B&R Forces Dismissal by Personal Injury Plaintiff

On September 26, 2005, the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with an employee of R&L Transfer, Inc. He alleged he suffered a ruptured patella as a direct result of the accident. On May 4, 2009, the plaintiff was forced to dismiss his case against R&L after Blakeley & Reynolds discovered he was diagnosed with the ruptured patella three days before the car accident that formed the basis of his lawsuit against R&L. The plaintiff’s mother had previously been forced to dismiss her case against R&L after failing to produce any evidence to support her claims. Cause No. 2007-CI-10910; Victor Barrera and Victorina Adams vs. R&L Transfer, Inc. and Roy Sotelo, Sr. in the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Firm President Brett Reynolds Appointed to Texas Department of Transportation Task Force

In March 2009, the Texas Department of Transportation appointed Brett Reynolds to its New Braunfels Interstate Highway 35 Outer Loop Study Task Force. The Task Force meets monthly during 2009 and is charged with assisting TXDOT, its engineers and the public in determining the best course of action for the placement and construction of the multi-million dollar New Braunfels Outer Loop Project.

B&R Obtains Summary Judgment in False Imprisonment and Fraud Case

On January 12, 2009, Brett Reynolds obtained summary judgment against a guest of Target Corporation who sued Target for false imprisonment and fraud after his arrest and conviction for shoplifting GPS equipment from a San Antonio Target store. The plaintiff claimed Target wrongfully detained him and caused his arrest and subsequent misdemeanor theft conviction by a Bexar County jury. He sought damages against Target in excess of $600,000 for medical expenses, lost wages, mental anguish and punitive damages. Cause No. 2005-CI-19834; Al E. Caballero vs. Target Corporation, in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Brian Blakeley Successfully Argues Before Texas’ Fourth Court of Appeals

In a decision issued December 31, 2008, the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals ruled on a complex insurance coverage and duty to defend case argued by firm member Brian Blakeley on behalf of CNA Insurance Companies. In KLN Steel Products Company v. CNA Insurance Companies et. al., KLN contended that CNA and other insurers owed a duty to defend KLN against claims brought by a competitor (Hi-Tech Beds Systems Corp. ) for patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair business practices and unfair competition, and interference with a prospective business relationship. CNA denied coverage for the claims and refused to defend KLN, asserting no coverage existed for the allegations as plead by Hi-Tech. The Court found that no coverage existed for the complaints made by Hi-Tech under the “personal injury” and “advertising injury” provisions of the policy issued to KLN. Accordingly, CNA had no duty to defend KLN against the claims. KLN Steel Products Company v. CNA Insurance Companies et. al., 278 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2008).

B&R Obtains Summary Judgment and Monetary Sanctions in Frivolous Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

Brett Reynolds obtained summary judgment and Rule 13 sanctions against the plaintiff in Comal County for bringing a frivolous claim against Target Corporation for intentional infliction of emotional distress after a Target store refused to accept his personal check in payment for merchandise. Reynolds obtained summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to adduce any evidence that Target’s rejection of his personal check was intended to cause him emotional distress, or that he suffered any severe emotional distress from the incident as required by the Texas Supreme Court. Reynolds obtained sanctions against the plaintiff after establishing that the plaintiff, a local attorney, brought his lawsuit in bad faith and for the purpose of harassing Target. The plaintiff is appealing the judgment in favor of Target. Cause No. 32008 S -0002; Ronald Karchmer vs. Target Corporation. Comal County, Texas 

B&R Obtains Summary Judgment in Premises Security Case

On October 31, 2008, Associate Brook Swilley successfully obtained summary judgment after establishing that the plaintiff failed to timely and properly serve Defendant AutoZone with citation of the lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations, and affirmatively established the plaintiff's premises security action could not proceed with the admission by the plaintiff he had no evidence of crime in the area as required by Timberwalk Apts. vs. Cain. Cause No. 2007-CI-14685; Ramiro Robles vs. AutoZone West, Inc. and AutoZone Texas, L.P., in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Brett Reynolds successfully obtained sanctions against a personal injury plaintiff on behalf of Target Corporation after discovering the plaintiff concealed in deposition and written discovery a serious prior injury to his knee occurring only weeks before the accident made the basis of his lawsuit. The trial court entered an order prohibiting the plaintiff from introducing any evidence of a knee injury at trial. The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order in a mandamus proceeding before the Fourth Court of Appeals, who affirmed the trial court’s sanctions order. The case was ultimately dismissed with no recovery by the plaintiff. Cause No. 2004-CI-06471; Albert Litterio vs. Raul Guzman and Target Corporation, in the 224 Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

[back to top]