Board Certified Civil Appellate Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Multi-Million Dollar Counterclaim Against Autobahn Imports Dismissed Because Of Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Multi-Million Dollar Counterclaim Against Autobahn Imports Dismissed Because Of Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies

April 3, 2018 in Case Summaries

 

Levinger PC persuaded the Fifth Circuit to affirm the dismissal of a multi-million dollar breach of contract counterclaim asserted by Jaguar Land Rover North America against Autobahn Imports, a franchised automobile dealer in Fort Worth. Rejecting JLRNA’s argument that the counterclaim did not allege any violation of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code and therefore did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, the Court held that the “underlying facts still require determinations governed by the Code” and thus the counterclaim fell within the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction. The Court also held that dismissal rather than abatement was appropriate because the counterclaim raised many of the same allegations that the Board had already adjudicated against JLRNA in a related case. In successfully arguing this exhaustion-of-remedies argument, Levinger PC had to overcome a previous Fifth Circuit opinion that could be read to suggest that the Board did not have exclusive jurisdiction over contractual disputes between dealers and manufacturers. Autobahn Imports, LP v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 17‑10349, 2018 WL 1612252 (5th Cir. Apr. 3, 2018).

 

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals

Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

By | April 3rd, 2018|Comments Off on Multi-Million Dollar Counterclaim Against Autobahn Imports Dismissed Because Of Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Read More

Levinger PC Represents Plaintiffs in Three of the Top 100 U.S. Jury Verdicts in 2017

Levinger PC Represents Plaintiffs in Three of the Top 100 U.S. Jury Verdicts in 2017

March 1, 2018 in News

Of the top 100 United States jury verdicts recently reported by ALM Media in its 2017 VerdictSearch, Levinger PC represents the Plaintiffs in the cases ranked 1st, 22nd, and 51st. Summaries of the three cases can be read here:

  1. Hopper v. JPMorgan Chase Bank: The adult children and second wife of a prominent information technology executive obtained a multi-billion dollar verdict of actual and punitive damages after a Dallas County probate court jury found that JPMorgan, the estate’s independent administrator, breached fiduciary duties and acted negligently by delaying the distribution of assets and spending the estate’s money on its own attorney’s fees. After being retained by the adult children to handle the post-verdict and appellate proceedings, Jeff Levinger initiated negotiations with JPMorgan and settled the claims for a confidential sum.
  2. Bagwell v. BBVA Compass: A residential property developer and his limited partnerships obtained a verdict in excess of $85 million after a Dallas County district court jury found that BBVA Compass defrauded him by failing to disclose that it had recently agreed to sell his partnerships’ loans to a competing developer, which then foreclosed on the properties and destroyed the developer’s livelihood. Levinger PC represented the developer in a previous appeal from a summary-judgment dismissal of the case, and assisted trial lawyer Derrick Boyd in the post-remand proceedings and at trial.
  3. Chohan, et al. v. New Prime, Inc.: Two families obtained a verdict of nearly $39 million after a Dallas County court at law jury found that a trucking company and its driver were negligent in causing a multi-vehicle crash on an icy road that led to deaths and multiple injuries. Both families retained Jeff Levinger to assist the trial lawyers, Micky Das and Tim Dollar, in connection with the post-verdict proceedings and appeal.

Subject Matter: Business Litigation; Procedural & Evidentiary Issues; Prudent Liability & Personal Injury

By | March 1st, 2018|Comments Off on Levinger PC Represents Plaintiffs in Three of the Top 100 U.S. Jury Verdicts in 2017
Read More

Dallas Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Assertion of Personal Jurisdiction Over Mexican Reinsurance Broker

Dallas Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Assertion of Personal Jurisdiction Over Mexican Reinsurance Broker.

August 22, 2017 in Case Summaries

Levinger PC teamed with trial lawyer Thomas Cook of Zelle LLP to persuade the Dallas Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over Cooper Gay Mexico, a reinsurance broker based in Mexico City. Elamex, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican food manufacturer with plants in Juarez and El Paso, had sought to hold Cooper Gay Mexico liable for more than $25 million as a result of an excess insurer’s refusal to pay Elamex for fire damages to its Juarez plant. After an extensive analysis of Cooper Gay Mexico’s efforts in seeking to obtain the excess insurance and in placing the reinsurance for the excess policy, the court of appeals concluded that Cooper Gay Mexico neither had any contacts with Texas nor sought any benefit by trying to avail itself of jurisdiction in Texas. Rather, the evidence showed that all of Cooper Gay Mexico’s relevant contacts were either with its affiliate in Florida or the excess insurer in Mexico. Cooper Gay Martinez del Rio y Asociados Intermediaros de Reaseguro S.A. de C.V. v. Elamex, S.A. de C.V., No. 05‑16‑01436‑CV, 2017 WL 359960 (Tex. App. ‑‑ Dallas Aug. 22, 2017, no pet.).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts

Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

By | August 22nd, 2017|Comments Off on Dallas Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Assertion of Personal Jurisdiction Over Mexican Reinsurance Broker
Read More

Jeff Levinger Co-Authors and Presents Speech on Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Jeff Levinger Co-Authors and Presents Speech on Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

June 2, 2017 in Speeches

Using a colorful hypothetical about a lawyer named Andy Attorney, Jeff Levinger and Michael Eady co-presented a discussion about legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and the politics of the Texas Pattern Jury Charges at the University of Texas’s 27th Annual Conference on State and Federal Appeals. Their central thesis was that the current one-size-fits-all pattern jury question for fiduciary duty cases is not suitable for the myriad of fact patterns arising in breach of fiduciary duty cases against attorneys. Accordingly, they suggested ways to tailor the PJC fiduciary duty question to fit several of the more commonly reported situations involving an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty. The PowerPoint of this presentation can be viewed here.

Subject Matter: Ethics & Professional Malpractice; Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

By | June 2nd, 2017|Comments Off on Jeff Levinger Co-Authors and Presents Speech on Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Read More

Fifth Circuit Upholds Jury’s Vindication of Dillon Gage in Fraudulent Transfer Suit Bought by Stanford Receiver

Fifth Circuit Upholds Jury’s Vindication of Dillon Gage in Fraudulent Transfer Suit

Bought by Stanford Receiver

May 5, 2017 in Case Summaries

In a published opinion addressing numerous aspects of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, the Fifth Circuit upheld a July 2015 jury verdict in favor of Levinger PC client Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas in a long-running dispute with Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver in the Stanford Ponzi scheme litigation.  The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Stanford Coins & Bullion did not have an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors when it made six payments totaling $5.1 million to Dillon Gage, a coin and bullion wholesaler, in the weeks leading up to the receivership.  In particular, the Court emphasized evidence showing that SCB intended to satisfy its obligations to all of its retail customers, as well as the Receiver’s failure to establish that SCB was insolvent at the time of the transfers.  Finally, the Court rejected the Receiver’s complaints about four aspects of the jury charge, including an instruction that a fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from a debtor’s mere intent to prefer one creditor over another.  Janvey v. Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas, 856 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2017).

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

By | May 5th, 2017|Comments Off on Fifth Circuit Upholds Jury’s Vindication of Dillon Gage in Fraudulent Transfer Suit Bought by Stanford Receiver
Read More

SEARCH LEVINGER’S EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE