Menefee v. Louisiana Pacific Corp., 2006 WL 2022914(E.D.Tex. Jul 17, 2006) (NO. CIVA 9:06CV49) Judge: Ron Clark, Judith Guthrie Division: Lufkin Holding: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED COMMENTS: This is a racial discrimination case filed pro se by the plaintiff against his former employer. After being transferred from Houston to Lufkin, the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Guthrie for all pretrial proceedings. She recommended that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted, holding that the Plaintiff had not shown that there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the defendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination of his employment were pretextual. Judge Clark agreed, and granted the motion for summary judgment.
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2006 WL 1984143 E.D.Tex.,2006. Judge: John Love Division: Marshall Holding: Claims construction opinion Note: Press reports indicate that Micron has agreed to pay $30 million to settle its disputes with Tessara over patents dealing with semiconductor packaging, which would include the claims asserted in this case.
The Eastern District of Texas Local Rules Advisory Committee met yesterday in Judge Steger's jury room in the Tyler courthouse (possibly soon to be the jury room in the Judge Steger Tyler courthouse). We discussed a number of proposed rules brought to our attention by a variety of sources (clerk's office, judges, committee members, etc.) and I realized that I had not posted about the meeting in advance. So, if any readers have any suggestions for rule changes, please feel free to e-mail me t email@example.com with them and I'll forward to the members of the committee (or they can remain anonymous if you prefer) for consideration as we work on the first draft of the committee's report to the Eastern District judges in September.
Milton v. Union Pacific R. Co., 2006 WL 1983211(E.D.Tex. Jul 13, 2006) (NO. CIV A. 2-06-CV-89TJW) Judge: T. John Ward Division: Marshall Holding: Motion to Transfer Venue Denied COMMENTS: This is a FELA case. The defendant sought a transfer to the Tyler Division. Judge Ward denied the motion.
Smith v. Albertsons, Inc., 2006 WL 1900785 (E.D.Tex. Jul 11, 2006) (NO. 2:06-CV-52) Judge: Leonard Davis Division: Marshall Holding: Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue DENIED; Motion to Transfer GRANTED COMMENTS: This is a slip & fall case at an Albertson's in Richardson, Texas. The defendant moved for dismissal or transfer for "improper" venue. Judge Davis denied the motion as to improper venue, but in a brief opinion sua sponte transferred the case under Section 1404, observing that "[t]he nature of negligence cases often designates the court closest to the site of the accident as most convenient for parties to the litigation."
The Eastern District of Texas District Court's CM/ECF system will be off-line from Saturday Morning (7/15) at 7:00 a.m. until Monday Morning (7/17) at 7:00 a.m. for maintenance. So if you want to read any filings or dockets over the weekend, download them today or tomorrow - you won't be able to access dockets or download filings Saturday or Sunday. (And if the thought of not being able to read filings online over the weekend really troubles so, you really, really need to get a life).
Cheshier & Fuller, L.L.P. v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 2006 WL 1881381(E.D.Tex. Jul 06, 2006) (NO. 6:06CV35) Judge: Michael Schneider Division: Tyler Holding: Bankruptcy Court's Memorandum of Decision AFFIRMED COMMENTS: This is an interlocutory appeal in a bankruptcy case complaining of that court's refusal to grant a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Judge Schneider determined that the bankruptcy court properly denied the Motion to Enforce Settlement for several reasons. He noted that that appellees contended that appellants had engaged in "wasteful, duplicitous, and to use the Bankruptcy Court's words, “coy” litigation based on frivolous legal arguments and unfounded accusations against SIPC and the Trustee in an apparent attempt to “enforce” an agreement that never existed." After reviewing the record in this case, Judge Schneider agreed, and affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling. "As the Bankruptcy Court properly stated earlier, this is a 'first semester of law school' issue," he observed. "As such, it warrants no further discussion."