Significant Victories
Collado v. Fiesta Park Healthcare, LLC, 525 P.3d 378 (N.M. Ct. App. 022)
Assisted with briefing and strategy in defeating nursing home’s effort to overturn $11M verdict and, on cross-appeal, reinstating a jury finding that the various defendant-entities operated as a joint venture, making them all responsible for the nursing home’s conduct.
Envision Radiology Tex. LP v. Trader, No. 05-20-00529-CV, 2022 WL 2826896 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 20, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.)
Successfully convinced court of appeals to dismiss medical provider’s interlocutory appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where trial court granted the statutorily-provided 30-day extension to cure alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s Ch. 74 expert report.
Cobb v. Hansen, No. 05-19-01327-CV, 2022 WL 3499999 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 18, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.)
Successfully reversed a take-nothing judgment and remanded for a new trial in case against defendant-homeowners whose pizza oven exploded and burned Joseph Cobb. The court of appeals determined that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to submit Cobb’s negligent activity claim to the jury, which was supported by the homeowner’s request that Cobb light the oven without advising him how to do so safely and the homeowners’ failure to render aid to Cobb following the explosion.
Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 2022)
Overruling Philbrook v. Berry, 683 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. 1985), and clarifying that a motion for new trial filed in the original cause is nonetheless sufficient to extend the appellate deadlines in a severed, final judgment, and clarifying the application of stare decisis generally and in cases transferred from one court of appeals to another.
E.D. v. Tex. Health Care, P.L.L.C., 644 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2022)
Finding that expert report satisfied Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and reversing court of appeals’ opinion to the contrary, confirming that Chapter 74’s “‘fair summary’ benchmark is not an evidentiary standard.”
Mata v. Cade, No. CV 2:21-217 JCH/GJF, 2022 WL 1452898 (D. N.M. May 9, 2022)
Successfully moved for reconsideration of denial of motion to remand on behalf of a client who was seriously injured by a commercial motor vehicle in Lea County, New Mexico. On reconsideration, the district court agreed that federal diversity jurisdiction requires diversity to exist at both the time an action is filed in state court and the time it is removed to federal court. Because the parties were non-diverse at the time of removal, remand to state court was required.
Edwards v. Oliver, 31 F.4th 925 (5th Cir. 2022)
Dismissing police officer’s interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity defense in case in which Balch Springs police officer, Roy Oliver, fired into a car of teenagers leaving a party, killing Jordan Edwards. The Fifth Circuit found that it had no jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of summary judgment because of material fact disputes regarding whether the vehicle was a threat at the time that Oliver shot into the car.
Bluebird Med. Enterprises, LLC v. Willis, 651 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.)
Assuming, without deciding, that a motor vehicle collision involving an ambulance presented a health care liability claim, the court of appeals found that the plaintiffs’ preliminary expert reports satisfied the health care liability act when a paramedic outlined how the standard of care and breach caused the crash while a forensic pathologist linked the breach to the deceased plaintiff’s injury and death. In so holding, the court of appeals rejected the ambulance company defendant’s argument that a physician was required opine on the cause of the collision, observing that under Chapter 74 a physician need only opine on the cause of the injury, harm, or damages claimed.
In re Cash, No. 20-0837 (Tex. March 11, 2022)
Successfully defeated mandamus petition related to trial court's new trial order.
Wheeler v. State, 616 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)
Obtained petition for review of Court of Appeals' decision that affidavit was not properly sworn.
Hallman v. State, 620 S.W.3d 931 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)
Successfully obtained reversal and remand of Court of Appeals' decision that the State had failed to timely disclose evidence.
Montelongo v. Abrea, 622 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2021)
The underlying dispute involves over 300 plaintiffs suing Montelongo for fraud based on real estate investment educational seminars he sold to plaintiffs. I was only involved on appeal with regard to the anti-slapp MTD: The Texas Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Montelongo's TCPA motion to dismiss was untimely. The Court held that if a party amends a petition to add a cause of action, even if the underlying facts remain the same, the time period for filing a TCPA motion to dismiss as to the newly added claims is reset.
Reynolds v. Sanchez Oil & Gas Corp., 635 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 2021)
The underlying case is an oil and gas dispute. Terra Energy filed a TCPA motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the motion to dismiss was untimely. However, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case in light of the Court's holding in Montelongo v. Abrea, 622 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2021).
Rawlings v. Rawlings, 505 P.3d 875 (N.M. App. 2021)
Successfully convinced New Mexico Court of Appeals to reverse the final decree in a domestic relations case where district court violated the Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to conduct a hearing on mother's objections to a domestic relations hearing officer’s recommendations regarding child custody.
Gateway Diagnostic Imaging, LLC v. Ratnasabapathy, No. 05-20-00817-CV, 2021 WL 3855634 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 30, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.)
Affirming denial of Chapter 74 motion to dismiss and holding that trial court properly considered amended expert reports that plaintiff filed within 120 days of defendant’s answer.
Cirrus Design Corp. v. Berra, 633 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, no pet.)
Affirming trial court’s order denying special appearance by an aircraft manufacturer in a wrongful death products liability case. The plaintiff’s husband was killed when his aircraft crashed in Bexar County. The Minnesota-based aircraft manufacturer challenged the court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, arguing that the manufacturer lacked the necessary minimum contacts with Texas because the plaintiff’s claims did not arise from or relate to any purposeful activity it conducted in Texas. The Court of Appeals, citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., and the recent Texas Supreme Court decision, Luciano v. SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, rejected the aircraft manufacturer’s arguments and held that the the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction was proper.
In re C.A., No. 02-21-00018-CV, 2021 WL 2753533 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 1, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Successfully prevented the deposition of a severely impaired plaintiff before an examination to determine competency. An issue of first impression, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals found that Texas Rules of Evidence 104 and 601 apply to and impose a duty on trial courts to examine a deposition witness to determine his competency before the witness is deposed, and that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling the deposition without first conducting that examination.
Alford-Shaw v. Nicholson, No. 02-20-00387-CV, 2021 WL 2753508 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 1, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
In wrongful death case arising out of an airplane crash, Independent Executrix of pilot's estate objected to the Texas court’s exercise of jurisdiction over her because, she argued, she was not a citizen of Texas and the pilot’s estate had been informally closed before the lawsuit was filed. The court of appeals rejected this argument, affirming the trial court's conclusion that the Independent Executrix failed to meet her evidentiary burden to prove that her administration of the pilot’s Estate had been informally closed as a matter of law.
In re Elara Signature Homes, Inc., No. 09-21-00068-CV, 2021 WL 1418235 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 15, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Successfully defeated petition for writ of mandamus filed by Defendants who did not want to answer discovery related to financial transactions among themselves in the face of allegations of fraudulent transfers.
Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd., 632 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, no pet.)
Successfully convinced court of appeals that summary judgment based on the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision was not proper where fact issues existed as to whether killed and injured passengers’ travel from drilling site to bunkhouse originated in or related to Amerimex’s business.