice Rebeca Huddle wrote. “The CLD assures us it would be judicious in exercising its authority to bring cases in perpetuity. While that may be true, the text of Rule 17.06 along with the definitions of ‘Grievance’ and ‘Professional Misconduct’ compel us to reject the CLD’s argument.”
Justice Busby wrote that the majority of his colleagues had erred by “mixing up” the two “pathways for discipline” outlined in the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct which led to “the absurd result that reciprocal discipline was barred by limitations before the Chief Disciplinary Counsel could ever have sought it.”
Pathway No. 1, as Justice Busby described it, is taken when CLD is notified of conduct that happened outside the state and handles the allegation as a “grievance.” Pathway No. 2, he wrote, is taken if CLD receives notice of professional misconduct that occurred in another state that resulted in discipline in that state, which triggers the filing of a discipline order and petition for reciprocal discipline by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel.
Justice Busby would have held that the misconduct didn’t officially occur until 2023, when Lane was suspended, meaning the CLD’s reciprocal punishment was timely.
Justice Jeff Boyd also authored a dissent, in which Justice Busby joined, writing in part that he believes Lane’s failure to plead a limitations defense meant she waived it.
Lane represented herself.
The Commission is represented by its own Michael Graham.
The case number is 23-0956.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Fired United Flight Attendant’s Age Discrimination Suit Revived
On June 4, the age discrimination claims of former United Airlines flight attendant Anna Palova were revived by a panel that found the Railway Labor Act “does not preclude or preempt” her claim from being heard in federal court.
U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett had determined the opposite was true and granted United summary judgment. Palova filed her notice of appeal in April 2024.
Palova was a Houston-based flight attendant who worked for the airline from 1992 until she was fired in February 2022. United had alleged Palova violated her collective bargaining agreement by manipulating flight assignments to benefit herself and her colleagues.
In a 10-page opinion, the panel determined “Palova’s state and federal age discrimination claims cannot be ‘conclusively resolved’ through interpretation of the [joint collective bargaining agreement], and accordingly, the RLA does not preempt or preclude her claims.”
Judges James E. Graves Jr., Kurt D. Engelhardt and Andrew S. Oldham sat on the panel.
Palova is represented by Steven Mitby and Debbie Pacholder of Mitby Pacholder Johnson.
United Airlines is represented by Kristin Cope of O’Melveny & Myers and Michele Gehrke, Brian Morris, Stephen Roppolo and Robert York of Reed Smith.
The case number is 24-20136.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Lack of Standing Dooms Challenge to PTAB Decision
Unified Patents recently saw a lawsuit brought against it by Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation tossed on appeal after the Federal Circuit determined Dolby’s lack of constitutional standing barred it from challenging a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
According to court documents, UP initiated inter partes review of a Dolby patent that covers “a prediction method using an in-loop filter,” alleging certain claims of the patent were “anticipated and obvious.” UP identified itself as the sole real party in interest in the petition.
Dolby argued there were nine other entities that should have been identified as RPIs. And when the PTAB — which sided with Dolby on the patent validity issue — declined to adjudicate that dispute in its decision, Dolby appealed to the Federal Circuit in July 2023 and filed its opening brief that November. The panel heard oral arguments this May.
Dolby argued it had “suffered an injury in fact” because the other alleged RPIs could be breaching licensing agreements, the judges who decided the inter partes review could have conflicts of interests with those alleged RPIs and those entities may not be estopped in future proceedings.
But the Federal Circuit panel found Dolby’s alleged injuries “are too speculative to establish Article III standing.”
“First, Dolby does not argue any of the alleged RPIs are subject to license agreements with Dolby, much less provide evidence the alleged RPIs are breaching license agreements,” the panel held in the eight-page opinion issued June 5. “Finally, Dolby provides no evidence Unified would change its strategies should it be required to disclose its members as RPIs. Dolby merely speculates that, if required to do so, Unified may never challenge another Dolby patent again. … That is far too speculative to establish injury in fact.”
The court entered judgment dismissing the case June 5. Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and Judges Raymond C. Clevenger III and Raymond T. Chen sat on the panel.
Dolby is represented by Kayvan B. Noroozi of Los Angeles and Richard Epstein of Norwalk, Connecticut.
Unified Patents is represented by Angela M. Oliver, Debbie McComas, Adam Erickson and David L. McCombs of Haynes Boone and Roshan Mansinghani and Jessica Marks of Unified Patents.
The case number is 23-2110.
Can you not get enough 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 Dallas County jury awarded a man who was injured after a fall at Hotel Crescent Court $9.45 million. James Shelton McClure, 74, suffered serious orthopedic and neurological injuries, underwent four surgeries for a broken ankle that ultimately had to be replaced and was left with nerve damage in his dominant hand.
About 20,000 Texans and Texas businesses asked the Texas Supreme Court last week to revive their Winter Storm Uri-related lawsuits and allow their negligence claims against power generators such as Luminant, NRG Power and Calpine to go to trial.
Data compiled by Lex Machina shows U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas has reclaimed his crown as the king of patent litigation. Last year, he was assigned 795 new patent lawsuits, which was six times more than any other federal judge in the country.
The law firm Holland & Knight filed a motion to dismiss a fraud lawsuit brought against it by, Michael I. Goldberg, the U.S. trustee appointed to recover funds for creditors in the GWG Holdings bankruptcy case. On Feb. 28, Goldberg filed a 157-page complaint against the firm and partner Bill Banowsky, seeking to recover nearly $150 million for the “knowing participation in a fraudulent looting scheme and associated criminal enterprise” that included Dallas-based financial services firm Beneficient and its founder and CEO Bradley Heppner.
And why not give last week’s Litigation Roundup a read? We covered a development in the $3 billion patent fight between Intel and VLSI, a sexual harassment lawsuit against former high-ranking lawyers from the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the involvement of The Lanier Law Firm in a sexual assault lawsuit against the NBA’s Zion Williamson.