Levinger PC Works With Sullivan & Cromwell Team to Defeat Conspiracy Claims After Five-Week Jury Trial

Levinger PC Works With Sullivan & Cromwell Team to Defeat Conspiracy Claims After Five-Week Jury Trial

March 4, 2014 in News
Working closely with Sullivan & Cromwell partners Michael Steinberg, Robert Giuffra, and Laura Oswell, Jeff Levinger successfully defended Enbridge U.S. in a closely-watched Dallas County jury trial involving three of the world’s largest pipeline companies and claims for damages in excess of one billion dollars.  In September 2011, Energy Transfer Partners sued Enterprise Products for breach of an alleged partnership to build a crude oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. ETP also sued Enbridge, claiming that it had conspired with Enterprise to form a new pipeline venture that did not include ETP.  After a five-week trial beginning on January 27, 2014, the jury unanimously found that Enbridge did not conspire with Enterprise and did not act with malice toward ETP.  As to Enterprise, however, the jury found that it had created a partnership with ETP, had failed to comply with its duty of loyalty, and had caused damages to ETP of $319,375,000.  The case has attracted the close attention of energy industry experts and legal commentators over the extent to which Texas law recognizes “partnerships by conduct,” notwithstanding preliminary written agreements that disclaim partnerships and the existence of binding obligations.

Subject Matter:  Business Litigation, Oil and Gas/Real Estate

By | March 14th, 2014|Comments Off on Levinger PC Works With Sullivan & Cromwell Team to Defeat Conspiracy Claims After Five-Week Jury Trial

Oral Contract to Reimburse Asbestos Mistake Affirmed on Appeal

Oral Contract to Reimburse Asbestos Mistake Affirmed on Appeal

January 13, 2014 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger represented long-time clients Jakalam Properties and Michael Cohen in persuading the Dallas Court of Appeals to affirm a favorable jury verdict based on the breach of an oral agreement.  The agreement arose out of a commitment on the part of an asbestos testing lab to reimburse Jakalam for the expenses it had to incur after the lab mistakenly reported that a building being renovated by Jakalam contained asbestos.  The Court rejected the lab’s contention that the oral contract was too indefinite to be enforced, holding that the contract was sufficiently definite to enable it to fix the parties’ obligations and liabilities.  The court also upheld the jury’s finding that the contract had been breached, and agreed that Jakalam was a prevailing party entitled to recover its attorney’s fees at trial and on appeal.  Crisp Analytical Lab, L.L.C. v. Jakalam Properties, Ltd., 422 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App. ‑‑ Dallas 2013, pet. denied).

Courts:  Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter:  Business Litigation

By | January 13th, 2014|Comments Off on Oral Contract to Reimburse Asbestos Mistake Affirmed on Appeal

Levinger Argues Texas Supreme Court Trilogy in 2013

Levinger Argues Texas Supreme Court Trilogy in 2013

October 8, 2013 in News
On October 8, 2013, Jeff Levinger completed an unusual trifecta of arguing three different cases before the Texas Supreme Court in a span of less than eight months.  The October case is styled LAN/STV v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., No. 11-0810, and presents the issue whether the economic loss rule affects a general contractor’s right to bring a negligent misrepresentation claim against an architect and engineer for providing inaccurate information on which the contractor relied in preparing its bid.  Levinger argued the second case on September 9, 2013; it is styled Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, No. 11-0709, and presents several evidentiary issues in a products liability case involving a frontal airbag that failed to deploy in a head-on collision.  The first case, Ritchie v. Rupe, No. 11-0447, was argued on February 26, 2013 and presents questions regarding the scope of and remedies for the claim of minority shareholder oppression in Texas.  Click here to read the transcript from the oral argument in the Rupe case, Click here to read the transcript from the oral argument in the Ruiz case, Click here to read the transcript from the oral argument in the Eby case.

Subject Matter:  Business Litigation, Products Liability and Personal Injury, Procedural and Evidentiary Issues.

By | October 8th, 2013|Comments Off on Levinger Argues Texas Supreme Court Trilogy in 2013

Dallas Court of Appeals Revives Medical Malpractice Suit Brought by Client Blinded After Heart Surgery

Dallas Court of Appeals Revives Medical Malpractice Suit Brought by Client Blinded After Heart Surgery

April 5, 2013 in Case Summaries

Working with trial attorneys Kenneth Chaiken and Robert Chaiken, Jeff Levinger persuaded the Dallas Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s dismissal of a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by their clients, Ronald and Pam Fortner.  Mr. Fortner became totally and permanently blind in the days following a cardiac bypass procedure, when his physicians and nurses failed to timely obtain appropriate treatment and consultations after he began complaining about visual problems.  The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that the expert reports did not adequately explain the element of causation, but after reading the Fortners’ brief and hearing oral argument, the court of appeals held that the trial court had abused its discretion and remanded the case for further proceedings.  Fortner v. Hospital of the Southwest, et al., 399 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App. ‑‑ Dallas 2013, no pet.).

Courts:  Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter:  Products Liability & Personal Injury

By | April 5th, 2013|Comments Off on Dallas Court of Appeals Revives Medical Malpractice Suit Brought by Client Blinded After Heart Surgery

Levinger PC Teams With Gruber Hurst Trial Lawyers in Massive Oil and Gas Fraud Suit

Levinger PC Teams With Gruber Hurst Trial Lawyers in Massive Oil and Gas Fraud Suit

January 9, 2013 in News
Jeff Levinger served as appellate counsel to Mike Gruber and other trial lawyers from Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank in representing their client, MC Asset Recovery LLC, against Castex Energy in a jury trial before U.S. District Judge Terry Means in Fort Worth.  MC Asset Recovery sued Castex for fraud and breach of contract arising from the sale of an interest in a South Louisiana oil and gas field ‑‑ an interest that Castex had secretly negotiated to resell to Apache for a $75 million profit.  The suit sought compensatory and punitive damages against Castex and affiliated defendants in excess of $400 million.  Castex was represented by the law firms of Susman Godfrey and Gordon Arata.  The case settled on the second day of trial for a confidential sum.

Subject Matter:  Business Litigation, Oil & Gas/Real Estate

By | January 9th, 2013|Comments Off on Levinger PC Teams With Gruber Hurst Trial Lawyers in Massive Oil and Gas Fraud Suit