August 2018 – Page 2 – Michael C. Smith's Eastern District of Texas Blog

More forum selection in criminal cases – 5th Circuit approves prosecutors’ filing in “center of commerce” in EDTX

August 8, 2018August 8, 2018 msmithCommentary, Court News

On Monday I noted that the EDTX is a venue of choice in significant drug smuggling cases arising out of seizures on the other side of the Galapagos islands.

Coincidentally, on that same day the Fifth Circuit released another opinion affirming prosecutors’ right to select an EDTX venue for a false statements case where the alleged lie took place in Eastern District of Texas, was mailed from the Northern District of Texas, and the agency received the document in Colorado. This underscores a fact familiar to EDTX practitioners – there are a lot of criminal cases that could have been filed in the Northern District of Texas or elsewhere but are instead filed in the Eastern District, for reasons that are beyond the scope of this post. And the Fifth Circuit has something to say about that, as I explain.

More Attempts at MDL

August 7, 2018August 8, 2018 msmithCommentary, Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)

More data points on what will not result in MDL in a patent case last week, as the panel declined to consolidate a batch of actions pending in five districts either in EDTX or Colorado.

Forum selection in criminal cases – how drug arrests near the Galapagos Islands get to the Eastern District of Texas

August 6, 2018August 6, 2018 msmithCourt News

The subject of forum selection in civil cases gets a lot of press. What doesn’t get as much attention is forum selection in criminal cases, i.e. where the Justice Department files its cases.

In the same way that private litigants often seek out EDTX judges and juries, prosecutors often do the same in criminal cases. In fact, East Texas juries are often asked to hear criminal cases involving drug smuggling because the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas has asked to prosecute them. This started with former U.S. Attorney John M. Bales, continued under his successor as Acting U.S. Attorney Brit Featherston, and is continuing under new U.S. Attorney Joe Brown. The intent is to attempt to break Central American smuggling networks responsible for bringing cocaine into Texas.

“To really have an effect on the drug supply in this country, we have to be willing to go after every person involved in the chain of distribution,” Brown told the Dallas Morning News Friday. “Whether it’s the street dealer, or the person on the boat transporting, or the leader of the cartel, we will charge them and convict them.”

This was front and center in Judge Mazzant’s courtroom in Sherman last week as he wrapped up a criminal trial dealing with two defendants accused of taking part in an attempt to smuggle a ton of Columbian cocaine across the Pacific Ocean. The defendants were arrested after being stopped approximately 1,000 miles west of the Galapagos Islands by the USCGC Hamilton (WMSL-753), which I feel obliged to tell you is the fourth Legend-class cutter of the United States Coast Guard, as well as the fifth cutter named after Alexander Hamilton, who in addition to absolutely killing it on Broadway was also the first United States Secretary of the Treasury and in that position requested the formation of the United States Coast Guard (as the United States Revenue Cutter Service).

The case is believed to be the first involving maritime drug smuggling to make it to trial in the EDTX. Cases more routinely involve smuggling from Colombia to the U.S. and Mexico.

No patents were harmed in the prosecution of this case.

Motion for Contempt Granted

August 2, 2018 msmithJudge Amos L. Mazzant III, Sherman

This is a trademark and unfair competition case. The case ended with an injunction, which was then followed by the defendant taking bankruptcy. Plaintiff, however, continued to see the Defendant violating the injunction through its social media posts, and filed a motion for contempt, which is where the interesting part started.

Motion to Transfer Google Case to California Denied

August 1, 2018 msmithJudge J. Rodney Gilstrap, Marshall, Venue

In a 43 page opinion (much, much longer if you count the extensive 10 point footnotes) Judge Gilstrap denied defendant Google’s motion to transfer the pending SEVEN litigation to California. The opinion addresses several issues relevant to the transfer analysis post TC Heartland / In re Cray that will be of interest to practitioners, as noted below.