Appeals

Hired just three weeks before oral argument, Jeff Levinger convinced the Dallas Court of Appeals to affirm an arbitration award in favor of the law firm of Fitzpatrick Hagood Smith and Uhl—even though the firm had not previously filed an appellees’ brief. Based on Levinger’s oral argument, the appellate court held that the firm’s former client, who was trying to avoid a $770,000 arbitration award, did not timely challenge the award and was not entitled to invoke the doctrines of equitable tolling or estoppel to excuse the untimely challenge. The court also accepted Levinger’s stipulation that the former client was entitled to a credit for the amount of a settlement the firm had previously received from a guarantor of the fee charged to the client, thus avoiding a remand and further litigation. As a side note, Levinger had assisted the law firm in the early stages of the arbitration by briefing and successfully arguing a response to the former client’s summary-judgment motion. Fisher v. Daniel K. Hagood P.C. and Fitzpatrick Hagood Smith and Uhl, Inc., No. 05-19-00106-CV, 2019 WL 6711675 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 10, 2019, no pet.).

November 19, 2018 in Case Summaries

Levinger PC assisted the trial team at Ferguson Braswell Fraser Kubasta PC in convincing the Dallas Court of Appeals to reinstate an arbitration award favoring their client, China-based ZTE Corporation, in its long-running dispute with Universal Telephone Exchange over the installation of a modern telecommunications system in the country of Liberia. The dispute began more than a decade ago, when UTE initiated an arbitration against ZTE seeking a ten-figure damage award based on allegations that ZTE had interfered in UTE’s business relationship with Liberia. The arbitrator ruled in favor of ZTE, but a Dallas district court vacated the award based on UTE’s allegations that the arbitration was affected by procedural and substantive irregularities. In a unanimous opinion, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and confirmed the arbitration award. The court rejected UTE’s assertions that it was entitled to a three-person arbitration panel under the International Arbitration Rules, that the award was obtained by fraud or undue means, and that the arbitrator had refused to consider relevant evidence and otherwise exceeded his powers. ZTE Corp. v. Universal Telephone Exchange, Inc., No. 05-17-00781-CV, 2018 WL 6039694 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 19, 2018, pet. denied).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

October 18, 2018 in Case Summaries

Levinger PC teamed with trial lawyers Andy Payne and Todd Ramsey in persuading the Fort Worth Court of Appeals to affirm an $18 million judgment in favor of their client Clarence Johnson in his products-liability suit against HVAC manufacturers Emerson Climate Technologies and Fusite. Johnson, an HVAC repairman, was seriously injured when an air conditioning unit designed by Emerson and equipped with a Fusite terminal exploded and vented scalding oil and refrigerant onto Johnson’s face and body. After a lengthy trial, a jury found in Johnson’s favor on his design defect and marketing defect claims, and awarded substantial damages for his pecuniary loss and mental anguish. In a comprehensive 63-page memorandum opinion, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals rejected the challenges of Emerson and Fusite to the sufficiency of the evidence, to the testimony of Johnson’s design-defect expert, to the instructions in the jury charge, and to the mental anguish awards. Jeff Levinger orally argued the case in June 2017 and the Court issued its opinion in October 2018. Emerson Electric Co., d/b/a Fusite and Emerson Climate Technologies v. Johnson, No. 02-16-00173-CV, 2018 WL 5074702 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 18, 2018, pet. granted).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Products Liability & Personal Injury, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

August 29, 2018 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger led a successful effort to overturn a judgment of $6.2 million in actual damages and $1.2 million in attorney’s fees against The Brandt Companies in a long-running dispute with its subcontractor, Beard Industrial, over the construction of a semiconductor facility in New York.  In reversing the judgment and remanding the case for a new trial, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the evidence conclusively established the existence of a written subcontract between Brandt and Beard, even though a dispute existed between them over one aspect of the scope of Beard’s work.  The Court also agreed with Brandt that Beard’s evidence failed to support the full amount of quantum merit damages awarded by the jury.  Because the jury failed to answer several factual questions necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes, the Court remanded the entire case for a new trial.  Subsequently, the case was resolved in a confidential settlement.  The Brandt Companies, LLC v. Beard Process Solutions, Inc., No. 05-17-00780-CV, 2018 WL 4103210 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 29, 2018, pet. granted, judgm’t vacated w.r.m.) (mem. op.).

Courts:  Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter:  Business Litigation, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

June 13, 2018 in Case Summaries

In a long-running dispute between Stanley Graff and the purchasers of a multi-million-dollar apartment complex owned by the estate of Graff’s father, Levinger PC persuaded the Dallas Court of Appeals to affirm the probate court’s summary judgment rejecting Graff’s effort to rescind or recover damages arising from the October 2000 purchase of the complex.  Among other rulings, the Court held that Graff’s claims of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud accrued by August 2002 and thus were barred by the four-year statute of limitations; that the independent executor had the authority to sell the real property and thus the transaction should not be rescinded; and that Graff’s claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against the purchasers failed because there was no evidence that they assisted an appraiser in his valuation of the property.  Graff v. 2920 Park Grove Venture, Ltd., No. 05-16-01411-CV, 2018 WL 2949158 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 13, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Courts:  Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts

Subject Matter:  Business Litigation, Ethics & Professional Liability