I wrote recently on the surprising interest many lawyers have in removal and remand issues, and wanted to add to the database a recent order from Judge Mazzant in Sherman providing his take on removal caselaw.
Last fall I posted on a significant opinion awarding enhanced damages by Judge Mazzant in Sherman. He recently amended the order and judgment in response to a motion for reconsideration to reflect some additional activity since the original findings.
Motions for summary judgment are often used to isolate and dispose of claims that are factually unsupported. A classic example is where, as here, a contract between the parties is alleged to preclude or limit certain claims or elements of damages. Such a case was presented in this recent opinion by Judge Mazzant in Sherman in which
It sometimes happens that after plaintiffs move to transfer venue, or to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue (there’s a secret handshake for those of us that realize which of these motions really doesn’t as a practical matter, matter) the plaintiff seeks jurisdictional discovery. Typically parties work out the content and timing of these issues, but every so often the cart gets in the ditch, and the court has to be called in to resolve the disagreements. That’s what happened in this case – and the specific issue was the temporal scope of jurisdictional discovery. In this case
Plaintiffs moved to quash subpoenas sent to third parties seeking bank records, arguing that they sought disclosure of confidential and proprietary business and personal information that was not relevant. Judge Mazzant agreed that the bank records were relevant to Plaintiffs’ damages claims, noting that comprehensive protective orders sufficiently assure the confidentiality of documents containing trade secrets or other confidential commercial information. Click through for a copy of the Court’s order. diamond 006
When I started practicing law just a few weeks shy of 25 years ago, the most common cases I worked on were product liability cases, in which plaintiffs asserted that defective products, most commonly motor vehicles, caused injuries or death. While these cases are rarer than they once were, they still show up from time to time, and a perennial issue in them is the admissibility of testimony of the parties’ expert witnesses on the various issues in the case, including the existence of a defect, whether the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. In this case, Judge Clark recently resolved two motions dealing with expert testimony in a vehicle product liability case. In the first,
This motion arises out a special education due process hearing request with the Texas Education Agency. The plaintiff’s request was heard and denied by a Special Education Hearing Officer at TEA, and plaintiff appealed. Ten months after filing its appeal in federal court, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Submit Additional Evidence to the Record, seeking to introduce twenty-two exhibits which plaintiff asserts were denied admission at the administrative due process hearing, as well as evidence not available at the time of the administrative due process hearing, including recent progress reports and evaluations provided by private therapy providers. After reviewing the standards for such appeals and the evidence the Court is to consider, the Court denied the requests, explaining with respect to each of the requested categories why, as set forth in the attached opinion. E M v Lewisville Independent School District
Judge Mazzant recently considered the issue of whether a case alleged disability discrimination was required to be arbitrated. The employee claimed that she did not recall acknowledging and agreeing to be bound by the agreement when filling out her employment forms electronically, and the defendant prodvided evidence that she had in fact done so. The Court granted the motion, finding that the company’s arbitration agreement required arbitration. Thick v Dolgencorp of Texas Inc