Significant Victories
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.
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.