In this edition of Litigation Roundup, a woman whose Lyft driver was convicted of raping her settles a civil lawsuit against the company about a week before trial was to begin in Dallas County, members of a Houston megachurch allege an improper takeover by leadership, and a jury in Austin awards a seven-figure verdict in a revenge porn case.
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
Lyft Settles with Woman Raped by One of Its Drivers
Lyft has settled a lawsuit filed by a Dallas-area passenger who was raped in 2021 by a driver for the online ridesharing service.
Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
Lyft and the plaintiff, identified by court order only as “Jane Doe,” reached an agreement last week to avert a jury trial, which was to begin May 5 before Dallas County Court-at-Law Judge Sally Montgomery.
Charla Aldous, Doe’s attorney, said: “While my client and I are pleased about the settlement in this important case, I am concerned that this sort of criminal behavior by rideshare drivers is not an isolated thing.
“Women everywhere who use these companies for a ride need to be aware of the dangers. And the companies need to do more to make sure their riders are safe. My hope is that this kind of outcome will provide an incentive for the companies to do things differently.”
Lawyers for Lyft did not respond to requests for comment.
According to court records, Doe was out with friends on the evening of June 5, 2021, when one of her friends used Lyft to summon a ride home. Hamidreza Farahbakhshsadeh, driving for Lyft, picked up Doe and two others. After the other two passengers got out at their destination, the driver was to take Doe to her home, which was nearby.
“Instead of driving Ms. Doe to the requested location — her home — Lyft’s driver drove Ms. Doe to a secluded lot,” where he raped her “at gunpoint, threatening to kill her,” said the woman’s most recent amended petition, filed April 14.
Upon her release, Doe ran to call 911, and the Dallas Police Department arrested Farahbakhshsadeh. On Jan. 23 of this year, a Dallas County jury convicted him of aggravated sexual assault. He was sentenced the next day to 12 years in prison. Online records of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice place Farahbakhshsadeh, now 39, in the Holliday prison unit in Huntsville.
According to Doe’s lawsuit, Lyft had received “multiple complaints from other female passengers about Hamidreza Farahbakhshsadeh’s conduct, including serious allegations of sexual misconduct. At least two of these prior incidents were categorized by Lyft as ‘sexual assault and misconduct,’” the suit said, but “Lyft did not take any adequate measures in response to these alarming complaints, which is consistent with its past business dealings.”
Lyft contended in court documents that because Farahbakhshsadeh was an independent contractor and not a Lyft employee, the company was not liable “for any of his alleged conduct.”
“Safety is, and has been, at the heart of Lyft’s mission. … Tens of millions of riders and millions of drivers use the Lyft network to arrange rides every year,” the company said in one court filing.
“Those rides, unfortunately, are not immune from larger societal issues.”
In addition to Charla Aldous, Jane Doe is represented in the case by Caleb M. Miller and Eleanor O. Aldous of Aldous Law in Dallas; and by Todd Ramsey and Andy Payne of Payne Mitchell Ramsey in Dallas.
Lyft is represented by, among others, Macey Reasoner Stokes, Amy Pharr Hefley and Monica H. Smith of Baker Botts; and Joelle Nelson, Matthew Begley and Stephen Pierce of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith.
The case number is CC-22-07165-C.
Harris County District Court
Second Baptist Church Leadership Sued Over Management
A nonprofit group called Jeremiah Counsel Corporation, comprised of current and former members of the 94,000-member Second Baptist Church, has filed a lawsuit against a group of church leaders, accusing them of “subterfuge” and alleging they were harmed by a conspiracy to consolidate “power and control over church governance and church assets.”
The defendants are current senior pastor Ben Young, longtime former senior pastor Homer Edwin Young, associate pastor Lee H. Maxcy, attorney Dennis Brewer Jr. and the Second Baptist Church Corporation. Counsel for the defendants had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
JCC brings claims for breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy and conversion, and it is asking the court to force the defendants to open the church’s financial records for inspection.
The lawsuit alleges that in 2023, in an effort to “secure the ascendance of his son, Ben Young,” H. Edwin Young “circumvented the democratic processes” that had been followed in accordance with church bylaws for 95 years and made amendments to the bylaws. The amendments were purportedly to “clarify the church’s beliefs, and to reinforce its stance on social issues such as marriage and family, in response to the ‘woke agenda.’”
“However, the true objective for the amendments was to radically alter Second Baptist’s long-observed democratic governance processes — and to eliminate the congregants’ voice in church matters in its entirety — by e.g. abolishing church members’ rights to vote, installing an unelected and unaccountable board, and concentrating almost all power, including the power to select the future church pastor, in the pastor alone.”
JCC alleges the amended bylaws were approved “at a sparsely attended meeting” where voting members of the congregation were not “permitted to see or read a copy of the actual amendments before a purported vote was held.”
The suit also seeks a court declaration that any “update” or “amendment” to the church’s 2005 bylaws and articles of incorporation were executed by individuals who had no authority to do so, in violation of legal duties owed to the members of the congregation and so should be declared void.
The lawsuit was filed April 15 and has been assigned to Harris County District Judge Latosha Lewis Payne.
The Jeremiah Counsel Corporation is represented by John R. Strawn Jr. and Andrew L. Pickens of Strawn Pickens.
The case number is 2025-26607.
Troutman Pepper Locke Tapped to Defend Lotto Conspiracy Suit
A team of litigators from the Houston office of Troutman Pepper Locke has been hired by a defendant in a proposed class action lawsuit brought by players of the Texas lottery who allege they have been defrauded.
Dawn Nettles, a lottery enthusiast and watchdog who authors the Texas Lotto Report blog, filed suit against former director of the Texas Lottery Commission, Gary Grief, IGT Solutions Corp. Lottery.com and Rook TX LP on Valentine’s Day. The suit seeks exemplary damages and brings claims for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, common law fraud, conspiracy to defraud, negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
In an amended petition filed April 10, Nettles claims she and other lottery players are victims of an “extensive scheme orchestrated” by all the defendants and notes that Rook TX LP “specifically functioned as the anonymous entity that provided fraudulent information to the Texas Lottery Commission and unlawfully claimed a $57.7 million prize … despite the drawing having been manipulated.”
Nettles accuses the defendants of conspiring to illegally sell tickets across state lines and alleges Rook TX was created specifically to “defraud the state of Texas and the players of the lottery.”
Less than two weeks after Nettles filed her lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into the lottery process, specifically calling out “two suspicious and possibly unlawful lottery ‘winnings’ that involved bulk lottery ticket purchases and the utilization of a third-party courier service.”
“I’m deeply concerned about the integrity of our state’s lottery system, especially when it appears that non-citizens have shown that they are attempting to rig the system to win on demand,” Paxton said. “Texas citizens deserve far better than bad actors getting rich off of a lottery system that is open to exploitation, and we will hold anyone who engages in illegal activity accountable.”
Nettles and the proposed class of plaintiffs are represented by Manfred Sternberg of Houston.
Rook TX is represented by David E. Harrell Jr., Mia Lorick, Kathleen C. Laird and Bradden Pippin of Troutman Pepper Locke.
Grief is represented by David M. Gonzalez of Sumpter & Gonzalez.
The case number is 2025-10513.
Western District of Texas
Jury Awards Woman $2.3M in Revenge Porn Case
A federal jury in Austin Wednesday awarded a Jane Doe plaintiff $2.3 million in damages in a revenge porn case after finding a man had unlawfully posted nude images of her online.
Jane Doe filed suit against Mark A. Gipson April 24, 2023. The jury determined Gipson was liable for the disclosure of intimate images, in violation of federal law, and for the unlawful disclosure or promotion of intimate visual material, in violation of Texas law.
Gipson was found liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se and online impersonation and awarded Doe $300,000 in economic and noneconomic damages,
Because the jury also found the harm Gipson caused Doe was “conducted with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of others,” it awarded an additional $2 million in punitive damages
U.S. District Judge Robert L. Pitman presided over the trial that began April 21.
According to the complaint, Doe went on a trip to Europe with Gipson, which he paid for to celebrate her recent graduation. Once abroad, Doe alleged Gipson began pressuring her to drink, to take drugs and to allow him to take sexually explicit photographs of her.
Doe told the court she was fearful of rejecting Gipson’s advances because he had planned and financed the trip and could leave her stranded in a foreign country. She eventually allowed him to photograph her with the understanding they would remain private.
The lawsuit details an alleged physical assault that took place in a hotel room that left Doe bleeding from her face. Doe also alleged that one night during the trip, Gipson sexually assaulted her.
Once back in the United States, Doe alleged Gipson became angry when she rebuffed his advances, leading to his decision to post intimate photographs and videos of her online and to send some directly to her friends.
Gipson, who initially represented himself in the litigation, at one point lodged a counterclaim for defamation against Doe, which Doe moved to dismiss. But the jury was not asked to answer a question about defamation and the docket did not reflect an order dismissing that claim.
Gipson is represented by Jerry Lavespere III, who has branded himself The Texas Spear, and Susan E. Wright of Tessmer Law Firm.
Doe is represented by Gabrielle LaHatte, Brett Sandford, Heather Haynes, Dan Muller, Diane Ghrist, Sean Gloth, Alex Wyman and Jeff Homrig of Latham & Watkins.
In a news release, Latham & Watkins said it is believed this case was the first ever jury trial in the United States under the federal revenge porn statute.
The case number is 1:23-cv-00463.
Texas Supreme Court
Man’s Death Did Not Moot Wife’s Appeal of Guardianship Divorce
The court vacated a divorce decree obtained by the guardian of a wealthy Laredo businessman who died during his wife’s appeal of the divorce.
The court agreed with Leticia Benavides that the death of Carlos Benavides did not moot her appeal, saying that Carlos’ guardian did not obtain findings from the guardianship court or the divorce court to support the divorce.
The opinion by Justice Jeff Boyd reversed the Fourth Court of Appeals, which held that Carlos’ death mooted the appeal.
“To whatever extent the Texas Estates Code may allow a guardian to seek a divorce on her ward’s behalf, it at least requires the guardianship and divorce courts to find that permitting the divorce would promote the ward’s well-being and protect his best interests. Because neither court made that finding in this case and — because of the ward’s death — neither can do so now, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, vacate the divorce decree, and dismiss,” said Boyd.
Benavides left a $32 million estate when he died in December 2020. He was a descendant of a Laredo founder and a practicing lawyer for 50 years.
The Supreme Court appeal was brought by Carlos’ fourth wife, Leticia. Carlos’ daughter from a previous marriage, Linda Benavides, moved him from his marital home onto her property. As he suffered from dementia, she became his guardian and filed for divorce on Carlos’ behalf on the ground that he and Leticia had lived apart for three years.
“For now, at least, Leticia possesses a legal claim to Carlos’s assets under the 2011 Will, which is pending on appeal. Because that claim is automatically destroyed if the marriage ended by decree but not if it ended by death, we conclude that Carlos’s death did not moot Leticia’s appeal from the decree,” Boyd said.
The court did not decide the issue of whether Texas law permits a guardian to sue for divorce on her ward’s behalf but did discuss it.
Boyd said that the recent and growing trend among American courts is to permit a guardian to initiate and maintain a divorce action on the ward’s behalf even in the absence of some indication of the ward’s personal intent. But he said that should be a policy choice by the Texas Legislature.
“Should the law permit a guardian to pursue a divorce the ward might not have chosen to pursue, or should it permit a competent spouse to have complete and total control over the marriage, even when the ward is at risk of neglect, exploitation, or abuse?” Boyd wrote.
“In light of this lack of clarity, the Legislature may wish to consider amending the Estates Code or the Family Code to plainly express its policy choice on this issue,” Boyd said. “In the meantime, however, we need not definitely construe the current statutes to resolve this case.”
Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices John Phillip Devine and James P. Sullivan, that discussed the moral aspects of marriage and divorce. Blacklock said the recent trend of courts recognizing guardianship divorce that was discussed in the majority opinion goes against “the accumulated wisdom of the ages.”
“I am inclined to think that only the individual person can answer, for himself, whether he should be married. If he becomes incapable of answering the question, there is nobody else to ask. The question can no longer be answered,” said Blacklock, adding that his view is “one which the Court may have occasion to adopt in a future case.”
Leticia is represented by Douglas W. Alexander of Alexander, Dubose & Jefferson, and Linda is represented by Richard R. Orsinger of Orsinger, Nelson, Downing & Anderson.
The case number is 23-0463.
Janet Elliott and Bruce Tomaso contributed to this report.