Federal Court Update
Western District of Texas Court Summaries By Soledad Valenciano, Melanie Fry, and Charles Carter
If you are aware of a Western District of Texas order that you believe would be of interest to the local bar and should be summarized in this column, please contact Soledad Valenciano (svalenciano@svtxlaw.com, 210-787-4654) or Melanie Fry (mfry@dykema.com, 210-554-5500) with the style and cause number of the case, and the entry date and docket number of the order.
First Amendment; Free Exercise Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation v. Alamo Trust, Inc., SA-19-CV-01084-OLG (Garcia, O., September 23, 2020). During the renovation of the Alamo, human remains were discovered on the site. Plaintiffs are purported descendants of those people and state that one of their core religious beliefs is that a specific ceremony must be performed if a body is moved. Plaintiffs filed this action for injunctive relief to protect their interests amidst the on-going renovation of the Alamo. The court previously dismissed the state and local agencies from the suit on sovereign immunity or standing grounds. The remaining defendants, the CEO of Alamo Trust, Inc. and the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office—the officials in charge of the “Alamo Plan” renovation—moved to dismiss the remaining claims. Plaintiffs claim that their exclusion from the human remains protocol set by defendants violated their equal protection and free exercise rights. Plaintiffs also claim that they were prohibited from performing a religious memorial ceremony in the Alamo Chapel in violation of their free exercise rights. The court rejected plaintiffs’ equal protection claim because they did not plead how they are treated differently than other purported descendants of the persons whose remains were found, who were also excluded from the human remains protocol. Without questioning the sincerity of plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, the court also 28 San Antonio Lawyer | sabar.org
rejected plaintiffs’ free exercise claim because inclusion in the human remains protocol and permission to enter the Alamo Chapel outside of operating hours (as plaintiffs requested) were not generally available benefits that defendants denied. Accordingly, the court refused to “extract” a benefit from defendants and dismissed the case.
Amount in Controversy; Pre-Suit Demand Letters Southwest Research Inst. v. Cal. Fueling, LLC, SA-20-CV-00986-XR (Rodriguez, X., October 27, 2020). Plaintiff, Southwest Research Institute (“SwRI”), entered into a contract to perform emission testing for Defendant California Fueling. After SwRI completed the testing and issued a final report, the defendant paid SwRI $256,000. Two years later, counsel for the defendant contacted SwRI to demand the money back due to SwRI’s alleged disclosure of biodiesel trade secrets to a competitor. SwRI sued the defendant in Texas state court for declaratory judgment that SwRI did not misappropriate intellectual property as well as other issues related to the resolution of the parties’ prior contract. Following the defendant’s removal of the case to federal court, SwRI moved to remand to state court, arguing that the defendant did not meet its burden to demonstrate the amount in controversy. The defendant relied on evidence regarding the $256,000 payment to support
its amount in controversy argument. SwRI objected to this evidence on Rule 408 grounds because of a discussion of settlement demands in one of the defendant’s supporting affidavits. The court overruled SwRI’s objections and clarified that pre-suit demand letters can be used to determine whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 but that such demands must represent a “reasonable estimation” of the amount in controversy. In doing so, the court determined that the defendant’s demand to return the $256,000 in settlement of its potential IP claims against SwRI was a reasonable estimate of how the defendant valued the claims on which SwRI now seeks a declaration. Accordingly, the court denied SwRI’s motion to remand.
Voting Rights; COVID-19 Response Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, SA-20-CV00830-JKP (Pulliam, J., October 27, 2020). Plaintiffs generally allege that Texas election procedures preclude people in certain protected classes from voting because the procedures create unsafe conditions in light of COVID-19. The court granted a motion to dismiss on the ground that it did not have Article III power to grant the injunctive relief requested. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings, including determination of three issues related to Exemption 8 of Governor
