Case law

Doskocil Manufacturing Company v. Making Ideas LLC

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2023

But again, this contribution does not clearly or convincingly amount to collaborating in the ultimate design’s conception. … Make Ideas and Mullin, however, have not provided any basis for such a claim nor established evidence for that type of infringement.

Doskocil Manufacturing Company v. Making Ideas LLC

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2023

But again, this contribution does not clearly or convincingly amount to collaborating in the ultimate design’s conception. … Make Ideas and Mullin, however, have not provided any basis for such a claim nor established evidence for that type of infringement.

Nautilus Hyosung Inc v. Diebold Incorporated

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 23, 2020

While the Court may consult extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and relevant technology, it may not rely upon extrinsic evidence to reach a claim construction that is clearly at odds with a construction … Initially, the Court observes that both experts are extremely well qualified and appear very knowledgeable regarding the technology at issue.6 5 The declarations appear at multiple places in the record.

State of Texas v. Biden

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 4, 2022

“[T]he expenditure of state funds may qualify as an invasion of a legally protected interest sufficient to establish standing under the proper circumstances.” Crane v. Napolitano, 920 F. … Indeed, the Hidalgo County disaster declaration clearly shows the connection between “U.S.

Wilson (Thomas) v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 5, 2020

This is a case in which the Thomases through their pleading have established that the time-bar applies because § 1640(k)(1) does not apply. … In reply, defendants reiterate that the Thomases have failed to allege that they sent a written communication that meets the requirements of a qualified written request.

United States v. Bailey

789 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 9, 1992

In 1957, he and his wife established Clem Bailey & Associates, but on December 31, 1990, they dissolved the enterprise and became self-employed tax preparers. … In January 1989, he prepared an amended return showing that the railroad severance pay qualified for ten-year averaging because it constituted part of a qualified pension, stock sharing, or bonus plan.

Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta

178 F. Supp. 3d 476 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2016

The evidence establishes that Mr. … But Plaintiffs reply that they seek sanctions for false testimony, not for what legally qualifies as perjury. Defendants also argue that there is no evidence of willfulness. They contend instead that Mr.

Abor v. Planet Home Lending LLC

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 1, 2025

Compl. ¶ 12), and the notice clearly explains that the servicing of Plaintiffs’ loan, AmCap loan number 7090578163, was being transferred to Planet Home loan number 9102337421 (see Orig. Compl., Ex. B at 21-22). … . § 78c(a)(10).3 For the reasons explained below, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs’ loan does not qualify as a security.

Congregation of Ezra Sholom v. Blockbuster, Inc.

504 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 22, 2007

However,- if the alleged misrepresentation or omission is deemed immaterial or if it “qualifies as ‘forward-looking’ and is accompanied by sufficient cautionary language, a defendant’s statement is protected regardless of … Such a standard would directly contravene Dura and clearly is not the result Congress intended. See also H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, at 31, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1995, pp. 730, 731.

Sambrano v. United Airlines Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2023

Materiality is a shorthand characterization of the well-established de minimis standard, which “has roots that stretch to ancient soil.” Id. at 423. … (“Nothing in Nadesan’s Intake Questionnaire or attached supplement qualifies as a request that the EEOC take action.”); Asongwe v. Washington Mut.

The Guarantee Company of North America USA v. RKM Utility Services Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 23, 2021

A preliminary injunction, however, is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that “should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion.” Canal Auth. of State of Fla., 489 F.2d at 573. … In any event, Plaintiff’s evidence does not establish that it made a demand for payment on Defendants in accordance with the Indemnity Agreement.

Davis v. Logan

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 7, 2024

Davis further requests that “[m]ental health ‘welfare checks’ shall, from this day and forever more, be conducted by qualified medical professionals.” Id. at 39. … Sept. 1, 2023) (noting that “Section 552.321(b) of the Act waives sovereign immunity in state court only.”).

Davis

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 11, 2026

When asserted in response to a Title VII claim, limitations is an affirmative defense that “must appear clearly on the face of the pleadings.” Taylor v. Lear Corp., No. 3:16-CV- 3341-D, 2017 WL 6209031, at *2 (N.D. … A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for discrimination when he shows that he: “(1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) was

Ramirez Garcia v. USCIS

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 12, 2022

“In addition,” the government contends, “neither the All Writs Act nor Section 1331 . . . provide an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction absent some additional authority waiving sovereign immunity, such as … [t]hus, the APA cannot provide jurisdiction in this case, as needed for the required waiver of sovereign immunity for the Court to have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Id. at 8-9 (citations omitted).

Traylor v. Director, TDCJ-CID

District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 5, 2024

“To qualify as ‘testimonial’ under this standard, ‘a statement must have a primary purpose of establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.’” United States v. … Nor was it testimonial under clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Umarbaev v. Moore

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 6, 2020

Some exceptions exist, such as the establishment of a Bivens action. Hearth, Inc., 617 F.2d at 382 (citing Bivens v. … “Section 702 of the APA waives the Government’s sovereign immunity in certain circumstances. ...

Birdow v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 22, 2021

The Fifth Circuit has traditionally recognized “two ways to establish improper joinder: ‘(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against … Specifically, State Farm’s negative allegation that its underwriters are not Texas citizens does not qualify as a distinct and affirmative allegation of citizenship.3 See Sourcing Mgmt. v.

Bobby Goldstein Productions, Inc. v. Thomas L. Habeeb

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 9, 2023

Although copyright infringement is a strict liability tort, and not an intentional tort, the defendants’ actions were clearly intentional, bringing them under section 171.255’s purview. … The defendants argue that “all the evidence introduced established that all the views occurred over fifteen years ago.” Id.

Herod v. King

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 8, 2025

This edict “contains one significant qualifier: the remedies must indeed be ‘available’ to the prisoner.” Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 639 (2016). … The Fifth Circuit clearly states that, in the PLRA context, amended complaint will not typically cure the failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to initially filing suit.” Smith v.

Morris v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

833 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 1, 2011

In light of the restrained approach taken by the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit, as well as the structure of the FAAct, this Court cannot conclude that Congress clearly and manifestly intended the federal government … Finally, Cessna has not established as a matter of law that Plaintiffs may not recover punitive damages. SO ORDERED. .