Below is a cross-section of work completed in years 2006-2008. The below does not reflect the numerous motions and research tasks completed during years 2008-2014.


General Civil Litigation – Motions & Pleadings Drafted

Project 1

Drafted a Response to a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Response to a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution, Amended Petition, and appeared at the hearing on these motions to assist plaintiff’s counsel in a case involving the breach of a stock purchase agreement by a healthcare company.

Project 2:

Drafted a Petition and Applications for TRO, TI, and permanent injunction on behalf of the employer in a suit against a former employee, where the employee attempted, following his termination, to gain employment with a competing company in violation of the covenant not to compete formed between the parties. Also, drafted Motion to Withdraw and Notice of Withdrawal under TRCP 10 so as to sever the lead attorney’s representation of the employee alleged to have sexually harassed his fellow employee.

Project 3:

Drafted a Response to a Special Appearance in a breach of contract case brought against a non-resident company where the company’s only contact with Texas was a partial payment under the contract to a Texas Bank and where the contract included a forum selection clause that provided for jurisdiction in another state, a state with which neither party had any connection whatsoever.

Project 4:

Drafted a Response to a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of a corporate defendant, demonstrating a fact issue as to whether a creditor may enforce an acceleration clause when its only bases for doing so is a minor breach of the contract; a breach that was cured immediately and did not result in any late payments.

Project 5:

Drafted a Petition on behalf of a commercial debtor in a suit against a creditor, seeking declaratory judgment as to accord and satisfaction and a “right of redemption” action to redeem secured property under Article 9. Drafted also an Application for TRO and Temporary Injunction to enjoin defendant from foreclosing on the debtor’s collateral; and an Application for Permanent Injunctive Relief to order defendant to file a UCC-3 termination statement.

Project 6:

Drafted, in a covenant not to compete case, a Petition and Request for TRO and Temporary Injunction where a high-level executive, who was brought in from out of state to increase sales, soon thereafter left the employ of Plaintiff to start his own company in direct competition with Plaintiff.

Project 7:

Drafted an Answer on behalf of the employer in a case where an employee filed suit for sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor; defending theories of respondeat superior, vice principal, negligent hiring, retention, supervision and training.

Project 8:

Drafted, in a complex stock transfer transaction gone awry, a Motion for New Trial on the ground that certain claims were not disposed of by the court’s judgment, which purported to be final. Nor were such claims addressed in the opposing party’s MSJ, on which the judgment was granted. (The claims in question were inserted by our firm into an Amended Answer and filed concurrently with our response to the MSJ.)

Project 9:

Drafted, in a case where the Plaintiff sued a corporate executive individually for non-payment of the corporation’s franchise taxes, a Motion for Summary Judgment; arguing that the Plaintiff erred by suing the executive in his individual capacity, despite the fact that the corporation had lost its corporate privileges as a result of not paying its franchise tax. Our firm argued, pursuant to case law we discovered, that the com-pany’s later payment of the past due franchise taxes caused a re-instatement of corporate privileges, which related back as if the forfeiture never occurred.

Project 10:

Drafted a Motion to Quash Notice of Oral Deposition in a case where the attorney of record, our client, received notice, for deposition and yet opposing counsel refused our client’s request to limit the scope of the deposition to that of attorney fees; the purported reason for the deposition. (Details omitted to safeguard confidentiality.)

Project 11:

Drafted a Response to a Motion for Summary Judgment and appeared at the hearing to assist defense counsel in arguing the response in a case where plaintiff sued defendant on promissory notes executed by defendant and where the funds to be provided to defendant in exchange for the promissory notes were never paid.

Project 12:

Drafted a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of a manufacture, in a case where plaintiffs sued the manufacture under CERCLA and SWDA for contribution and indemnity for cleanup costs, on the ground that the manufacture is a “dead and buried” corporation.

Project 13:

Drafted a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the defendants, in a case where a child is injured on the playground of a parochial school, to establish that the limitation of liability and damages cap provisions of the Texas Charitable Immunity and Liability Act, found in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.006, absolve all defendants of liability.

Project 14:

Created Trial Manual for lawyer trying a negligent hiring/retention case wherein evidentiary issues were identified and argued, to include the admissibility of the content of a “myspace” page over the objection of opposing counsel, and to oppose admission of a police investigator’s report. Also, our firm summarized numerous depositions from which we created a catalog of contradictions as between the deponents. Also, our firm performed research in support of a Trial Brief to oppose the characterization of defendant’s employee as a “vice principal.”

Project 15:

Drafted a Petition in a business litigation case. The causes of action plead include breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secret, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, disparagement, tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business relations.

Project 16:

Drafted a Response to a Motion for Entry of Judgment on behalf of the defendant in a DTPA case where plaintiff sought treble economic and treble mental anguish damages, even though the jury only found knowing conduct.

General Civil Litigation – Legal Research

Project 1:

Research to support a motion to confirm arbitration award in favor of an award of arbitration fees, where the arbitrator awarded the fees in the absence of contractual or statutory authority.

Project 2:

Research whether an agreed judgment, which is now dormant for failure of the judgment holder to execute on the judgment, is nevertheless enforceable on the ground that the debtor agreed, as part of the settlement agreement that gave rise to the agreed judgment, to forever waive his rights to challenge the validity and enforceability of the judgment.

Project 3:

Performed legal research to determine at what point in time a first party claim accrued for statute of limitations purposes in a case where the insurance carrier simply “closed” the claim but never denied the claim outright.

Project 4:

Research to prevent compelled disclosure of defendant’s customer list in a case where the purpose of plaintiff’s discovery request was to show a routine or habit under Texas Rule of Evidence 406.

Project 5:

Research whether a judgment is void when the plaintiff-assignor filed a declaratory judgment action under Chapter 37 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, when plaintiff earlier assigned all of its interest to a necessary third party who was not named in the lawsuit as required by the Declaratory Judgment Act, and, in so doing, distinguishing the pre-sent case from the recent cases that dispose of the “necessary and indispensable party” concepts under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 39.

Project 6:

Objective research as to the proper measure of damages in a breach of contract case in which the subject of the contract involved providing several different outsourced services to a business client, and one of the services provided was deficient.

Project 7:

Research to support the enforceability of a particular covenant not to compete in the wake of Sheshunoff v. Johnson and Hardy v. Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc.

Project 8:

Objective research as to whether an affidavit signed by a non-notary is considered notarized when the non-notary signed the affidavit under the direction of a licensed notary. Also the issue of whether the notary’s aforementioned conduct constitutes “good cause” sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against the notary under 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 87.41.

Project 9:

Objective research as to the viability of a malpractice claim against an attorney, and also whether fee-forfeiture is available, when the attorney, whose practice involves predominately civil cases, failed to advise his client to exercise his 5th Amendment privilege to remain silent during a meeting of bank executives, at which meeting the client allegedly admitted acts of bank fraud, that ultimately led to a criminal conviction.

Project 10:

Objective research as to whether a promise to provide a 5% profit-share to an employee constitutes an enforceable contract, when the employer made the promise for the purpose of inducing the employee to terminate his prior employ and come to work for the employer, to include whether the terms of the promise are sufficiently definite, fixed, and promissory in nature to satisfy the prerequisites for an enforceable contract.

Project 11:

Review of a non-disclosure agreement on behalf of an attorney representing a former key employee of a consumer electronics distributor; rendering an opinion as to the enforceability of the agreement and the applicability of the “inevitable disclosure doctrine.”

Project 12:

Objective research as to the requirements for an equitable bill of review to set aside a default summary judgment, where the defendant, who was properly served and had filed an answer, never received notice of the motion for summary judgment and accordingly failed to appear at the summary judgment hearing.

Project 13:

Research to show that a bonding company’s right of indemnity as to a notary does not arise when a claim is made against the notary; rather, the claim arises when the claim is paid on the bond.

Project 14:

Objective research as to whether a pending, unliquidated tort claim subjects a potential defendant to the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) such that the defendant’s pre-judgment property transfers could be set aside under TUFTA.

Project 15:

Research, in a case where an apartment complex sought to prematurely dissolve its 10 year lease with a washer and dryer lessor; our firm arguing in particular that a prior HUD foreclosure sale to which the complex was subject resulted in termination of the lease under 24 C.F.R. § 27.45(b) and 12 U.S.C. § 3713(c).

Project 16:

Objective research regarding punitive damages under the Sabine Pilot Doctrine.

Project 17:

Research, in a suit involving a breach of a franchise agreement, where the primary dispute concerned the amount of lost profits to which the franchisor was entitled. Our firm’s objective was to establish that the calculation of lost future royalties (i.e., lost profits) should not include the entire remainder of the 5-year contract term because agreement included a 60-day termination clause that either party could exercise at any time.

Project 18:

Research to ascertain and assess the viability of defense theories in a 10(b)(5) SEC insider trading civil enforcement action brought by the SEC under 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77 and 78.

Project 19:

Research to assess the enforceability of a claim that was arguably discharged in bankruptcy, where the bankruptcy court later dismissed the bankruptcy action due to the debtor’s misconduct but failed to reference the discharge as part of its dismissal order. Also the issue of whether a civil judgment held by a bankruptcy creditor was discharged in bankruptcy, even though the creditor did not receive notice of the bankruptcy filing until after the bankruptcy discharge.

Project 20:

Research whether documents over which the defendant had no “possession, custody, or control” must nevertheless be produced by defendant pursuant to a request for production on the ground that the defendant’s financial institution possessed the documents and the documents are subject to Chapter 31 of the Texas Finance Code.

Project 21:

Research whether the trial court has the discretion to allow a defendant to modify its response to a request for admission even though the answer as modified would be inconsistent with the overwhelming evidence developed in the record. A sub-issue was whether the law treats the modification of affirmative admissions the same way as that of deemed admissions. Upon answering that question in the affirmative, our firm developed arguments to persuade the judge to disallow such modification.

Project 22:

Research to defeat a motion to sever in a complex case filed in federal district court against a number of defendants (facts omitted to safeguard confidentiality).

Project 23:

Research the extent to which an association, that organizes events and establishes standards for a particular recreational activity, subjects itself to antitrust liability when the association restricts the number of members that may operate in a particular geographic area so as to limit the number of new providers that can join the organization.

Project 24:

Research whether an insurance carrier must, at the request its insured, produce the contents of a claims file, when the contents were generated by the insurer in connection with a third party claim against the insured and when the purpose for which the insured sought the contents was to discover evidence for a separate first party claim brought against the insurer.

Project 25:

Research to challenge a no-answer default judgment; providing analysis as to which method was most likely to succeed given the facts of the case (i.e., the time to file a motion for new trial passed, the court no longer has plenary power, the ordinary appellate timeline passed, and where a restricted appeal would not be effective under the facts presented).

Project 26:

Research whether the “death penalty” sanction is available when opposing counsel has failed to appear for numerous hearings and depositions, even though the court had yet to levy any lesser sanctions against opposing counsel, under the particular facts presented.

Project 27:

Examined the Texas and Federal Fair Housing Act (respectively, Tex. Property Code Ann. § 301.001 et seq. and 42 U.S.C.A. § 3601 et seq.) on behalf of a non-profit organization that sought to operate a group home in a residential neighborhood over the objection of the homeowners’ association.

Project 28:

Research regarding the liability exposure of a private company hired by local counties to assist constables in the execution of writs.

Project 29:

Research to defeat a motion to transfer venue in a complex commercial case brought by financial institutions against a nationwide insurance company.

Project 30:

Research whether a party with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion on file waives that motion by engaging in discovery.

Project 31:

Performed legal research regarding whether, under Delaware law, a stockholder of a close corporation usurps corporate opportunities by operating a competing company, under the particular facts presented.

Project 32:

Research in support of a response to motion for new trial filed in federal court in a commercial breach of contract and fraud case. The case involved the purchase of accounts receivable, and whether the purchaser was liable for the torts and breach of contract of the assignor under the terms of an asset purchase agreement.

Project 33:

Research regarding the effect of plaintiff’s incontestable trademark in a lawsuit, when incontestability status was not obtained until a few years after issuance of a final judgment in an earlier suit in which the plaintiff’s mark was found not subject to trademark protection.

Personal Injury

Project 1:

Drafted a Response to Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit against a municipality to establish a fact issue as to waiver of sovereign immunity in opposition to the municipality’s assertion that no waiver occurred since its employees had arrived at the scene in response to a 911 call (see, Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.062); and also establish a fact issue as to whether the acts complained of rose to the level of willful or wanton negligence.

Project 2:

Drafted a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the employer, a local chain of fast food restaurants, in a suit alleging negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention. The MSJ asserts that the defendant employer bears no duty to conduct criminal background checks on their employees and, thus, cannot possibly be held liable for an employee’s assault, even though the employee had a criminal history; arguing, through relevant case law, that the restaurant would sustain a significant administrative burden to perform nationwide criminal background checks on all of the restaurant’s current and prospective employees; and also arguing that fast food restaurants, and other low-profit enterprises, provide significant social utility in that the restaurants supply jobs to the otherwise jobless, whose backgrounds are often not without blemishes. Also drafted a Motion to Exclude Evidence and Motion in Limine to establish that, because the employer had no duty to conduct a background check, all evidence as to the employee’s past convictions should be inadmissible.

Project 3:

Drafted a Motion for Summary Judgment to establish, as a matter of law, that loading a horse for transport is considered an “equine activity” under the Texas Equine Act, Chapter 87 of the Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, so as to bar recovery against the horse’s owner.

Project 4:

Drafted, in a wrongful death medical malpractice case, a Motion to Exclude plaintiff’s evidence of past and future lost pecuniary contributions on the ground that the plaintiff failed to properly reveal the amount and method of calculating damages in response to defendant’s request for disclosure.

Project 5:

Drafted a Trial brief to show why the phrase “actually paid or incurred,” as used in Section 41.0105 Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, precludes from its scope amounts that were “written off” by plaintiff’s medical providers. Also, the brief asserts defendant’s position that the collateral source rule does not bear on this issue because the “write offs” were never paid or incurred by a collateral source.

Project 6:

Drafted, on behalf of the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case, Response to Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Expert Reports, arguing that supplemental expert reports may be filed at any time before the elapse of the 120-day deadline, even though not expressly provided for in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.351.

Project 7:

Drafted, on behalf of plaintiff in a med mal case, Response to Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Expert Report. Also drafted Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to combat defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the pre-notice letter and medical authorization form provided by plaintiff pursuant to Section 74.051 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

Project 8:

Research, in a products liability case, to support a petition for pre-suit deposition under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 where the purpose for the pre-suit deposition was to ascertain the identities of upstream manufactures, in response to opposing counsel’s contention that the only permissible purpose of pre-suit deposition is to perpetuate witnesses’ testimony.

Project 9:

Research in a personal injury case as to whether the defendant properly designated a responsible third party under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, under the particular facts presented.

Project 10:

Research, on behalf of the plaintiff, to show that defendant’s employee was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the auto accident with plaintiff--despite the general rule that an employee is not in course and scope of employment while driving to and from his place of work--where the collision occurred several yards outside the entrance of the employer’s premises and where the employee, who normally works and resides in a different state, was assigned to work in Texas for only a short duration.

Project 11:

Conducted legal research in a case where plaintiff was injured by an intentional act committed by a co-employee. The plaintiff proceeded against the employer under the intentional act exception. However, before doing so, the plaintiff accepted workers’ compensation benefits, which acceptance formed the basis for defendant’s proposed defense, as supported by our research.

Project 12:

Research, on behalf of defendant, to support the inadmissibility of the testimony of a witness who observed the defendant consume alcohol at a restaurant prior to the fatality 18-wheeler accident in which the defendant was involved. Also, research to support defendant’s position that accident reconstructionist was qualified to render an opinion regarding the 18-wheeler accident based on his knowledge and education, even though the expert had never before operated an 18-wheeler. Also, our firm drafted Defendant’s Proposed Jury Charge and appeared at the charge conference to assist defense counsel in arguing charge issues.

Project 13:

Research, in connection with an appeal filed with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of plaintiffs, to show that the trial court erred by granting a judgment on the pleadings in a case where the plaintiffs, the family of a mentally ill person, asserted constitutional claims through 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 against the governmental unit whose agents caused the asphyxiation death of this mentally ill individual.

Real Property Litigation

Project 1:

Research, in a suit brought by the would-be purchaser of a commercial property, to show why an escrow agent is liable for fraud by non-disclosure when the agent knew or had reason to know that the seller, during the executory period, formed a contract to sell the same property to another buyer and yet failed to disclose this information to the would be purchaser; the results of which research we used to draft Deposition Questions to be used in various key depositions.

Project 2:

Drafted Trial Brief pursuant to which we performed construction of a deed in a delinquent property tax case where the dispute concerned which party owned a particular tract of land for the 10-year period during which unpaid property taxes had accrued. The tract at issue had been used as a parking lot by the owners of an adjacent townhome complex. Named as defendants in the case were the owners of the townhomes and the builder of the townhome complex. At issue was whether the builder conveyed the parking lot to the condo owners in FSA or whether he retained FSA and merely conveyed an easement.

Project 3:

Drafted an Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of a defendant-purchaser of real property in a declaratory judgment action, raising the following facts. A husband married his first wife. His first wife died, and the wife left a will, but no one offered her will for probate. The husband remarried. The husband subsequently died. His second wife offered the first wife’s will and the husband’s will to probate as muniments of title. The wills were admitted to probate, albeit erroneously. The second wife sold the property that she acquired under the wills. The children of the first marriage challenged the sale because the wills were improperly admitted to probate, but the children failed to timely file a will contest, statutory bill of review, or equitable bill of review.

Project 4:

Drafted an Answer and Response to Plaintiff’s Application for TRO and Temporary Injunction in an intentional trespass case where defendants lawfully operated a racetrack facility, and racing automobiles entered plaintiff’s property on occasion. The automobiles entered plaintiff’s property due to unintentional mechanical problems rather than from an intent on the part of the driver to enter plaintiff’s property; and our firm located case law to support this position under Texas law.

Project 5:

Drafted a Demand Letter, asserting allegations by a Texas resident against a New Mexico real estate broker, delineating the torts committed, duties breached and damages sought, as supported by our firm’s case law and statutory research.

Project 6:

Construction of a commercial lease and legal research so as to assess the viability of a claim under the ADA and Chapter 121 of the Texas Human Resources Code in a case where a landlord refused to provide reasonable access to a commercial tenant who had suddenly become disabled due to a catastrophic injury and could not, while seated in his wheelchair, enter the narrow door of the leased premises.

Project 7:

Research whether the notice provided pursuant to an extra-judicial foreclosure sale of property contaminated by waste is sufficient under Section 51.002 of the Texas Property Code. Also researched the grounds upon which a substitute trustee may be appointed to effectuate the sale under the particular terms of the deed of trust.

Project 8:

Conducted legal research in a case where an earnest money contract was breached as to whether a lis pendens is an "adequate remedy at law" for which a temporary injunction may be properly denied.

Project 9:

Research in support of buyer’s argument that the purchase contract is not subject to a restrictive covenant when, at the time of formation, the covenant was not reflected on the subject deed or otherwise made part of the property records, under the particular facts presented.

Project 10:

Research whether, under the particular facts presented, a real estate salesperson (a non-broker) may bring an action under the Texas Occupations Code to collect a real estate commission, when the licensee was acting under the direction of a broker at the time of the sale.

Project 11:

Research, in a suit by a home buyer against the real estate broker for failure to disclose a defect, to show that the real estate broker disclosed enough information about the defect, albeit not all of the information she knew, to satisfy her duty of disclosure.

Project 12:

Research, under South Carolina law, to support seller’s position that a purported buyer filed a lis pendens in bad faith so as to thwart seller’s efforts to obtain specific performance.

Project 13:

Research the validity of a mechanic’s lien under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code, particularly focusing on the timelines and contents of the notices and affidavit required to perfect the lien, under the particular facts presented.

Project 14:

Research whether a property owner can recover against a municipality under the Texas Tort Claims Act when the city’s third party demolition contractor destroyed a condemned building, which in turn caused significant damage to the adjacent property owner’s building and property.

Project 15:

Research in a case where a seller formed earnest money contracts with two different buyers to sell the same tract of land. The question is whether the seller may properly terminate the earnest money contract with the first buyer pursuant to a provision in that contract that allows the seller to terminate if a defect in title arises that would cost money to cure, even though the title defect at issue, a lis pendens, was filed by the second buyer as a direct result of the seller’s own actions.

Transactional Drafting

Project 1:

Reviewed and drafted modifications to an advertising contract formed between a national professional sports league and an advertising firm whereby the league agreed to promote a national auto insurance company.

Project 2:

Drafted covenants not to compete, disclose, and solicit to be used by a circuit board retailer in connection with the company’s employment of sales representatives.

Project 3:

Construed, under Delaware law, an ambiguous stock transfer restriction (unique facts omitted to protect confidentiality).

Project 4:

Reviewed and drafted modifications to a management agreement to be formed between the largest condominium residence association in Texas and its proposed management company.

Project 5:

Reviewed and drafted modifications to a settlement agreement, with an eye toward decreasing the settlement credit available to non-settling defendants, in an unusual case where the settlement consideration constituted an interest in real property as opposed to cash.

Project 6:

Assess, under Montana law, the enforceability of a particular stock warrant.

Project 7:

Reviewed and drafted, on behalf of lessee, proposed modifications to Commercial Lease of 60,000 sq/ft building.

Project 8:

Drafted the formation documents, including the operating agreement, for a restaurant seeking to form a limited liability company under the Texas Business Organizations Code.

Family Law

Project 1:

Drafted a Trial Brief to challenge the validity of a purported foreign marriage; and in support of the enforceability of a premarital agreement executed by the parties in the period between the purported foreign marriage and the later Texas marriage.

Project 2:

Drafted, in a suit for modification, a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the mere risk that a parent may relocate outside Texas in the near future cannot, by itself, constitute a material and substantial change in circumstances under Texas Family Code § 156.101 because a change has yet to occur. Also drafted by our firm was a Trial Brief to show the court why the counter-petition for divorce survives in the event that the original divorce petition is dismissed.

Project 3:

Drafted Affidavit of Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights and Plaintiff’s Original Petition for termination, under the particular facts presented.

Project 4:

Research, in a Texas divorce suit, to support the applicability of Texas law to the construction of a premarital agreement where the agreement specifically states that it is to be interpreted under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and where the parties, then residents of Oklahoma, executed the agreement in Oklahoma.

Project 5:

Research to show that petitioner is not a grandparent as required for standing under Tex. Fam. Code § 102.004, and even if she were, she cannot meet the burden of showing significant impairment. Also conducted research to show that the purported grandmother’s home was not at any relevant time a “principal residence” of the child under § 102.003(b), and, as such, the petitioner lacks standing.

Project 6:

Research whether the court erred when it drafted the divorce decree in such as way as to limit the visitation of grandmother, who was named a possessory conservator, to run concurrently with the visitation periods granted to father, and further limited to the periods allowed by father in his sole discretion; focusing predominately on whether a conservator’s access may be controlled at the discretion of another conservator. Our firm also researched whether a material change in circumstances occurred when, after the decree, and due to father’s missteps, the court limited father to “supervised access,” which in effect materially limited child’s access to the grandmother. Research whether, in seeking a modification, grandmother would be bound by the burden of proof in Tex. Fam. Code § 153.433 (preponderance that the mother is unfit), or since the grandmother is already a conservator, does she simply have to meet the best interest standard.

Project 7:

Research as to the specific factors a Texas court may consider in determining whether to modify a joint managing conservatorship so as to remove a residency restriction when the sole managing conservator desires to relocate, under the unusual facts presented.

Project 8:

Research in support of a particular construction of a divorce property settlement agreement, so as to prevent former spouse from obtaining share of client’s retirement benefits, a result that the parties, at the time of drafting, arguably did not intend.

Project 9:

Identified cases in which the court awarded grandparent access under Tex. Fam. Code. § 153.433, over the objection of the sole living parent, where the grandparents had traditionally been highly involved in the life of the child, and yet where there is little or no evidence of unfitness on the part of the objecting parent.

Project 10:

Research to oppose the standing of a grandfather under Texas Family Code Sections 102.003 and 102.004 to bring a suit to affect parent-child relationship, under the particular facts presented.

Project 11:

Conducted research to support a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act where an individual accessed his former spouse’s credit report through the credit reporting service to which his employer subscribed the purpose for which was to obtain the current address of the former spouse, without her consent.

Criminal Law

Project 1:

Drafted a Motion to Dismiss an indictment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b) in a federal case where the defendant was indicted for extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) and conspiracy to commit same under 18 U.S.C. § 371; arguing that the employment relationship between the defendant and the alleged co-conspirators, which was the only evidence on which the grand jury could have based its indictment, was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the indictment.

Project 2:

Drafted a Trial Brief to show that, where a self-defense theory is raised in a state criminal assault case, evidence of prior assaults by victim against the defendant, i.e., specific instances of prior bad acts, are relevant and admissible to establish the defendant’s state of mind and the victim’s character for violence as the first aggressor, under the particular facts presented. Also, the firm included arguments to show that the danger of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence under Rule of Evidence 403.

Project 3:

Drafted a Motion to Suppress evidence in a case where a police officer conducted a traffic stop, concluded the traffic stop, and subsequently searched defendant’s purse after the lawful purpose of the original traffic stop ceased and defendant should have been free to leave. The police officer continued questioning the defendant after returning defendant’s license, and after the defendant refused consent to search her automobile. Nevertheless, the officer searched defendant’s purse without reasonable suspicion to support the continued detention.The unlawful purse search led to the discovery of a small of amount of drugs, which in turn led to a large quantity of drugs located in the vehicle pursuant to a search incident to arrest.

Project 4:

Drafted a Motion for Severance in a federal criminal extortion prosecution involving multiple defendants where the alleged extortion related to a “buy-back” of customer and investor lists.

Project 5:

Objective research as to whether a defendant may, within the statutory period, assert a motion to reconsider defendant’s prior motion for shock probation, in contravention of the government’s argument to the effect that only one opportunity for shock probation is available during the statutory period.

Project 6:

Research to support defendant’s assertion that he maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy as to emails discovered on his computer about which the warrant was silent, even though the warrant references other digital documents located on the same computer in which the emails were stored.

Project 7:

Conducted research for a motion to suppress the field sobriety and breathalyzer test results in a DWI case where the husband and wife were detained in a traffic stop to investigate domestic violence based on a tip by an anonymous bar patron call who claimed he heard an argument between the husband and wife as they left the bar. The police handcuffed the husband and left him on the curb for 30 minutes while investigating the domestic violence case, and upon concluding that no violence occurred, arrested the husband for DWI.

Project 8:

Research in a state criminal sexual abuse prosecution against a psychologist to support the admissibility of the victim’s prior false accusations of sexual assault made against various mental health workers working with the alleged victim prior to this incident, so as to impeach the testimony of the victim. Where the state sought to exclude the evidence under Texas Rule of Evidence 412.

Project 9:

Research, under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) of the federal sentencing guidelines, as to whether a prior felon in possession of a trace amount of narcotics is subject to an upward sentencing adjustment when a firearm was discovered near his person.

Project 10:

Research, in a federal case, to support defendant’s position that polygraph evidence is not per se inadmissible pretrial.

Project 11:

Research whether a polygraph examination administered by a private party, yet controlled by a government agent, constituted a custodial interrogation and whether it was an abuse of the grand jury process when the government agent testified before the grand jury as to the information learned as a result of the polygraph examination.

Project 12:

Research whether a public school teacher has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” as to e-mails sent to and from a computer that she shares with other teachers, when the e-mail system is provided by the school and each teacher’s email account is password protected.

Project 13:

Research whether, in a federal criminal conspiracy case, evidence learned by a U.S. Attorney must be suppressed, when the U.S. Attorney had reason to know of a material conflict of interest on his part—a conflict that, if known, would have resulted in his disqualification—and yet he waited to bring the conflict to the attention of the court until after proffer sessions had taken place wherein the defendant revealed critical evidence.

Project 14:

Drafted a motion to suppress evidence in a California attempted murder case where police sought to retroactively support probable cause to arrest the defendant on the basis of information known to other officers in the department, but unknown to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.

Project 15:

Research to support, under the federal sentencing guidelines, a reduction of points for “acceptance of responsibility,” even though the defendant committed a crime while on release pending sentencing; a crime for which the defendant was not convicted.

Project 16:

Research, under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 of the federal sentencing guidelines, to oppose an upward adjustment in points for obstruction of justice due to perjury, in contravention of the prosecution’s argument to the effect that, since the defendant testified to his innocence and was nevertheless found guilty, the defendant must have committed perjury.

Oil and Gas

Project 1:

Drafted a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the surface owner in support of a particular construction of an “oil, gas, and other minerals” reservation clause in a deed where the reservation clause also contained additional language purporting to reserve a specific substance that would otherwise belong to the surface owner under the surface destruction test, but the substance was purportedly retained to the mineral owner pursuant to the reservation clause (specific facts omitted to protect the confidentiality of the end client).

Project 2:

Drafted, in a suit concerning a mineral lease agreement, portions of a Motion for Summary Judgment, where the defendant-lessees fraudulently obtained lease ratifications from the lessors even though the lessees had reason to know that the lease lapsed due to cessation of production.

Project 3:

Objective research as to whether, under the facts presented, an assembler of gas pipelines is a “mineral contractor” or, instead, a “mineral subcontractor” under Texas Property Code § 56.001 so as to determine which deadlines and burdens apply for attaching a mechanic’s and materialman’s lien (“M&M lien”). Also, under the relevant case law, assessed the property descriptions provided by the end client so as to determine whether the descriptions satisfy the requisites for filing an M&M lien. Generated a sample M&M lien affidavit and sample notice form. Assembled the documents necessary for the filing of the M&M lien.

Project 4:

Research as to whether a threat to condemn a pipeline easement is a permissible means by which to persuade an adjoining surface owner to agree to an express easement, including whether or not the threat can give rise to a business coercion/economic duress cause of action. Also, assuming, hypothetically, that the pipeline company successfully obtains the easement by way of the threat, whether a pipeline company subjects itself to liability if it later puts the easement to a non-public use, given that such non-public use seems inconsistent with the policy reason underlying the grant of condemnation powers to private utility companies.

Project 5:

Research regarding whether a well is “capable of producing in paying quantities” when the purchaser rejects the gas, reportedly due to presence of impurities, even though the gas lessee worked diligently throughout the shut in period to construct equipment that is known to remove the impurities (additional material facts omitted for confidentiality purposes).

Project 6:

Research to identify the various factors that the court may take under consideration when valuing condemnation damages, as well as the proper calculations to employ, given the unique use to which the surface owner had put the surface (i.e., he did not use it for farming, etc).

Project 7:

Research whether the Utilities Code authorizes a gas utility to lay pipe along a county road right of way, over the objection of the county, under the particular facts presented.

Project 8:

Research to identify the legal bases—other than condemnation—by which to impose, over the objection of the tract’s owner, a pipeline across the surface of an adjacent tract; including the idea of forming a unitization or pooling agreement with the mineral interest holders of said surface tract.

Project 9:

Construction of express warranty and limitation of remedies and damages provisions in a natural gas purchase agreement where the gas provided did not meet the specifications at issue, resulting in damage to the purchaser’s factory equipment.

Project 10:

Research on behalf of an international oil company in support of its claim for breach of a joint operating agreement (particular facts omitted to protect confidentiality).

Project 11:

In a case where the lessee trespassed by ceasing to produce in paying quantities for more than 10 days beyond the period allowed by the cessation clause, research whether the awareness of the trespass on the part of one of the mineral interest holders constituted permission (or waiver) that would render the trespass, which would otherwise constitute bad-faith trespass, a good faith trespass. If so, whether the trespass is also considered bad faith as to the mineral interest holders whom were unaware of the trespass?

Project 12:

Construction of a termination clause in a natural gas purchase agreement, which provided that the agreement would automatically renew from year-to-year unless 30 days’ prior notice was given. The issue was whether the required 30 days notice of termination extinguished the agreement 30 days after the notice was given, or whether that year’s term would be carried to conclusion before the termination would take effect.

Project 13:

Research whether the duty to reasonably develop the leased premises imposes on the lessee an obligation to refracture existing wells, under the particular facts involved. Also, under the same facts, whether failure to pay minimum royalties terminates the lease absent a lease provision providing for such termination.

Probate, Trusts, and Estates

Project 1:

Drafted Plea to the Jurisdiction to challenge the jurisdiction of a District Court under Sections 4 and 5 of the Texas Probate Code. Also, in response to plaintiff’s “tortious interference with estate administration” claim, our firm drafted an Answer, to include special exceptions and the affirmative defenses of limitations, no consideration, lack of requisite formalities, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

Project 2:

Research to show that a release executed by the primary beneficiary of a trust binds a non-signatory remainder beneficiary, under the facts presented, so as to preclude the remainder beneficiary from complaining about a leverage buyout undertaken by the trustee. Pursuant to our research, we argued that the remainder beneficiary, by accepting the benefits of the leverage buyout agreement, was estopped under the quasi-estoppel doctrine, from taking an incon-sistent position challenging the validity of the agreement.

Project 3:

Research whether a U.S. Savings Bond and the corresponding interest are subject to Texas community property rules or whether those rules have been preempted by federal law.

Project 4:

Objective research to construe a "payment of all debts" provision replete with unconventional language; and in particular, whether the provision includes within its scope the payment of estate tax so as to make the tax payable out of the estate rather than pursuant to 322A.

Project 5:

Research as to the judgment collection options of a judgment creditor when the judgment debtor would soon receive large cash payments pursuant to a will of a wealthy family member. At the time in question, the administrator of the estate had yet to make such payments. It was expected that the judgment debtor would flee as soon as the payments were made, so the judgment creditor sought to garnish the accounts held by the trustee containing the cash, or pursue other options such as a turnover order under Chapter 32 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Health Law

Project 1:

Drafted a Motion to Set Aside the Judgment and a Motion for New Trial in a case where a hospital filed suit against a former physician-employee pursuant to a covenant not to compete formed between those parties. Our firm asserted recently decided case law to show that the covenant satisfies § 15.50(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.

Project 2:

Research, as well as document review and analysis, in a Medicare Part B recoupment administrative action where a nurse allegedly billed for unreasonable and unnecessary medical expenses.

Project 3:

Research whether a prospective Medicare provider can bypass the administrative process and proceed directly to federal district court, when the governmental Medicare carrier intentionally and unapologetically ceased the applicant’s Medicare application review process.

Project 4:

Research to support hospital’s argument that a 15 mile radius is a reasonable geographic restriction under the circumstances presented in a physician covenant not to compete case.

Project 5:

Research to ascertain a physician’s administrative and judicial review rights in a case where CMS suspended a physician’s privilege to receive Medicare reimbursements, under the particular facts presented.

Project 6:

Research to resolve apparent ambiguities in a provision of the Texas Occupations Code related to optometrists (unique facts omitted to protect confidentiality of the end client).

Project 7:

Drafted a Brief in Support of Defendant’s Special Exceptions in a multi-defendant healthcare case where our defendant sought indemnity. The plaintiff executed a release, settlement, and indemnity agreement, wherein plaintiff agreed to settle with several defendants, but specifically excluded our defendant from the settlement and release portion of the agreement. Our firm argued, however, that the plaintiff nevertheless intended to indemnify our defendant because the indemnity portion of the agreement referenced a general class to which our defendant impliedly belonged.