Twenty-four hours after Judge Bob Wortham announced he was running for Jefferson County District Attorney, local attorney Kent Walston announced he was seeking Wortham’s seat on the bench of the 58^th District Court.

Walston announced his candidacy at a press conference Thursday on the steps of the Jefferson County Courthouse, surrounded by a large crowd of supporters.

He currently serves as the Municipal Court Judge for the city of Nederland and is a partner in the Nederland law firm of Branick, Walston and Devenzio.

“I understand what it takes to be a judge,” Walston said. “I know it takes hard work, tenacity, fairness and following the law.”

A native of Port Neches, Walston, 53, said he has experience in every court in Jefferson County.

Local attorney Kent Walston, center, announces his intentions to run for judge of the Jefferson County 58th District Court on Nov. 7.

He has served as an Assistant District Attorney for Jefferson County and currently has a successful private practice, handling complex civil litigation, family law and criminal defense.  He also worked as an Associate Judge for mental hearings in Jefferson County.

The attorney said he didn’t start law school until he was 35 years old.  After graduating from Port Neches-Groves High School in 1979, he went into the U.S. Navy and served four years.

His first job was as a process operator at BF Goodrich and he was a member of the local OCAW union.

“I came from a blue-collar family,” Walston said. “From my family I learned the value of hard work, leadership and setting goals.”

Walston became a police officer for the Port Arthur Police Department.  Mark Blanton, Walston’s former supervisor and currently chief of PAPD, was among supporters Thursday and had positive words about Walston.

“He was one of the best I ever had,” Blanton said. “If Kent does half as well as a judge as he did as a cop then he will do great.”

While working full time, Walston attended Lamar University at night, earning a bachelor’s degree. He then went to Baylor University School of Law for a law degree.

Walston said he believes in the importance of giving back to the community, and volunteers regularly for organizations such as CASA of Southeast Texas, IEA (Inspire, Encourage, Achieve), Habitat for Humanity and the Hughen School for Handicapped Children.  He and his wife, Davilyn, have five daughters.

An “amicable resolution” has been reached in an automobile collision lawsuit.

Last December, Louisiana resident James Reynolds Jr. field suit against Specialized Maintenance Services, a Dallas company, and one of its employees, Robyn Gilchriest, who allegedly caused an automobile collision by checking her cell phone. 

The suit was filed Dec. 19 in Jefferson County District Court.

Court records show that on Aug. 2 Reynolds filed a motion to dismiss, stating that the parties had reached an “amicable resolution.”

That same day, Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, granted the motion, ordering that the defendants be dismissed with prejudice.

According to the lawsuit, Reynolds was stopped at a red light on Washington Boulevard in Beaumont. Gilchriest was traveling behind him when her cell phone rang.

As she took her eyes off the road, she rear-ended Reynolds’s vehicle, the suit states.

Gilchriest was in the course and scope of her employment with SMS at the time of the incident, the suit states.

The suit accused her of negligently failing to keep a proper lookout.

Reynolds was suing for his alleged past and future medical expenses, mental anguish, pain, loss of household services and lost wages.

Houston attorney Patrick McGinnis of Gauthier Hougtaling & Williams represents him.

Case No. D193-730

Beaumont attorney Charlton P. Hornsby, who was sued by Capital One National Association last December, has answered the lawsuit.

As previously reported, Capital One filed suit against the attorney on Dec. 31 in Jefferson County District Court, alleging Hornsby owes more than $50,000 on a delinquent account. 

Hornsby answered the suit on April 29, asserting a general denial, court records show.

The answer also denies that Hornsby received a letter demanding payment.

According to the lawsuit, Capital One advanced Hornsby funds on a small business credit account. Capital One claims that on Aug. 5 it sent a letter to Hornsby demanding payment in full of the account. However, no further payments have been made, the suit states.

“As of Dec. 5, 2012, there continues to be owed … an unpaid balance of 51,120.44,” the suit states.

Capital One is accusing Hornsby of breach of contract, and claims it is entitled to recover the account balance and all court costs, including attorney’s fees.

Carrollton attorney Michael Scott represents the company.

Hornsby is representing himself.

Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, is assigned to the case.

Case No. D193-780

Discovery continues to unfold in a lawsuit over a botched surgery as the defendants in case recently filed a notice of intent to take an oral deposition.

As previously reported, Bridge City residents Laura Flowers, and her husband, Gary, filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. John Schmidt and the Port Arthur Surgical Association on Dec. 26 in Jefferson County District Court.

The certificate of discovery was filed Oct. 16 and shows that the defendants intend on taking the deposition of Dr. Owen Cramer, court papers say. 

According to the lawsuit, on Oct. 26, 2011, Dr. Schmidt attempted a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on Flowers. During the operation, he injured and transected her common bile duct as well as the common hepatic duct, the suit claims.

She had to be transferred to a Houston hospital were additional surgeries were required to save her life, according to the suit.

The suit accuses Dr. Schmidt of negligently deciding to perform the surgery in face of a history of hepatitis and further failed to identify the landmarks of Flower’s anatomy.

Flowers is suing for her alleged past and future medical expenses, mental anguish, pain, impairment, disfigurement and loss of household services, plus all court costs.

Austin attorney Jay Winckler of Winckler & Harvey represent the plaintiffs.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, is assigned to the case.

Case No. B193-758

An agreed final judgment has been entered in a suit between attorneys over attorney’s fees. 

As previously reported, Beaumont attorney Daniel Clayton, alleging he was not paid for preparing an appeal, filed suit against Eddie Schroeder, also a Beaumont attorney, along with Khai Tran and Hai Hoang on Dec. 31 in Jefferson County District Court.

Court records show that an agreed final judgment was entered on May 2.

The judgment states that the parties announced that the matter had been compromised and settled. The terms of the settlement are not disclosed.

According to the lawsuit, Clayton prepared and filed an appellate brief on behalf of Tran and Hoang, who are defendants in separate litigation. The appeal was brought at the urging and request of Schroeder.

Schroeder, who promised to pay Clayton, then abandoned the appeal, the suit claimed

Clayton alleged that he was entitled to recover $11,446.28 in attorney’s fees.

“Plaintiff provided valuable services and materials to defendants picking up and completing an abandoned appeal,” the suit states. “Plaintiff invoiced the defendants for these services which defendants have not protested.”

Clayton represented himself.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, presided.

Case No. B193-781

Ally Financial has non-suited Beaumont local Jerry Colbert. The lender sued the man seeking to collect more than $15,000 from a delinquent car note. 

As previously reported, the suit was filed Jan. 3 in Jefferson County District Court.

Court records show that on Feb. 14 Ally filed a motion to non-suit Colbert.

That same day, Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, granted the motion, dismissing Colbert without prejudice.

According to the suit, on Nov. 18, 2011, Colbert purchased a vehicle from Sour Lake Motor Co. and executed a retail installment sales contract for $16,606.24.

“Defendant failed to perform the obligations under the contract and is now wholly in default,” the suit states. “Although plaintiff made demand on defendant for payment, defendant failed and/or refused to pay the indebtedness owed under the contract.”

As of Dec. 27, a balance of $15,941.97 remained due, the suit stated.

Ally Financial accused the defendant of breaching his contract.

It was suing for actual damages, court costs and attorney’s fees.

Dallas attorney Kimberly Harris of Beasley Hightower & Hartmann PC represents the plaintiff.

Case No. D193-785

A February trial has been slated in an automobile collision suit alleging the defendant driver was distracted by her cell phone.

While in the employment of A-1 Maida Fence Co., Sheri McKinley dropped her cell phone on the floorboard of her car. As she searched for the device, McKinley swerved and stuck Arien Jones’ vehicle, according to a lawsuit filed Dec. 31 in Jefferson County District Court.

Dugas

As previously reported, Jones filed the suit against McKinley and the owner of A-1 Fence, Chris Maida III.

Court records show that on Sept. 13 a scheduling order was entered in the case, placing the litigation on the trial court’s February 2014 docket.

According to the lawsuit, on Aug. 16, 2012, Jones was traveling with her children southbound on Highway 69 in Hardin County. She had stopped near the intersection at Highway 418 when McKinley, who was distracted looking for her dropped cell phone, swerved into the side of Jones’ vehicle, the suit alleges.

The suit also claims McKinley negligently failed to keep a proper lookout and keep a proper lane.

Jones is suing for her alleged past and future medical expenses, mental anguish, pain, impairment and lost wages.

Beaumont attorney Clay Dugas represents her.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, is assigned to the case.

Case No. B193-773

NEW ORLEANS – As the legal process for determining BP’s depth of liability for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill continues, claims against the company are racking up for personal injury, environmental injury, and economic injury. 

Lawyers for BP argue that the 2012 class settlement applicable to hundreds of thousands of claimants is not being administrated properly and should be thrown out. They claim that the process, overseen by an appointed administrator, Patrick Juneau, has compensated claimants too widely and has failed to require claimants to show causation for their economic losses. BP argues that the current process violates settlement terms and class action rules because it allows those not directly affected by the oil spill to collect damages.

Settlement costs have surpassed BP’s original estimate of $7 billion, putting current figures closer to $9 billion.

Some say BP agreed to the initial settlement terms in order to avoid the risk and uncertainty of litigation, and because the company did not expect so many claimants to emerge.

Perspectives from local law professors certainly trend toward this analysis, but there are some, such as Tulane Law Professor Vernon Palmer, who have ethical questions about the claims process itself.

“If someone can be absolutely certain that his business was not affected in any way, then it would be an ethical question whether he should file or accept a payment,” Palmer said.  “Most of the time, however, no one can ever be that certain, and that is the point of establishing the objective formulas for reimbursement.”

The settlement requires two parameters for businesses to file a claim: location within a specific geographic region and evidence of economic loss based on expected versus actual profit over a period of three or more consecutive months between May and December 2010. It does not necessarily state that causation for that economic loss must be proven.

In an Oct. 2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling presented by Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement, the court ordered District Judge Carl Barbierto draft a preliminary injunction on the claims process so that settlement terms could be reconsidered.

The appeals court especially took issue with the method of payouts for claimants using cash-basis accounting versus those using accrual-basis accounting. The court notes that the method of determining actual economic loss during the claims period is inconsistent.

The Oct. 2 ruling acknowledged arguments presented by “Class Counsel and the Administrator [maintaining] that BP fully agreed during negotiations in 2012 to the district court’s March 2013 interpretation in order to achieve ‘global peace,’ and that it should not now be permitted to extract itself from its bargain.”

However, the ruling states that settlement interpretations that allow businesses to recoup losses unrelated to the spill are “counterintuitive and contradictory to […] common sense” as there is “no need to secure peace with those with whom one is not at war.”

Professor Blaine Lecesne of Loyola University–New Orleans College of Law, argues that Judge Clement misses “the fundamental point of a settlement” by allowing the terms to be revisited.

“[There is] absolutely no ethical issue surrounding the [claims] process” because under the agreement, every business and individual potentially has a claim if they can show decline in revenue following the oil spill,” he said.

Lecesne asserts that the only requirement is that claimants are “presumed to have suffered a loss.”

In agreement with Lecesne, Professor Dane Ciolino of Loyola University–New Orleans College of Law, argues that the parties made the law between themselves, so that as long as the parties are living by that law, there are “no ethical concerns” as to who can make a claim.

Ciolino characterizes BP as “relentless in their public relations campaign” in their attempts to “disparage those who sought to recover damages.”

Settlement modifications will be presented by district court Judge Barbier on Dec. 2.

NEW ORLEANS (Legal Newsline) – BP argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for the second time this year asking that a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiffs’ steering committee last year not be upheld unless procedures involving certain payments to businesses are altered.

Earlier this year BP raised concerns over how the settlement program was being handled by administrator Patrick Juneau. BP told the court that some businesses were receiving claims payments even though they could not show damages resulting from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and still others were receiving inflated payments provided through the Court Supervised Settlement Program (CSSP).

Under the program BP has already paid out over $9 billion to individual claimants – while the company predicted it would be liable for just over $7 billion when it entered into the agreement.

BP’s earlier appeal received a favorable opinion from the appeals court which remanded a section of the case back to U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the overall BP trial of which the second phase recently wrapped up.

Much of the hearing held Monday was centered on the issue of commonality in the class.

On behalf of BP, Washington, D.C-based attorney Ted Olson repeated a previous appeals’ argument, stating that when BP agreed to the class action settlement the company believed it would be interpreted differently by the court.

Appeals Court Judge Eugene Davis said it if all classes were allowed to go back and change the terms of settlement then all class action settlements would be endangered.

“If you only looked at the issues that existed after the settlement you would never have a settlement because it would undermine your class,” Davis said.

Davis added that BP signed the settlement as it is currently worded.

“As I understand it, at the baseline until those exhibits were introduced this was a perfectly good settlement. There is no standing problem,” he said.

Olson countered saying that the interpretation of the settlement was the real problem and was separate from BP’s original intent.

“We have supported the settlement and support the settlement again,” Olson said. “That is correct. Until the claims administrator with the support of district court unmoored the settlement process from the specific terms of the agreement by reading causation and modification of actual loss out of the settlement agreement. When that happened all of those things disappeared.”

Judge Emilio Garza questioned what the difference was between BP’s previous appeals hearing and Monday’s proceeding and why BP did not question the settlement in the months immediately after it was enacted.

Olson answered that as soon as the problems began arising in the settlement process, BP began to petition the court.

“BP objected to that process as soon as it became aware of facts that showed that it was being distorted and that issue was being considered by the other panel, and the other panel specifically said that BP raised objections as soon as it could as soon as it was aware of the problems,” he said.

“So BP didn’t sit by and watch something happen. In fact it did object.”

Samuel Issacharoff, a New York University School of Law professor, served as counsel for the class action plaintiffs at the hearing.

“Every class member alleges that he/she /it was injured as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill that caused a decline in their revenues, their incomes, during the resulting period and that they want redress for their damages,” he said.

Garza asked Issacharoff to respond to the complaints raised by BP.

“There has been numerous allegations from the objectors and even BP that the interpretation of the agreement has somehow been changed and that damages have somehow been substituted for causation and that you have individuals who have suffered losses but not from the spill and that some people have suffered losses but have been given an excessive amount of damages,’ he said,

Issacharoff said inclusion in a class is not dependent solely on being able to prove damages.

“Proof of damages is not a perquisite to the certification of the litigation class,” he said.

In addition, Issacharoff was adamant that decertifying such a class would set a precedent.

“I would submit that this is an extraordinary situation in which this court has never, never overturned a settlement class in conditions where the right to opt out was maintained and where there were not personal injuries that would make everything so wildly disparate so the indivisuals could not be effectively corralled into one proceeding. Never,” he said.

Garza said he would agree, but for the issue of liability in declines in revenue where there did not appear to be any culpability on BP’s behalf.

“That to me is a major problem,” he said.

SHERMAN – An African American maintenance employee has filed a racial discrimination lawsuit claiming that his supervisor discriminated against him after discovering he had a white wife.

Byrne

Baron Capers filed suit against Essent PRMC L.P., doing business as Paris Regional Medical Center, and Regionalcare Hospital Partners on Nov. 5 in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.

Capers is a former maintenance employee who worked at PRMC in Parish. He claims was subjected to unlawful employment practices committed by the defendants. According to the lawsuit, the harassment started after his supervisor met Caper’s Caucasian wife.

The supervisor allegedly made numerous racial slurs and discriminatory actions. After a series of incidents on Aug. 3, 2012, Capers told his house supervisor that he did not feel safe and was going home due to concern about his safety. Capers was terminated on Aug. 17, 2012, for taking this unapproved absence, according to the lawsuit.

The defendants are accused of violating Capers’ civil rights, including racial discrimination and retaliation.

The plaintiff is seeking an award of damages for mental anguish, humiliation, loss of privacy, loss of reputation, emotional distress, punitive damages, back pay, front pay, attorney’s fees, interest and court costs.

Capers is represented by Christine Neill and Jane Legler Byrne of Neill & Byrne PLLC in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Ron Clark is assigned to the case.

Case No. 4:13-cv-00641

A Port Arthur woman has filed a lawsuit against a debt collection agency that accused her of participating in credit card fraud. 

Sheena Leblanc filed suit against Evans Law Associates on Nov. 4 in Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

The defendant is accused of making numerous telephone calls in an attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt from plaintiff regarding a Chase Bank credit card that is owed by her boyfriend. Leblanc claims she informed the defendant that she did not owe the debt and asked for the calls to stop.

According to the lawsuit, the telephone calls did not stop and on a later telephone call, the defendant accused Leblanc of participating in credit card fraud.

The defendant is accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Texas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The plaintiff is seeking an award of actual damages, statutory damages, attorney’s fees and court costs.

Leblanc is represented by Amy L. Bennecoff of Kimmel & Silverman PC in Ambler, Penn. A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone is assigned to the case.

Case 1:13-cv-00656

MARSHALL DIVISION

Nov. 4 

• Kroy IP Holdings v. Hallmark Cards Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00933

• Kroy IP Holdings v. The Men’s Wearhouse Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00934

• Kroy IP Holdings v. Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, d/b/a TCBY Case No. 2:13-cv-00935

• Kroy IP Holdings v. Starbucks Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00936

Kroy IP Holdings is a Delaware limited liability company with a place of business in Baltimore, Md.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,054,830 issued May 30, 2006, for System and Method for Incentive Programs and Award Fulfillment.

Kroy IP Holdings is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, attorney’s fees and enhanced damages.

The plaintiff is represented by Austin L. Hansley of Austin Hansley Law Firm in Dallas.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the case.

• Simple Air Inc. v. Google Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00937

Plaintiff SimpleAir Inc. is a corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Texas.

The defendants are accused of infringing on US. Patent No. 8,572,279 issued Oct. 29, 2013, for System and Method for Transmission of Data.

The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of compensatory damages, court costs, attorney’s fees and interest.

Simple Air is represented by John Jeffrey Eichmann of Dovel & Luner LLP in Santa Monica, Calif., and S. Calvin Capshaw and Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the case.

Nov. 5

• Adrain v. Panasonic Corp. of North America Case No. 2:13-cv-00938

Adrain is an individual residing in Spokane County, Wash.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,831,669 issued Nov. 3, 1998, for Facility Monitoring System with Image Memory and Correlation.

Adrain is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, interest, attorney’s fees and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by John T. Polasek, C. Dale Quisenberry and Jeffrey S. David of Polasek Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire; Otis W. Carroll and Deborah Race of Ireland Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler; S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw Derieux LLP in Gladewater; and Russell R. Smith of Fairchild Price Haley & Smith LLP in Nacogdoches.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the case.

• IBV Systems LLC v. AeroScout Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00939

IBV Systems is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the state of Texas with a principle place of business in Plano.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,222,440 issued April 24, 2001, for Location, Identification and Telemetry System Using Strobed Signals at Predetermined Intervals.

IBV is asking the court for an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, interest, court costs and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Austin Hansley of Austin Hansley PLLC in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the case.

Nov. 6

• Cardsoft Inc. et al v. Hypercom Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00941

CardSoft is a California limited liability corporation.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,934,945 issued Aug. 23, 2005, for Method and Apparatus for Controlling Communications and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,683 issued Nov. 27, 2007, for Method and Apparatus for Controlling Communications.

CardSoft is asking the court for an award of damages, enhanced damages, interest, attorney’s fees and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Roy S. Payne is assigned to the case.

Nov. 7

• Marshall Feature Recognition v. Best Buy Co. Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00942

• Marshall Feature Recognition v. Moen Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00943

• Marshall Feature Recognition v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc. d/b/a Security 1 Lending Case No. 2:13-cv-00944

• Marshall Feature Recognition v. Tilly’s Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00944

Marshall Feature Recognition is a limited liability company which its principal place of business in Marshall.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,886,750 issued May 3, 2005, for Method and Apparatus for Accessing Electronic Data Via a Familiar Printed Medium.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, court costs and attorney’s fees.

Marshall Feature Recognition is represented by Austin Hansley of Austin Hansley PLLC in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the case.

• Mobile Telecommunications Technologies v. ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00946

• Mobile Telecommunications Technologies v. LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00947

MTEL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Lewisville, Texas.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,809,428 issued Sept. 15, 1998, for Method and Device for Processing Plaintiff Mobile Telecommunications Technologies Undelivered Data Messages in a Two-Way Wireless Communications System;

• U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946 issued May 19, 1998, for Nationwide Communication System; and

• U.S. Patent No. 5,786,748, issued for July 28, 1998, for Method and Apparatus for Giving Notification of Express Mail Delivery.

The plaintiff is asking for an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, enhanced damages, interest, court costs and attorney’s fees.

Mobile Telecommunications is represented by Daniel R. Scardino, John L. Hendricks and Steven P. Tepera of Reed & Scardino LLP in Austin.  A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the case.

Nov. 8

• SecureNova v. BlackBerry Limited f/k/a Research in Motion Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv -00950

• SecureNova v. Nokia Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00951

• SecureNova v. ZTE Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00952

Plaintiff SecureNova is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business in Plano.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,792,482 issued Sept. 7, 2010, for Communication Service Subscription Management.

The plaintiff asking the court to enjoin the defendants from further infringement and for an award of damages, interest, court costs, enhanced damages and attorney’s fees.

SecureNova is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview and Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola of Ferraiuoli LLC in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Nov. 8

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Yesware Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00953

RPost Communications Ltd. is a Bermuda corporation. RPost Holdings is a Delaware corporation having a place of business in Plano.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,161,104 issued April 17, 2012, for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,275,845 issued Sept. 25, 2012, for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,468,198 issued June 18, 2013, for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, enhanced damages, interest, court costs and attorney’s fees.

RPost is represented by Winston O. Huff and Deborah Jagai of W.O. Huff & Associates PLLC in Dallas and Lewis E. Hudnell III of Colvin Hudnell LLP in New York, N.Y.

A jury trial is requested.

TYLER DIVISION

Nov. 4

Data Engine Technologies v. International Business Machines Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00858

Data Engine Technologies v. International Business Machines Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00859

Data Engine Technologies v. International Business Machines Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00860

Data Engine Technologies is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Frisco.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,314,558 issued Nov. 6, 2001, for Byte Code Instrumentation;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,643,842 issued Nov. 4, 2003, for Byte Code Instrumentation; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,240,335 issued July 3, 2007, for Byte Code Instrumentation.

The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction and for an award of damages, interest, court costs and attorney’s fees.

Data Engine is represented by Amir Alavi, Demetrios Anaipakos, Steven J. Mitby and Brian E. Simmons of Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing PC in Houston; and T. John Ward Jr. and Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis is assigned to the case.

Nov. 6

• NovelPoint Tracking v. AGCO Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00863

• NovelPoint Tracking v. AG Leader Technology Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00864

• NovelPoint Tracking v. Andrews et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00865

• NovelPoint Tracking v. Caterpillar Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00866

• NovelPoint Tracking v. CLAAS North America Holdings Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00867

• NovelPoint Tracking v. DICKEY-john Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00868

• NovelPoint Tracking v. Deer & Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00869

• NovelPoint Tracking v. CNH America Case No. 6:13-cv-00870

• NovelPoint Tracking v. Novariant Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00871

• NovelPoint Tracking v. AgJunction Case No. 6:13-cv-00872

• NovelPoint Tracking v. Raven Industries Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00873

• NovelPoint Tracking v. TeeJet Technologies Illinois Case No. 6:13-cv-00874

• NovelPoint Tracking v. Topcon Precision Agriculture et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00875

NovelPoint Tracking is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Allen.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,442,485 issued Aug. 27, 2002, for Method and Apparatus for an Automatic Vehicle Location, Collision Notification and Synthetic Voice.

The plaintiff is asking the court to enjoin the defendants from further infringement and for an award of damages, enhanced damages, attorney’s fees, interest and court costs.

NovelPoint Tracking is represented by David Bailey of the Law Office of David Bailey in Richardson. Jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis is assigned to the case.

Nov. 7

• Blue Spike v. CLC Enterprises Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00877

Blue Spike is a Texas limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,745,569 Method for Stega-Cipher Protection of Computer Code.

The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest and attorney’s fees.

Blue Spike is represented by Randall T. Garteiser, Christopher A. Honea and Christopher S. Johns of Garteiser Honea PC in Tyler; and Kirk J. Anderson and Peter S. Brasher of Garteiser Honea PC in San Rafael, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider is assigned to the case.

Nov. 8

Chrimar Systems Inc. et al v. Aastra Technologies Limited et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00879

Chrimar Systems Inc. et al v. Alcatel-Lucent Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00880

Chrimar Systems Inc. et al v. AMX Case No. 6:13-cv-00881

Chrimar Systems Inc. et al v. Granstream Networks Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00882

Chrimar Systems Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00883

Chrimar Systems is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan and Holding is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012 for System and Method for Adapting a Piece of Terminal Equipment.

The plaintiff is represented by Anthony G. Simon, Timothy D. Krieger, Benjamin R. Askew and Michael P. Kella of The Simon Law Firm PC in St. Louis, Mo., and T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

JAMES WILLIAMSON V. SAFETY STAR INDUSTRIAL IN ET AL
(P)NICHOLS, ADAM -(D)PRO SE

Jefferson County 58th District Court Judge Bob Wortham

LINDA LOWE ET AL V. CHRISTUS HEALTH SOUTHEAST TEXAS ET AL
(P) JACOBELLIS, MICHAEL-(D)ONCKEN, J KEVIN

VERONICA FRANCIS MARTIN ET AL V. ESTHER ELLIOTT ET AL
(P)JUHAN, JONATHAN -(D)SQUIERS, CONNIE S

PATRIOT SECURITY INC V. S N S INVESTIGATIONS AND SECURITY ET AL
(P) BERNSEN, DAVID ERIC-(D)DUCOTE, DAN JR

PATRIOT SECURITY INC V. S AND S INVESTIGATIONS AND SECURITY ET AL
(P)BERNSEN, DAVID ERIC -(D)DUCOTE, DAN JR

GARTH HOUSE MICKEY MEHAFFY CHILDRENS ADVO PROG INC V. BASCO CONSTUCTION INC
(P)COHEN, MARJORIE -(D)STALEY, LEE H

GARY BURKETT V. HILLARY COY ET AL
(P)NEWELL, ERIC -(D)SHELLENBERGER, COLLIN D

CHERYL HOFFMAN ET AL V. AGAPE LAND LEARNING TREE
(P)BENNETT, BARRY C -(D)OUBRE, DAVID A

JESSIE EDWARDS JR V. HAILEE MARIE MERCHANT ET AL
(P)TURNER, RONNIE JR -(D)LEWIS, CLINTON W

CHRISTIE ASAY V. PATRICK GALLES ET AL
(P)BURMEISTER, JON B -(D)MERKLEY, DAVID L

ADDISON AUGUST V. LAWRENCE MADAFFRI
(P)DUGAS, CLAY -(D)OUBRE, DAVID A

DUSTIN SCOTT LASITER KENDRICK V. WILLIAM JEROME REED MD
(P)GERTZ, ANDREW P -(D)SPROTT, JOEL RANDAL

LISA SCHAVER HARRIS V. JEFFERSON COUNTY TEXAS ET AL
(P)WATTS, LAURENCE WADE -(D)PORTNER, CHRISTOPHER M

MARGUERITE POWELL V. NATIONAL SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO ET AL
(P) WORRICH, TODD-(D)NO ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME

PORT OF PT ARTHUR NAVIGATION DISTRICT JEFF CTY TX V. WEEKS MARINE INC
(P)YEATES, TOMMY LEE -(D)NO ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME

ERIC RITZBERG V. DAVID MILLER ET AL
(P)JUHAN, JONATHAN -(D)KENNEDY, KATHLEEN M

HELPING HANDS HOUSING I LLC V. LOUIS MACK
(P) LONG, LORI LIANE-(D)NO ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME

CHIMNEY JOINT VENTURE V. AMERICAN CAPITAL FUNDING CORP ET AL
(P)TERRY, JANA K -(D)BISBEY, BLAIR A

BORIS COLLINS V. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO ET AL
(P) PRO SE-(D)BRENT, T PHILLIP

PRESTON WESTBROOK ET AL V. JUAN MENDIETA CAMARON ET AL
(P)LISS, STEPHEN T -(D)STANSEL, BRIAN J

VERN JUAREZ V. DIANES NAILS
(P) GILTHORPE, JARED-(D)KESSLER, GARY S

CHARLES LOUWERSE V. ALEXANDRIA R GUERARD ET AL
(P)DEVENZIO, TRENT -(D)WILKINS, MONICA LEE

SANTA FE AUTO INSURANCE CO V. CHRISTOPHER HERRING ET AL
(P)KERAMIDAS, T CASS -(D)SHELANDER, MEL WILBUR

JANET RIDEAUX V. MARY MORVENT LUMMUS
(P)HODGE, WILLIAM J -(D)NELSON, KURT T

HOME CARE ELITE LLC V. WILLIE HALL ET AL
(P)FRIESZ, GORDON D -(D)LEWIS, RICHARD G

BARBARA TONEY V. SANDRA WASHINGTON ET AL
(P)LEVIN, MARK B -(D)KILPATRICK, JOHN C

DRAGON PRODUCTS LTD V. ROBERT GREIG PLACETTE
(P) BULLARD, JOHN SETH-(D)NO ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME

DANIEL MOLINA JR ET AL V. ROY N ETIE ET AL
(P) WILKERSON, WILLIAM MARCUS-(D)MALLEY, ANTHONY III

MARSHALL – Three Nacogdoches County residents have filed a lawsuit claiming they suffered severe injuries when their vehicle was rear ended by a tractor trailer. 

Casey D. Jones, Rachel Rawls and Austin Yarbrough filed suit against SV Express and Dennis S. Harrison on Nov. 8 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.

The incident occurred on Oct. 30, 2013 as Jones was driving a 2004 Lincoln Town Car traveling northbound on US 59.

According to the suit, defendant Dennis S. Harrison was driving a tractor trailer behind the plaintiffs and collided into Jones’ vehicle. The passengers of the Jones’ vehicle suffered severe injuries, the suit states.

Defendant Harrison is accused of negligence for failing to yield the right of way, failing to properly apply brakes in order to avoid the collision, failing to keep a proper lookout, for driving in a reckless manner, failing to maintain an assured clear distance between his truck and Jones’ vehicle and for driving in an excessive rate of speed.

The plaintiffs argue that defendant SV Express is responsible for all of the damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

The lawsuit is seeking an award of damages for physical pain, suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses, physical impairment, loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, interest and court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeff B. Badders of Badders Law Firm PC in Nacogdoches. A jury trial is requested.

Case No. 2:13-cv-00949

GALVESTON – A local woman’s visit to a League City restaurant two years ago allegedly ended in a slip-and-fall lawsuit, recent court documents say.

Claiming the staff at Sudie’s Catfish-Seafood House did not tell her the surface on which she slipped was wet, Barbara London filed a lawsuit against the eatery and its parent companies in Galveston County District Court on Nov. 7.

“During the plaintiff’s visit on the defendants’ premises, the plaintiff was caused to suffer injury which was the direct result of an unreasonably dangerous condition on the defendants’ premises,” the suit says.

London says she was “walking past the cash register” when the Nov. 8, 2011, incident in question occurred.

According to the suit, a manager immediately approached her with a wet floor sign in his hand and stated “he was sorry because the floor had just been waxed.”

“No signs warning of the dangerous condition were present prior to the incident,” the original petition says.

The suit does not elaborate on the extent of London’s reported injuries, but insists she did nothing to cause the event for which she sues.

Consequently, the plaintiff sues for physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, impairment and medical expenses.

A jury trial is requested.

Attorney Ryan B. Gross of The Manginello Law Firm PLLC in Houston is representing London, and Galveston County 56th District Court Judge Lonnie Cox is presiding over the litigation.

Case No. 13-CV-1421

GALVESTON – A crash between motorcyclists in Galveston two years ago has resulted in legal action.

In court papers filed Nov. 6 in Galveston County District Court, Brazoria County resident Rebecca Sue Welch is seeking $1 million from Galveston local Michael David Benavides who she blames for the crash.

Welch was passenger on a motorcycle operated by George Edward Banuelos, who is not a party in the case, while Benavides drove his own bike.

The parties were traveling on Seawall Boulevard when Benavides reportedly made an unsafe lane change and struck the motorcycle carrying the plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

It faults the respondent for:

• Failing to control speed;
• Failing to keep a proper lookout;
• Failing to timely apply his brakes;
• Failing to take proper and timely evasive action; and
• Failing to turn to avoid the collision.

Consequently, the complainant sues for physical pain and suffering, impairment, mental anguish, lost wages and medical expenses.

Attorney Timothy E. McKenna of Houston is representing Welch, and Galveston County 405th District Court Judge Michelle Slaughter is presiding over the litigation.

Case No. 13-CV-1418

Mostyn

Five years after Hurricane Ike made landfall, the Mostyn Law Firm in Houston announced that it settled 1,200 insurance claims against Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.

On Sept. 13, 2008, Ike struck Galveston and pummeled the Texas Gulf Coast, leaving in its wake billions of dollars in damage and thousands of lawsuits alleging TWIA wrongfully underpaid insurance claims.

“So many of our neighbors on the Gulf Coast have been waiting to truly rebuild for five years,” said Steve Mostyn in a Nov. 7 press release.

“We’ve helped bring millions of dollars back into these communities. Small businesses can get back to work and neighborhoods can truly rebuild.”

The Texas Windstorm Insurance Association was created in 1970 as the insurer-of-last-resort for the Texas gulf coast residents. Insurance companies stopped providing basic wind and hail insurance to the region following Hurricane Celia, leaving the state as the only option to protect homeowners.

According to the press release, the organization’s alleged failure to pay legitimate claims to Ike victims has resulted in more than $500 million in settlements.

In January 2011, the Southeast Texas Record reported that 64 attorneys from Southeast Texas received an estimated $44 million from settlement agreements with TWIA.

“We sent a powerful message to the state government to do more to fulfill their responsibility to gulf coast homeowners,” Mostyn said.

“It would have been a lot less expensive, and much better for our communities, if they had met their obligations five years ago. We’re happy this is all behind us, but we need to remind our leaders that their responsibility is to the people.”

The plaintiffs’ Steering Committee included attorneys Steve Mostyn, Craig Eiland, Mitchell Toups, and others. The attorneys collectively oversaw more than 10,000 cases that were unfairly and improperly handled by TWIA, the press release states.

Seeking more than $1 million in damages, Texas resident Shane Behan is suing Ohmstede Industrial Services for injuries he claims he received when a hose struck him and caused him to fall. 

The suit was filed Nov. 5 in Jefferson County District Court.

According to the lawsuit, on April 17, Behan, a Triple S Industrial services employee, was working at Chevron refinery when an Ohmstede employee allegedly turned on the wrong air-hose.

The hose then moved violently, striking Behan and causing him to fall backwards onto a stack of tools, the suit states.

Ohmstede is accused of negligently failing to identify its equipment and make sure work areas were clear before turning on equipment.

The plaintiff is suing for his alleged past and future medical expenses, mental anguish, pain, impairment and lost wages.

He is represented by Beaumont attorney Jeffrey Roebuck of Roebuck, Thomas, Roebuck & Adams.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court, is assigned to the case.

Case No. B194-955

Seaman Kenneth Galloway is suing Crowley Marine Services and American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier for injuries her received when a crane struck his head.

The suit was filed Oct. 31 in Jefferson County District Court.

Itkin

According to the lawsuit, on Sept. 21 Galloway was serving aboard the Freedom, a vessel controlled by the defendants, when he was hit in the head by a crane block and/or load attached to the crane, injuring his head and other parts of his body.

The suit accuses the defendants of negligently failing to properly supervise the crew, provide adequate safety equipment and maintain the vessel.

The suit also claims the vessel was unseaworthy.

On top of punitive damages, the plaintiff is suing for his alleged past and future medical expenses, mental anguish, pain and impairment.

Houston attorney Jason Itkin of Arnold & Itkin represents him.

Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, is assigned to the case.

Case No. D194-942

By Diane Davis

It’s a well-known fact that Texas continues to lead the nation when it comes to business development and job creation and that smart, common-sense legal reforms have been a cornerstone of our success. 

Over the past decade, important changes here in Texas have put an end to the abusive, frivolous lawsuits that plagued our civil justice system and helped make Texas an economic powerhouse even while the rest of the nation struggled.

But if Texas is to maintain our strong position and reputation, we must continue to combat lawsuit abuse wherever it rears its ugly head. Right now, eyes are on East Texas and the potential for abuse in our federal courts.

The American Tort Reform Foundation in its annual Judicial Hellholes report put the Eastern District of Texas, a U.S. District Court, on its “Watch List” just last year. The designation is just one step away from being a “Judicial Hellhole,” defined in the report as a place where judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner.

While the report rarely focuses on federal district courts, the Eastern District of Texas is rightly being singled out for driving an ongoing surge of lawsuits involving patents.

The surge is being driven by “patent trolls”— those who buy up patents not to incorporate them into competitive new products and services that help expand the economy but simply for the purpose of filing nettlesome infringement lawsuits.

Their litigation, the report continues, results in billions of dollars in settlements and verdicts, and threatens some of America’s most innovative job creators and financial service providers. And their favorite venue is East Texas.

Shockingly, 3,879 defendants were named last year in new patent case filings in the East Texas, a 70 percent increase from 2009, and more than four times the next highest number for new defendants, 884, in the District of Delaware. This influx of cases is turning our local U.S. District Court into the “center of the patent litigation universe,” according to the report. These facts warrant our attention and concern.

There are several reasons, according to the report, why this particular court seems to attract such litigation. First, local rule changes have led to speedier trials, allowing more patent cases through the system, and our federal judges often side with patent plaintiffs, granting among the highest awards for damages in the country.

In recent years, our local federal court has handed out 12 of the largest 25 awards nationwide. Are these cases and results justified by the facts of the case?

Perhaps. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m alarmed that others could be abusing our laws – and our local federal court – for their own personal gain. That would be lawsuit abuse, and it can affect all of us by increasing prices on products and hurting job creation.

Diane Davis is executive director of East Texans Against Lawsuit Abuse.