Significant Victories
Lopez, et al. v. University of the Southwest, No. 2:23-cv-00327-DHU-JHR, 2024 WL 68531 (D.N.M. Jan. 5, 2024).
Successfully moved to remand on behalf of the family of a student killed in a bus crash returning from a college golf tournament. The district court held that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations do not create a private right of action for personal injury or wrongful death, and the plaintiffs’ complaint did not raise federal questions turning on the substantive construction of federal law. Therefore, removal was improper, and remand to New Mexico state court was required.
Eldorado Homeowners’ Assoc., Inc. v. Clough, No. 05-22-00198-CV, 2024 WL 20170 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 2, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Successfully defended summary judgment, including attorney’s fees, in favor of homeowners related to dispute over retaining wall and declarations making it clear that Association—and not homeowners—is obligated to maintain it.
In re Harvey, No. 02-23-00401-CV, 2023 WL 8643022 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Successfully obtained mandamus relief after trial court denied motion to defer payment of sanction award, ordering trial court to enter a new order either (1) providing that sanction is payable only at or following entry of a final order terminating the litigation or (2) including express findings explaining why ordering that sanction be payable before entry of a final judgment does not preclude access to the courts.
Roe v. Tajon, No. 02-23-00179-CV, 2023 WL 8643020, at (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 14, 2023, no pet. h.).
Reversing dismissal of medical negligence claims against doctor and hospital based on their objections to Chapter 74 expert reports.
In re UV Logistics, LLC, 682 S.W.3d 612 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]).
Successfully defended trial court’s decision to order that independent neuropsychological exam of the plaintiffs be audio and video recorded. The court of appeals found no abuse of discretion where there was evidence of special circumstances—cognitive deficits that could affect the plaintiffs’ ability to communicate about the testing with their counsel—that supported recording the exam.
Bugle Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Sheikh, No. 14-22-00470-CV, 2023 WL 7034213 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 26, 2023, no pet. h.).
Upholding trial court ruling which denied a defendant’s special appearance in a Jones Act case.
Valdiviez, et al. v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, et al., No. A-1-CA-36671, 2023 WL 5427953 (N.M. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2023).
Successfully reversed trial court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in a wrongful death product liability case.
Law Offices of Domingo A. Garcia, P.C. v. Trosman, No. 07-22-00306-CV, 2023 WL 4753775 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 25, 2023, no pet.).
Reversing judgment in a contract action based on trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer venue.
In re Estate of Morgan, No. 05-22-00203-CV, 2024 WL 2509041 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 24, 2024, pet. denied)
Successfully reversed trial court judgment approving settlement agreement signed by guardian ad litem over the objection of fathers who believed settlement was not in the best interest of their minor sons.
Royalty Asset Holdings II, LP v. Bayswater Fund III-A LLC, No. 08-22-00108-CV, 2023 WL 2533169 (Tex. App.—El Paso Mar. 15, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
Successfully reversed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in case involving royalties owed under oil and gas lease. Discussing the legacy of the 1/8th royalty in Texas law and the estate misconception theory, the court determined that the language of a 1924 Deed reserved a floating royalty interest, not a fixed royalty interest, and remanded the case to determine the amount of damages owed to the firm's client.
Olivares v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co. LP, No. 05-22-00057-CV, 2023 WL 2494533 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 14, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
Successfully reversed trial court’s order granting a plea to the jurisdiction in suit to recover personal injury damages against Chevron, holding that Chevron was not entitled to the worker’s compensation exclusive remedy defense because the injured worker, who was an employee of a subsidiary company, was not a deemed employee under Chevron’s OCIP policy.
Livingston Land, LLC v. Brooker, No. A-1-CA-38948, 2023 WL 2017517 (N.M. App. Feb. 15, 2023)
Successfully convinced New Mexico Court of Appeals to affirm judgment rejecting contract and fraud claims against state licensed medical cannabis growers for failure to prove damages.
Nazarian v. Remarkable Healthcare of Carrollton, LP, No. 02-22-00324-CV, 2023 WL 3370721 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 11, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
Successfully reversed Chapter 74 dismissal based on challenge to preliminary expert report in nursing home negligence case, finding that the expert's “evidence-based inferences" did not constitute improper speculation.
Ramsay v. Ferguson, No. 07-23-00392-CV, 2024 WL 769537 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 23, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Affirming the denial of nursing home administrators’ qualifications-based challenge to Chapter 74 preliminary expert reports and holding that licensed nursing administrators were qualified to offer opinions on standard of care and breach while a forensic pathologist was qualified to address causation.
One World Bank v. Miller, No. 05-21-00705-CV, 2023 WL 333712 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 20, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
Successfully defended grant of traditional and no evidence summary judgment in favor of buyer and award of attorney’s fees to buyer in the bank’s suit to sequester a vehicle dealership sold to a buyer in good faith after dealership defaulted on its inventory loan. The court found that a purchase by a buyer in good faith cuts off the bank’s security interest in the vehicle. In a matter of first impression, the court also found that the buyer was entitled to recover his attorney’s fees under Texas Property Code Section 70.008 because the suit was one for possession of a motor vehicle.
Walker v. Carlsbad Med. Ctr., LLC, No. A-1-CA-40662, 2023 WL 209184 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2023)
Successfully convinced the New Mexico Court of Appeals to reverse summary judgment in a medical malpractice case in which the defendant hospital administered incorrect blood pressure medications to the wrong patient, causing a life-threatening drop in blood pressure. The Court of Appeals found that the grant of summary judgment was error because plaintiff’s medical expert’s testimony permitted a reasonable inference of causation.
Aquifer Science v. Verhines, et al., 2023-NMCA-020, 527 P.3d 667 (2022)
Successfully defended decision to deny developer’s water application that would have impaired existing wells and would have been contrary to conservation of water in New Mexico, along with cost award, including post-judgment interest, to prevailing public interest group that opposed water application.
Byrd v. Cornelius, 52 F.4th 265 (5th Cir. 2022)
Successfully convinced court of appeals to dismiss officers’ qualified immunity appeal for lack of jurisdiction in light of material factual disputes regarding the officers’ use of force. The Fifth Circuit determined that video of the incident did not conclusively establish reasonable force, and that the law clearly established that officers' use of force was excessive force in circumstances consistent with the Plaintiff's version of events.
Crane v. City of Arlington, Tex., 50 F.4th 453 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub nom. City of Arlington v. Crane, 144 S. Ct. 342 (2023)and cert. denied sub nom. Roper v. Crane, 144 S. Ct. 342 (2023)
Successfully reversed trial court’s grant of summary judgment to police officer, holding that the officer was not entitled to summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense when he shot and killed an unarmed driver during a pretextual traffic stop.
In re Guerra, No. 13-22-00305-CV, 2022 WL 4126021 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 9, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Successfully defeated mandamus petition seeking to modify trial court's order allowing defendant to conduct Rule 204 physical examination of the plaintiff, but requiring that it be performed by telemedicine.