In this edition of Litigation Roundup, a distributor of energy drink Alani is sued by the family of a 17-year-old girl who died after consuming the beverages, and Samsung tells a Texas judge the invalidation of a patent by a California judge means it’s entitled to a new trial in a dispute that had ended with a $78 million verdict against it.
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.
Hidalgo County District Court
Alani Energy Drink Distributor Sued Over Teen’s Death
Houston firm Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner is representing in a wrongful death lawsuit the family of a 17-year-old girl from Weslaco who died in October after suffering a “fatal cardiac event.”
Larissa Rodriguez’ mother and father, Jennifer Rodriguez and Roberto Rodriguez Jr., filed the lawsuit Wednesday against Glazer’s Beer and Beverage and Glazer’s Beer and Beverage of Texas.
“On or about October 20, 2025, and the days leading up to it, Larissa Rodriguez purchased and consumed one or more Alani Nu Energy Drinks from an H-E-B retail location in Hidalgo County, Texas,” the lawsuit alleges. “Following her consumption of Alani Nu Energy Drinks, Larissa Rodriguez suffered a fatal cardiac event. The Hidalgo County Medical Examiner determined that Larissa Rodriguez’s cause of death was cardiomyopathy caused by excessive caffeine consumption.”
The suit does not name the manufacturer of Alani Nu Energy Drinks as a defendant.
According to her obituary, the teenager was student council president, co-captain of the varsity cheerleading team and a member of the National Honor Society. She was in the Top 5 percent of her class with aspirations of attending the University of Texas at Austin and becoming a lawyer.
The lawsuit alleges the energy drinks she regularly consumed contained 200 milligrams of caffeine, which is twice the maximum daily recommended amount for minors. The suit also takes aim at what it says is “deceptive” marketing of the drink as a “better-for-you well and lifestyle beverage.”
“The pastel-colored cans, candy-inspired flavors (such as ‘Cosmic Stardust,’ ‘Cherry Slush,’ ‘Hawaiian Shaved Ice,’ and ‘Rocket Pop’), and wellness-focused aesthetic deliberately blur the line between a dangerous caffeinated stimulant and a harmless lifestyle accessory,” the suit alleges.
The family is represented by Benny Agosto Jr., Lena B. Laurenzo and Ben Agosto III of Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner and by Damian C. Orozco of Orozco Law Firm.
Counsel information for Glazer’s was not immediately available.
The case number is C-1668-26-F.
Eastern District of Texas
Samsung Wants New Trial in $78M Patent Infringement Case
A federal judge in California’s decision to invalidate a patent that was central to an infringement trial that ended with a $78 million verdict against Samsung Electronics Co. means the company is entitled to a new trial, the company argued in a motion filed last week.
On April 7, Samsung filed a motion arguing the September 2025 verdict, in which the jury found it had infringed two patents held by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, was “fundamentally unfair” and “cannot stand.”
“The ‘848 patent permeated the presentation of the evidence and arguments, tainting the trial and making it impossible to know how the jury would have decided the case without it,” Samsung told U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the motion. “A new trial is thus warranted.”
Anonymous Media Research Holdings had filed suit against Samsung Electronics Co. and Samsung Electronics America in September 2023, alleging infringement of two patents covering technology used to measure media consumption.
The California court invalidated the ‘848 patent on Sept. 12, finding it was “directed to an unpatentable abstract idea without a saving inventive concept,” according to the motion.
One business day later, Samsung argued, this trial commenced.
“Thus, over Samsung’s objections, evidence regarding the ‘848 patent was presented to the jury during trial,” the motion reads. “The jury returned a verdict in favor of AMRH, finding that each asserted claim of the ‘848 patent was infringed and not invalid and awarding damages.”
Anonymous Media Research Holdings is also represented by Jason S. McManis, Weining Bai, Sujeeth Rajavolu, Louis Liao, Hailey Pulman, Chun Deng, Ab Henry and Michael Killingsworth of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, Warren J. McCarty III of The McCarty Firm and Andrea L. Fair of Miller Fair Henry.
Samsung is represented by Robert W. Unikel, Grayson Cornwell, Daniel J. Blake, Allan M. Soobert, James V. Razick, David Valente, Jason Mikus, Kevin Stewart, Matthias A. Kamber, Andrea Roberts, Elizabeth L. Brann, Ariell N. Bratton and Helen Gustafson of Paul Hastings and Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith.
The case number is 2:23-cv-00439.
Texas, DOJ Settle Media Censorship Suit
Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it had reached a settlement in a lawsuit where the state of Texas joined two conservative news outlets in suing the U.S. Department of State and government leaders for allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to censor certain media outlets.
The lawsuit was filed by The Daily Wire, The Federalist and the state of Texas in December 2023, alleging that the state department, via its Global Engagement Center, worked to limit the reach of certain news outlets by funding censorship technologies. Texas alleges that while congress created to GEC to counter foreign propaganda, it had instead been used as a tool to censor and violate the First Amendment rights of certain conservative-leaning domestic entities.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle signed off on the consent decree April 8. According to the document, its terms are to remain in effect through January 2036. Under the agreement, the State Department “will not use electronic tools or technologies to knowingly or intentionally suppress, censor, demonetize, or downgrade the constitutionally protected speech of Americans or domestic media outlets.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Margot J. Cleveland and Zhonette M. Brown of the New Civil Liberties Alliance and David Bryant and Munera Al-Fuhaid of the Texas attorney general’s office.
The federal government is represented by Brett A. Shumate of the Department of Justice.
“The Department of Justice will continue vindicating Americans’ right to free speech,” Shumate said in a news release. “The Federal Government has no business promoting and funding tools to censor domestic media or citizens. This resolution ensures the unlawful practices at issue will not recur.”
The parties entered the consent decree after Judge Kernodle denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss and found the plaintiffs had good cause to take discovery in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
The case number is 6:23-cv-00609.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Burns Charest Files Suit Over In-Flight Death
Dallas-based Burns Charest is representing the family of a 33-year-old woman who died while onboard an international flight operated by Korean Airlines.
The family of Maryland resident Porscha Tynisha Brown filed suit March 27, two days shy of the second anniversary of Brown’s death. Brown was on a flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to Seoul, South Korea, when she started experiencing respiratory distress, according to the lawsuit that alleges flight personnel failed to follow emergency protocols.
According to the lawsuit, Brown began experiencing breathing difficulties about 12 hours into the flight and told her traveling companions as well as airplane personnel “I can’t breathe” before she collapsed. She was given an oxygen mask, but according to the lawsuit eyewitnesses later said it was not connected to an oxygen supply.
The suit alleges the flight crew failed to notify the cockpit of the severity of the situation, failed to ensure the flight’s Automated External Defibrillator was functioning and properly deployed and looked on as untrained passengers attempted to use the device.
When the plan eventually made an emergency landing in Osaka, Japan, Brown was pronounced dead on arrival.
In September, Burns Charest secured a $9.6 million verdict against American Airlines stemming from the in-flight death of Jesus Plasencia.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff.
The family is represented by Anna Benedict, Darren Nicholson and Hannah Crowe of Burns Charest and solo practitioner Charles Molster III.
Counsel for Korean Airlines had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case number is 1:26-cv-00845.
Fifteenth Court of Appeals
Whistleblowers’ $48M Win Axed
Three whistleblowers who in December 2024 were awarded a total of $48 million for their roles in helping Texas reach a Medicaid fraud settlement will instead get nothing, a Texas appellate panel determined April 7.
The 29-page ruling explained that Alexandra Alvarez, Joshua LaFountain and Dr. Christine Ellis had based their claims against Xerox State Healthcare, formerly known as ACS State Healthcare, on media reports, specifically from WFAA in Dallas.
“We conclude that appellees’ qui tam claims are foreclosed by the public disclosure bar of the [Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act],” the opinion reads. “The claims were based on the fraudulent transaction publicly disclosed in the WFAA reporting, and appellees were not original sources of the information because they lacked direct knowledge of the information on which their allegations were based.”
On Dec. 19, 2024, Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble entered final judgment in the case awarding the whistleblowers, who initiated this litigation more than a decade ago, a 17.5 percent share of the $212.3 million settlement, which totaled $37.1 million, plus an additional $11 million in interest.
The trio filed suit in 2012, alleging Xerox had violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act when its employees improperly approved prior authorization requests for orthodontic services without first verifying the necessity of the services, which resulted in the state paying for medically unnecessary dental and orthodontic procedures on thousands of children.
Texas appealed the final judgment in July 2025, arguing the award to the whistleblowers in this case was issued “after the media and the state had already exposed Xerox’s fraud.”
“While the nature of this case is complex, this appeal asks a simple question: whether the TMFPA allows individuals who contributed no independent knowledge and did not help litigate the case to pocket tens of millions in taxpayer dollars? For the reasons below, the answer is no,” Texas argued in its brief on appeal.
The whistleblowers are represented by Caitlyn E. Silhan and Charles S. Siegel of Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel in Dallas, James Moriarty of the Law Offices of James R. Moriarty in Houston and James “Rusty” Tucker of the Law Offices of James R. Tucker in Dallas.
Texas is represented by Brian VanderZanden, Amy Snow Hilton and Austin Kinghorn of the attorney general’s office.
Xerox is represented by Eric J.R. Nichols of Butler Snow.
The case number is 15-25-00034-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
Justice Young: Calling All TUFTA Cases ‘Of Clear Jurisprudential Import’
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday denied rehearing in a case, which normally is done without comment.
But Justice Evan Young issued a three-page statement to accompany the court’s decision to pass on Executive Workspace — ABC Preston Road v Reserve Capital — Preston Grove SPE, a lease dispute that involved a claim under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. A Dallas County jury decided in July 2022 that Executive Workspace owed Reserve Capital $533,347 in actual damages and $33,000 in attorney fees. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed in December 2024.
Justice Young began his statement by noting that by his count, the state’s high court has only addressed TUFTA in 11 opinions, the last time in 2019. Since then, the Fifth Circuit has resolved about 20 TUFTA cases, he wrote.
“Given that this state law seems to arise so much more often in federal court, it is understandable that the Fifth Circuit sometimes finds it beneficial to solicit authoritative guidance rather than to continually make Erie guesses that may turn out to be wrong,” he wrote. “The lack of more frequent TUFTA precedents from this Court has often left lower state courts and federal courts applying Texas law to chart their own course.”
This case, Justice Young wrote, “arises from a distinctive and highly fact-intensive record” and may not “generate much broadly applicable guidance even if we address the issue it presents: whether the termination of a contractual right to future payments may constitute the fraudulent ‘transfer’ of an ‘asset’ under TUFTA.”
That means the case is “less than an ideal vehicle” to resolve the issues, he wrote.
“TUFTA cases that will be of clear jurisprudential import do exist, of course,” the statement reads. “I hope that litigants will bring them to this Court to help us develop this area of law, which is unquestionably important to our State’s jurisprudence. When they do, I also hope and expect the Court to be quite receptive to granting review.”
Executive Workspace — ABC Preston Road is represented by Chris Schwegmann, David S. Coale and Campbell Sode of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann.
Reserve Capital — Preston Grove SPE is represented by LaDawn H. Nandrasy and John W. Lilley of Wick Phillips Gould & Martin.
The case number is 25-0074.
Plastic Surgeon Gets New Trial Order Undone in Finger Amputation Case
A Harris County trial judge got it wrong when, after an 11-1 defense verdict in a medical malpractice lawsuit, she ordered a new jury trial take place.
Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock wrote that the judge, Rabeea Collier, had “misperceived the law governing liability for medical negligence.”
Jose Torres brought this lawsuit against Dr. Leo Lapuerta, a plastic surgeon, alleging the doctor’s negligence caused his finger, which was nearly severed in a bandsaw accident, to become infected after an attempt to reattach it, resulting in a complete amputation.
After the jury sided with Lapuerta, the dissenting juror sent a note to both parties, describing the deliberations. In part, the note reads:
Lastly, I don’t know how much the other jurors shared with you re the deliberation, but in my opinion, there wasn’t any. The charge was basically structured as “was the conduct responsible for >50% probability for the loss of the finger.” We deliberated on whether this meant the entire finger “or portion thereof.” Our request to the court for clarification resulted in the answer: “that is for you to decide.” Eleven jurors chose this to mean the entire finger, I chose “the finger or portion thereof.” These three missing words made the previous three day trial irrelevant. 5 There was unanimous agreement there was not a >50% chance the entire finger could be saved. The foreman called for a vote, and we were done in minutes. My only option to express my objection was to refuse to sign the agreement.
In a motion for a new trial, Torres attached the letter as support for his argument that the charge had confused the jury.
“Although the new trial order did not specifically rely on the juror’s letter, we will not ignore the possibility that this flagrantly improper evidence influenced the outcome,” Chief Justice Blacklock wrote. “The petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted, and the district court is directed to render judgment based on the verdict.”
Lapuerta is represented by Michelle E. Robberson and Diana L. Faust of Cooper & Scully and Joel Randal Sprott of Sprott, Newsom, Quattlebaum & Messenger.
Torres is represented by Bridgit Ann White and Mark O. Midani of The Midani Law Firm.
The case number is 24-0879.
HEB Gets Summary Judgment Win Reinstated in Slip-and-Fall Case
Texas grocer HEB will not have to face a lawsuit brought by a woman who slipped and fell inside a Bexar County store after the state’s high court on Friday determined an intermediate appellate court had wrongly revived the claims.
Marissa Peterson sued HEB alleging she slipped and fell in a water puddle in the store’s toy aisle. The trial court granted HEB’s motion for summary judgment, disposing of the claims in March 2023, and Peterson appealed to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals the following month.
A panel of justices on that court revived the lawsuit in an opinion issued in March 2024, finding that HEB’s knowledge of earlier roof leaks at the store created a fact issue for the jury to decide regarding the grocer’s knowledge of the puddle at issue in this case.
The state’s high court on Friday sided with HEB.
“Following our precedent, we hold that a party responding to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment must adduce some evidence showing the duration an unreasonably dangerous condition existed to raise a fact issue as to whether the premises owner had constructive notice of the condition at the time and place of the plaintiff’s injury,” Justice Jane Bland wrote for the court. “The record in this case lacks such evidence.”
HEB is represented by Wallace B. Jefferson and Kirsten M. Castañeda of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson and Norma Herrera-Worley of Herrera-Worley in San Antonio.
Peterson is represented by Lorien Whyte of Whyte Appeals and Jeremy R. Sloan of Sloan PLLC, both in San Antonio.
The case number is 24-0310.
Spectrum Sees Claims Against San Antonio Utility Co. Revived
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday sided with telecommunications provider Spectrum Gulf Coast in its dispute with San Antonio’s CPS Energy over the rates it was charged to attach equipment to CPS-owned utility poles.
Justice Evan Young authored the court’s nine-page opinion that reversed a lower court of appeals ruling and clears the way for Spectrum to proceed with its breach of contract claim against the utility company.
The underlying dispute dates back to 1984, when Spectrum’s predecessor entered an agreement with CPS to attach equipment to its poles in order to deliver telecommunications services. That agreement contained an escalator clause that allowed for annual rate increases. Three years later, in 1987, CPS entered a similar agreement with AT&T that did not contain such a clause. As time went on, AT&T was paying the 1987 price, while Spectrum was paying a continually-increasing pole attachment rate.
“The record demonstrates that CPS charged Spectrum and AT&T the same rate but collected the higher rate only from Spectrum,” the Texas Supreme Court held. “As we concluded in Time Warner, this constitutes discrimination under subsection (b). Spectrum also alleges a violation of subsection (c), which bars charging above the incorporated federal ceiling. Spectrum therefore may proceed with its breach-of-contract claim based on CPS’s alleged violation of its obligation to comply with the relevant laws in effect.”
Spectrum is represented by Douglas W. Alexander and Marcy Hogan Greer of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson, solo practitioner Cynthia Timma and Amanda L. Cottrell, J.D. Thomas, Paul A. Werner and Abraham J. Shanendling of Sheppard.
CPS is represented by David F. Brown, Joseph R. Knight, David P. Blanke and Jonathan L. Glusband of Ewell, Brown, Blanke & Knight.
The case number is 24-0794.
Justices Weigh in on Side-Switching Legal Assistant
Justice John P. Devine authored an opinion for the Texas Supreme Court on Friday affirming a ruling that disqualified an attorney from representing a client in a case because his legal assistant previously worked for the opposing side.
“A longstanding bright-line rule for side-switching legal staff requires disqualification unless minimal prophylactic measures were undertaken to safeguard prior client confidences from the risk of inadvertent disclosure,” Justice Devine wrote in the 24-page opinion. “The relators acknowledge there is no evidence this occurred.”
The dispute dates back to 2009 when Apex Katy Physicians and its managing member Pankaj Shah sued Adeel Zaidi and Prestige Consulting, which does business as Turnaround Management Group. Shah was originally represented by Fred Wahrlich of Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr and his former legal assistant “is at the center of this disqualification dispute,” Justice Devine wrote.
The assistant worked on the case from 2009 until 2011, drafting and filing documents and participating in “several hundred” attorney-client communications. In 2011, the legal assistant moved to Hicks Thomas. An attorney from that firm, Robin Harrison, represented the defendants on appeal and in 2016, after a bench trial ended with a win for the plaintiff, got the case remanded for a new trial.
“When Hicks Thomas screened Harrison for conflicts, the instant matter was not flagged because the firm did not track the legal assistant’s prior work,” the opinion reads. “Significantly, as the defendants acknowledge, there is no evidence that Hicks Thomas or Harrison instructed her not to work on cases she had worked on in her prior employment. Between 2017 and 2022, the legal assistant worked on this case with Harrison on thirteen occasions, performing “limited secretarial services” when his regular assistant was unavailable.”
Justice Devine concluded the opinion by noting that while “disqualification is a harsh remedy, the burden of employing preventative measures to avoid this result is slight.”
“A firm must admonish and take other reasonable measures to effectively screen a side-switching nonlawyer from a conflicted matter,” he wrote. “In this context, a bright-line rule provides clear guidance to the bar and comfort to clients that their confidences will be protected — a primary duty embedded in all facets of our legal system. Because the side-switching legal assistant received no prior instruction and the plaintiffs were not, as a matter of law, untimely in seeking disqualification, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion to disqualify.”
Turnaround Management Group is represented by Robin Harrison, Stephen Barrick, Katherine Kunz and Stacie Osborn of Hicks Thomas.
Apex Katy Physicians is represented by Andrew K. Meade, Holly H. Barnes and Samuel B. Haren of Meade Neese & Barr
The case number is 24-0245.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Google Gets Antitrust Case Kicked Out of Texas
Google will not have to face in Texas courts a lawsuit that is rooted in claims the United States brought against the technology company accusing it of maintaining an illegal monopoly in the online search and advertising markets.
Branch Metrics, which created a search engine that “allows users to search across pages of mobile applications,” had filed suit against Google in the Eastern District of Texas and used as the basis of its claims documents that were uncovered in the federal government’s case against the technology giant.
Google moved to have the suit transferred to the Northern District of California, arguing most of the relevant witnesses were based there, as were the sources of proof. But U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap rejected the move.
Judges James C. Ho authored the court’s opinion, joined by Judges Catharina Haynes and Stephen A. Higginson. He wrote that Judge Gilstrap had given too much weight to a public interest factor — “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion” — in declining to transfer the case.
“The district court found this factor ‘weighs against transfer,’” Judge Ho wrote. “In doing so, it relied on evidence suggesting that its median time to disposition and trial was faster than NDCA. This factor is a weak signal at best compared to the others. As we have said, the court-congestion factor is the most ‘speculative’ of the Volkswagen factors, because ‘measuring congestion is easier said than done.’”
Judge Ho wrote that “the median time-to-trial has little to no bearing on the potential delay in a complex case like this one.”
He pointed out “a second problem” with the district court’s analysis.
“Even if the court congestion factor deserved any weight, the district court erred by using that factor to override all other factors,” Judge Ho wrote. “We have held that ‘no factor’ in the test is accorded ‘dispositive weight.’ But the district court did just that here. The district court found all other factors either tipped in favor of transfer or were neutral. So the district court’s determination about court congestion singlehandedly defeated transfer, in violation of our precedent.”
The April 7 opinion orders Judge Gilstrap to ship the case to the Northern District of California.
Google is represented by John E. Schmidtlein, Benjamin M. Greenblum and Alexander Zolan of Williams & Connolly, Matthew McGinnis and Adam R. Safadi of Ropes & Gray and Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith.
Branch Metrics is represented by Charles Cooper, Michael Kirk and Harold Reeves of Cooper & Kirk, Claire Henry of Bruce A. Smith PC, solo practitioner Steven C. Holtzman and Alex Kaplan, Neal Manne, Danielle Nicholson, Zachary B. Savage and John Schiltz of Susman Godfrey.
The case number is 25-40788.
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.
The Trump administration is trying to persuade a federal appeals court to restore President Donald Trump’s executive orders against Houston-based Susman Godfrey and three other law firms, arguing that a president’s power to declare the firms national security threats is “unreviewable” by the courts.
Stonewall Gas Gathering, a West Virginia pipeline owner, has been ordered to pay $1 in a breach of contract case before the Texas Business Court. Antero Resources claimed it had suffered $200 million in damages from the alleged breach.
The Dallas Mavericks franchise filed notice that it was immediately dropping its tortious interference claim in its battle against the Dallas Stars. The move comes a week after the Texas Business Court denied the Stars’ five motions for summary judgment and granted the Mavericks’ motion for declaratory judgment.
The Texas Business Court dismissed a fraud lawsuit against an Indiana-based trailer manufacturer, determining the dispute did not belong in Texas courts. Texas-based Daimler Truck Financial Services was seeking $28 million in damages.
A group of 13 shareholders of biopharmaceutical tech company Sorrento Therapeutics allege in a new lawsuit that Dallas-based Jackson Walker’s decision to file its bankruptcy case in the Southern District of Texas was done to enrich the firm at the expense of the shareholders.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has named Dallas lawyer David Woodcock as its new director of enforcement, overseeing the agency’s federal civil corporate securities and fraud investigations and prosecutions. Woodcock is taking a multimillion-dollar pay cut by leaving Gibson Dunn, where he has been a partner in Dallas since 2023.