Texas courts are notoriously tough, yet our firm has achieved results in courthouses throughout Texas.
Summary: We represent a national restaurant franchisee in a complex lease dispute. As part of the proceedings in the trial court, the plaintiff sought to exclude all experts in the case. We filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Beaumont 9th Court of Appeals asking for relief and reinstatement of all experts. The Court of Appeals agreed with our client and granted the relief requested.
We represented a restaurant franchisee in a dispute with a commercial landlord, KRG Portofino, LLC, which is a subsidiary of Kite Realty (the "Landlord"). The case concerned positive findings of asbestos in the Portofino Shopping Center, fraud, breach of the lease, failure to return the tenant's security deposit, and other causes of action. The Portofino Shopping Center is located in Montgomery County, Texas and stores like Amazing Lash, Casual Male, Old Navy, Tropical Smoothie, Pie Town, Carters, OshKosh and the Learning Academy have rented in the shopping center.
Following a week-long trial, the Judge found that KRG Portofino LLC discovered asbestos in the Portofino Shopping Center multiple times. Specifically, the Judge found:
In addition to the discovery of asbestos at Amazing Lash and Casual Male, Landlord discovered asbestos at Old Navy, Tropical Smoothie, Pie Town, Carters, OshKosh and the Learning Academy.
And, after confirming the discoveries of asbestos, the Judge found the Landlord (Kite Realty's subsidiary KRG Portofino LLC) committed acts of fraud, finding:
Even though the Portofino Shopping Center contained toxic asbestos and Landlord knew or should have known the Portofino Shopping Center contained asbestos, Landlord’s employees and agents, Kilroy and Reedy, made voluntary, material, and false representations about asbestos in the Portofino Shopping Center to [our client]. Landlord’s false representations included (i) asbestos being discovered in the Portofino Shopping Center was only a possibility when, in truth, asbestos had already been discovered, (ii) the Portofino Shopping Center was asbestos-free when, in truth, the shopping center contained asbestos, and (iii) Landlord had only discovered asbestos in other shopping centers when, in truth, Landlord had already discovered asbestos in the Portofino Shopping Center.
The Judge further determined that Kite Realty's subsidiary committed acts of fraud with "intentional, reckless" intent and "lacked any regard for the health and safety of others", finding:
Landlord used intentional siloing of information relating to asbestos to conceal the truth and to deceive current and prospective tenants into believing the shopping center was not contaminated with asbestos.
Landlord continually referred to the asbestos issue as a minor financial issue, focusing solely on the cost of asbestos reporting and remediation services, and completely ignored the impact numerous asbestos findings throughout the Portofino Shopping Center would have if disclosed to current and prospective tenants as well as vendors and customers of the shopping center.
Landlord’s actions regarding the findings of asbestos and failure to disclose were intentional, reckless and lacked any regard for the health and safety of others.
Landlord’s improper remediation, both at the Premises and at the Old Navy location, further put tenants, customers, and vendors at risk for health, safety, and well-being.
On the issue of breach of contract, the Judge found that Kite Realty's subsidiary breached the lease, as follows:
Because the Landlord could not and did not deliver the Premises, Saddles could not and did not have an obligation to pay rent, rent could not and did not commence and Saddles could not and did not take possession of the Premises.
Finally, the Court found damages for our client, including:
Landlord’s breach of contract caused [our client] injuries and damages including loss of monies paid for its franchise fee ($12,500), asbestos survey ($1,000), architect fees ($21,936.96), security deposit ($11,392.02) and attorney’s fees ($160,000.00).
Summary: Belligerent and intoxicated, a drunk driver hopped into his car and began driving on our roadways. Minutes later, the drunk driver ran a red light and collided into our client’s vehicle. The injuries suffered by our client included injuries to his neck and back. Our client filed suit against the drunk driver and the bar. During the course of discovery, we obtained compelling evidence of the driver’s severe intoxication at the scene of the collision from the San Antonio Police DWI Task Officer’s body camera. The case has since been resolved.
Summary: As part of a construction project, a landlord dug deep holes into an active public parking lot and left them open. Unfortunately, the wind blew a large piece of cardboard over the hole and when our client stepped on the cardboard he fell into the hole, fracturing his leg. The defendant refused to accept responsibility for our client’s injuries and damages. However, after two (2) days of trial, including a withering cross-examination of the landlord, the trial judge ordered the parties to a mid-trial mediation. At mediation, the case was resolved.
Summary: An 18-wheeler working in an oil field ran over our client on his motorcycle and killed him. We represented the widow and the two sons. After an extensive investigation, we discovered video surveillance footage of the collision. The case has been resolved.
Summary: In an attempt to avoid responsibility, an 18-wheeler company hired a defense expert in biodynamics to claim that our client could not have been injured in the collision. After conducting an exhaustive deposition of the expert, we filed a Motion to Exclude the defense expert to prevent him from testifying at trial. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and agreed this expert should be excluded. On the eve of trial and in a last ditch effort to avoid facing a jury, the defense filed an emergency petition for writ of mandamus to reinstate its expert and to delay the trial. The appeals court rejected the defense’s appeal, the exclusion of the defense expert was upheld and we prevented the defense from derailing the trial. See In re Marty, Inc., No. 04-20-00067-CV, 2020 WL 557076, at *1 (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2020)
Summary: After years of Frito Lay denying responsibility for causing a serious 18-wheeler wreck, a jury found Frito Lay and its driver responsible for causing our client’s serious personal injuries. The jury awarded total damages in the amount $1,789,049.70.
Summary: Two oil field 18-wheeler drivers collided on a county road just outside of Cotulla, Texas and our client did not survive. The other 18-wheeler driver said our client crossed the yellow line, and DPS wrote it up that way. Liability was strongly disputed, however, we were able to prove from the lug nut marks, evidence recovered at the scene, and through cross examination of witnesses that the other 18-wheeler driver was extremely fatigued, had no driver training, was overworked, and was in fact the one that crossed the center yellow line. The case has been resolved.
Summary: Our client was a volunteer firefighter in Dilley, Texas. A ranch manager conducted a controlled burn on a red flag warning day and the burn quickly turned into a raging, out of control wildfire. While fighting the fire, our firefighter was injured and suffered severe burns on her body and face. Texas has long employed the “Fireman’s Rule” in premises liability cases. Texas’ version of the Fireman’s Rule usually prevents firefighters from recovering for their injuries and damages suffered while fighting fires. Nevertheless, we filed suit and fought hard for our heroic firefighter. The case has been resolved.
Summary: A handshake agreement between two businessmen led to a complex business lawsuit over control of the business’ assets and profits. Our client filed suit to secure his interest in the business and to recover damages. In that lawsuit, our client sought to recover millions in damages even though there was no formal written agreement.
Efrain Gonzales Bexar Waste
Summary: When a long time employee of a family owned and operated livestock company stole hundreds of thousands of dollars, the company asked us for help. We brought a civil lawsuit against the employee and her children because our investigation revealed that stolen funds were used to pay for home improvements.
Summary: We represented a real estate consultant and developer in a complex real estate dispute regarding a development and management services agreement. The contract required payments to our client based on the value of the property at the time contract ended. Both parties retained real estate appraisal experts to offer opinions about the real estate’s market value and appraised value based on complex calculations including cap rates and future projections of income and expenses. After mediation failed the case proceeded to trial. After a three day bench trial, the Judge returned a verdict of $822,950.78 in favor of our client.
Central Texas Realty & Development, LLC vs. MVSATX Holdings, LLC
Summary: We represent a national restaurant franchisee in a complex lease dispute. As part of the proceedings in the trial court, the plaintiff sought to exclude all experts in the case. We filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Beaumont 9th Court of Appeals asking for relief and reinstatement of all experts. The Court of Appeals agreed with our client and granted the relief requested.
We represented a restaurant franchisee in a dispute with a commercial landlord, KRG Portofino, LLC, which is a subsidiary of Kite Realty (the "Landlord"). The case concerned positive findings of asbestos in the Portofino Shopping Center, fraud, breach of the lease, failure to return the tenant's security deposit, and other causes of action. The Portofino Shopping Center is located in Montgomery County, Texas and stores like Amazing Lash, Casual Male, Old Navy, Tropical Smoothie, Pie Town, Carters, OshKosh and the Learning Academy have rented in the shopping center.
Following a week-long trial, the Judge found that KRG Portofino LLC discovered asbestos in the Portofino Shopping Center multiple times. Specifically, the Judge found:
In addition to the discovery of asbestos at Amazing Lash and Casual Male, Landlord discovered asbestos at Old Navy, Tropical Smoothie, Pie Town, Carters, OshKosh and the Learning Academy.
And, after confirming the discoveries of asbestos, the Judge found the Landlord (Kite Realty's subsidiary KRG Portofino LLC) committed acts of fraud, finding:
Even though the Portofino Shopping Center contained toxic asbestos and Landlord knew or should have known the Portofino Shopping Center contained asbestos, Landlord’s employees and agents, Kilroy and Reedy, made voluntary, material, and false representations about asbestos in the Portofino Shopping Center to [our client]. Landlord’s false representations included (i) asbestos being discovered in the Portofino Shopping Center was only a possibility when, in truth, asbestos had already been discovered, (ii) the Portofino Shopping Center was asbestos-free when, in truth, the shopping center contained asbestos, and (iii) Landlord had only discovered asbestos in other shopping centers when, in truth, Landlord had already discovered asbestos in the Portofino Shopping Center.
The Judge further determined that Kite Realty's subsidiary committed acts of fraud with "intentional, reckless" intent and "lacked any regard for the health and safety of others", finding:
Landlord used intentional siloing of information relating to asbestos to conceal the truth and to deceive current and prospective tenants into believing the shopping center was not contaminated with asbestos.
Landlord continually referred to the asbestos issue as a minor financial issue, focusing solely on the cost of asbestos reporting and remediation services, and completely ignored the impact numerous asbestos findings throughout the Portofino Shopping Center would have if disclosed to current and prospective tenants as well as vendors and customers of the shopping center.
Landlord’s actions regarding the findings of asbestos and failure to disclose were intentional, reckless and lacked any regard for the health and safety of others.
Landlord’s improper remediation, both at the Premises and at the Old Navy location, further put tenants, customers, and vendors at risk for health, safety, and well-being.
On the issue of breach of contract, the Judge found that Kite Realty's subsidiary breached the lease, as follows:
Because the Landlord could not and did not deliver the Premises, Saddles could not and did not have an obligation to pay rent, rent could not and did not commence and Saddles could not and did not take possession of the Premises.
Finally, the Court found damages for our client, including:
Landlord’s breach of contract caused [our client] injuries and damages including loss of monies paid for its franchise fee ($12,500), asbestos survey ($1,000), architect fees ($21,936.96), security deposit ($11,392.02) and attorney’s fees ($160,000.00).
Summary: Belligerent and intoxicated, a drunk driver hopped into his car and began driving on our roadways. Minutes later, the drunk driver ran a red light and collided into our client’s vehicle. The injuries suffered by our client included injuries to his neck and back. Our client filed suit against the drunk driver and the bar. During the course of discovery, we obtained compelling evidence of the driver’s severe intoxication at the scene of the collision from the San Antonio Police DWI Task Officer’s body camera. The case has since been resolved.
Summary: As part of a construction project, a landlord dug deep holes into an active public parking lot and left them open. Unfortunately, the wind blew a large piece of cardboard over the hole and when our client stepped on the cardboard he fell into the hole, fracturing his leg. The defendant refused to accept responsibility for our client’s injuries and damages. However, after two (2) days of trial, including a withering cross-examination of the landlord, the trial judge ordered the parties to a mid-trial mediation. At mediation, the case was resolved.
Summary: An 18-wheeler working in an oil field ran over our client on his motorcycle and killed him. We represented the widow and the two sons. After an extensive investigation, we discovered video surveillance footage of the collision. The case has been resolved.
Summary: In an attempt to avoid responsibility, an 18-wheeler company hired a defense expert in biodynamics to claim that our client could not have been injured in the collision. After conducting an exhaustive deposition of the expert, we filed a Motion to Exclude the defense expert to prevent him from testifying at trial. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and agreed this expert should be excluded. On the eve of trial and in a last ditch effort to avoid facing a jury, the defense filed an emergency petition for writ of mandamus to reinstate its expert and to delay the trial. The appeals court rejected the defense’s appeal, the exclusion of the defense expert was upheld and we prevented the defense from derailing the trial. See In re Marty, Inc., No. 04-20-00067-CV, 2020 WL 557076, at *1 (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2020)
Summary: After years of Frito Lay denying responsibility for causing a serious 18-wheeler wreck, a jury found Frito Lay and its driver responsible for causing our client’s serious personal injuries. The jury awarded total damages in the amount $1,789,049.70.
Summary: Two oil field 18-wheeler drivers collided on a county road just outside of Cotulla, Texas and our client did not survive. The other 18-wheeler driver said our client crossed the yellow line, and DPS wrote it up that way. Liability was strongly disputed, however, we were able to prove from the lug nut marks, evidence recovered at the scene, and through cross examination of witnesses that the other 18-wheeler driver was extremely fatigued, had no driver training, was overworked, and was in fact the one that crossed the center yellow line. The case has been resolved.
Summary: Our client was a volunteer firefighter in Dilley, Texas. A ranch manager conducted a controlled burn on a red flag warning day and the burn quickly turned into a raging, out of control wildfire. While fighting the fire, our firefighter was injured and suffered severe burns on her body and face. Texas has long employed the “Fireman’s Rule” in premises liability cases. Texas’ version of the Fireman’s Rule usually prevents firefighters from recovering for their injuries and damages suffered while fighting fires. Nevertheless, we filed suit and fought hard for our heroic firefighter. The case has been resolved.
Summary: A handshake agreement between two businessmen led to a complex business lawsuit over control of the business’ assets and profits. Our client filed suit to secure his interest in the business and to recover damages. In that lawsuit, our client sought to recover millions in damages even though there was no formal written agreement.
Efrain Gonzales Bexar Waste
Summary: When a long time employee of a family owned and operated livestock company stole hundreds of thousands of dollars, the company asked us for help. We brought a civil lawsuit against the employee and her children because our investigation revealed that stolen funds were used to pay for home improvements.
Summary: We represented a real estate consultant and developer in a complex real estate dispute regarding a development and management services agreement. The contract required payments to our client based on the value of the property at the time contract ended. Both parties retained real estate appraisal experts to offer opinions about the real estate’s market value and appraised value based on complex calculations including cap rates and future projections of income and expenses. After mediation failed the case proceeded to trial. After a three day bench trial, the Judge returned a verdict of $822,950.78 in favor of our client.
Central Texas Realty & Development, LLC vs. MVSATX Holdings, LLC