Commodities Fraud Case

Representation of defendant alleged to have violated commodities fraud laws. US Commodity Futures Trading Com’n v. Johnson, 408 F. Supp. 2d 259 (S.D. Tex. 2005)

Bridgeport Music v. Still N-The Water Publishing

Won the dismissal of music publisher client in a copyright infringement in a Tennessee case involving allegations of music sampling. In a per curiam opinion adopting the “stream of commerce plus” test for personal jurisdiction (the position advocated on behalf of my client), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N-The Water Publishing, 327 F.3d 472 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 948 (2003).

Real Estate Case

Southwest Invs. Diversified, Inc. v. Estate of Mieszkuc, 171 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2005)

Construction Industry Case

Duke v. Caterpillar, Inc., 2005 WL 568071 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] filed Mar 10, 2005)

Construction Industry Case

Hartney v. Mustang Tractor & Equip. Co., 2004 WL 86140 (Tex. App.—San Antonio filed Jan. 21, 2004)

Civil Procedure Case

Ingram Industries, Inc. v. U.S. Bolt Mfg., Inc., 121 S.W.3d 31 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist] 2003)

Music Industry Case

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. 11C Music, 202 F.R.D. 229 (M.D. Tenn. 2002)

Telecom Industry Case

Taylor Communications Group, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 172 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 1999)

Domain Name Disputes

Representation of Valero Energy Corporation in an early domain name dispute case resulting in the transfer of <> to my client. Valero Energy Corp. v. American Distribution Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0581 (2001)

Allen v. Destiny’s Child

Represented Destiny’s Child, Beyoncé, Kelly Rowland, Michelle Williams, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI Blackwood, McDonald’s Corporation, and the songwriters publishing companies in a case filed a plaintiff who alleged that Destiny’s Child’s hit song “Cater 2 U” infringed the plaintiff’s song by a similar name. Disposed of all but one of the plaintiff’s claims on summary judgment with the case later resolving prior to trial.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.