Wilcox v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC – 3:21-CV-1009-L – Feb 15, 2023

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Defendant-General-Contractor’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court noted that to create a duty of care, there must be a nexus between the general contractor’s retained control and the condition or activity that causes the injury.

M Felder Trucking LLC v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC – 4:22-cv-00181 – Jun 17, 2022

The magistrate judge recommended remanding the case to Texas state court, holding that removal was untimely because it occurred more than one year after the action was filed. The original petition did not clearly show damages above the federal jurisdictional threshold, so the one-year removal bar applied. Plaintiffs timely filed their motion to remand, and their limited participation in federal discovery did not waive the objection. The case was recommended for remand to Harris County district court.

Johnson v. Caroli – 21-20231 – May 12, 2022

The Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Employer on grounds that Plaintiffs-Employee’s claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.

Vega v. Tyson Foods, Inc. – 3:19-CV-1647-L – Mar 14, 2021

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Defendant-Employer’s summary judgment in a non-subscriber case where the Plaintiff-Employee signed a post-injury waiver as part of Defendant-Employer’s Workplace Injury Settlement Program. The Court noted that Plaintiff-Employee failed to argue that the Waiver was invalid under the Texas Labor Code. Instead, the Plaintiff-Employee asserted that the Waiver did not preclude the claims asserted in the case because it: (1) was procured by fraud; and (2) was not supported by valid consideration. Specifically, Plaintiff-Employee argued 1) that she had been fraudulently induced to sign the Waiver; and 2) that there was no consideration because she had personal insurance that would have covered the injuries. The Court found that Plaintiff-Employee failed to offer evidence sufficient to sustain either argument.