August 31, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Recent Texas Oil and Gas Lawsuit Alleges Misrepresentation and Negligence

A recent Texas oil and gas lawsuit involves claims that relate to a well that turned out to be a dry hole. Fort Apache Energy, Inc. filed a suit in July in the Harris County District Court against Ventum Energy, LP, Old World Management, Inc., Ventum Management Inc., William Bippus, and Mitchell Veh. Fort Apache says that in early 2009, it was approached by Ventum and its agents to invest in the Ramerio Creek Prospect, an oil and gas drilling venture in Live Oak County.

Veh and Bippus were reported to be responsible for the engineering, geological, and geophysical work on Ramerio. They allegedly made the Ramerio Prospect seem like a viable well, a lucrative project, and enticed Fort Apache to spend $200,000 on Ventum’s professional services. As more work ensued, Ventum explored Ramerio with a test well, the Sjolander #1 Well, that turned out to have no oil and only a zone “occupied by saltwater”.

Fort Apache contends it later learned that Ventum and its agents made false representations and prepared estimates based on a nearby well, the Tenneco Well. Fort Apache says that, “Had all of the scout tickets and historical information been evaluated in creating the Estimation, it would have been obvious that the targeted sands as seen in the Tenneco Well would not be productive in the Sjolander #1 Well.”

According to the brief, Ventum allegedly knew all along that the Ramerio was not a good investment. Fort Apache is charging Ventum and its agents with professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, failure to disclose facts, vicarious liability, and Texas Securities Act violations. This suit will likely prove to be a complex case involving multiple disciplines in the oil and gas industry.

Austin, Texas oil and gas attorney Gregory D. Jordan not only understands the oil and gas industry from a legal perspective, but also knows the business from his time as a petroleum landman and petroleum engineer. Disputes over leases, royalties, property damage, and contracts happen frequently, and unfortunately some individuals and companies resort to unscrupulous tactics in the quest for profits. Jordan gives businesses, landowners, and individuals legal counsel in all such situations. He has more than 30 years of experience with the oil and gas industry. To learn more, please go to http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

August 30, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Electronic Trading Card Patent Lawsuit Filed Against Big Gaming Companies

Electronic trading card games are more than a way to trade your favorite sports hero. From kids to adults, these cards and electronic games can cover any topic you have an interest in – the recent Royal Wedding, Star Wars, and even your favorite city. The latest statistics show that trading cards and their associated games raked in $2.1 billion worldwide. Social gaming in the U.S. alone is targeted to earn $2 billion by 2012.

As game companies, developers, and all the employees in the electronic gaming industry line up to get their share of the profits, there are inevitably some struggles over creativity, intellectual property, and fair competition. Protecting a company’s creative assets often becomes mission number one. No wonder we’re seeing lawsuits such as the one filed by Wildcat Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC against some of the biggest names in gaming.

In the suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Wildcat alleges patent infringement of its 2001 U.S. Patent No. 6,200,216 for an “Electronic Trading Card” for use in consumer digital media. The alleged infringers include: 4Kids’s and Chaotic’s Chaotic online trading card game; Electronic Arts BattleForge videogame; Konami’s Marvel trading card videogame; Yu-Gi-Oh! Online Duel Accelerator videogame; Nintendo’s and Pokemon’s Pokemon Trading Card GameOnline; Panini’s NFL Adrenalyn XLonline game; SCEA’s The Eye of Judgment Legends videogame; SOE’s Legends of Norrath online trading card game; Topps’ Toppstown online trading card game; Wizards’ Magic Online game; and, Zynga’s Warstorm game.

This patent case may be extremely relevant to gaming companies involved with packaged software games, mobile games, online social games, gaming consoles and devices. The alleged Wildcat infringers are said to be using the patented card format and code segments to electronically trade scarce cards and games. This case “…could affect the future direction of the [trading card] hobby”, some say.

As more people gravitate to virtual and electronic cards, not to mention the potential for future augmented reality cards, those who own the programming and backbones behind such a digital card can be as important as the final product. With so much at stake, there is clearly a need for a skilled patent attorney to counsel clients involved in patent, copyright, or trademark disputes in this area.

Austin patent lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has years of experience representing businesses and individuals in intellectual property disputes. To learn more, please contact Austin patent attorney and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

August 28, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Scissors jack crushes man’s head

This gruesome case demonstrates what a family goes through when they file a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of a deceased family member.

This reported case involved the wrongful death of a man by a defective car jack. To be more precise, a scissors car jack that was woefully inadequate in holding up the weight of the car the man was working on. The jack gave way and the vehicle landed on the man’s head, crushing it instantly.

The family chose to file a wrongful death lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for making a defective jack that could not bear the weight of the vehicle. The case told a heartbreaking story of their husband and father, attempting to make repairs to the family Ford Windstar minivan. He used the scissors jack, an original piece of equipment that was made to go with the van. He was working on the right side of the van to remove the right front tire.

He was a careful guy and took the time to put chocks behind each tire, made sure the van was on a flat surface and put the jack in precisely the location indicated in the vehicle manual. The jack failed, dropping the van on his head. The lawsuit stated that Ford, the defendant, was negligent, had sold a defective product, and was accused of a manufacturing defect, design defect, marketing defect, misrepresentation and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

The suit also contended the scissors jacks that came with the vehicles were badly constructed, far too short and were not capable of lifting the weight of the van. The lawsuit asks for damages for the deceased’s physical impairment as a result of the van dropping on his head, for the sheer agony he endured, the mental anguish he felt, the medical bills, the death expenses and funeral costs. As a family they are seeking damages for pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of consortium, mental anguish and court costs plus interest.

Will the family win this case? There is a good chance they will, given the nature of the evidence. If there is further proof that the jack sold with the van was defective, the jury will likely award the family a decent settlement. This wrongful death lawsuit will not be easy for the family, who saw what happened the day of the accident. They fought back the horror of the injuries to help their husband and dad, realizing that he was in serious trouble. Despite their hopes, he did not survive this horrific trauma. His family now needs financial compensation to be able to move forward with their lives.

Robert Webb is an Atlanta personal injury lawyer with Webb & D’Orazio, a law firm specializing in Atlanta personal injury, malpractice, criminal defense, and business law. Learn more at Webbdorazio.com.

August 28, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Dumpster Crushes Man To Death

Being crushed to death by a dumpster is a horrid way to die. The man never stood a chance of survival.

There is the old saying that sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. This particular reported case is one of those stranger than fiction scenarios. No one would have thought about being crushed to death by a dumpster. It just seemed too bizarre to ever happen.

The 53-year-old man who lost his life suddenly, had a fairly normal day at work, until about 1 p.m. He worked for a metal recycling outfit and was going about his usual duties, when a dumpster that was being unloaded for recycling fell on top of him. He was pinned to the ground and when emergency crews arrived, was pronounced dead at the scene.

How did the dumpster fall? Who was lifting the dumpster? Was it on a forklift? How did it fall? Was the operator experienced or new? Was the equipment defective or improperly maintained? Did the forklift operator pay attention to what and who was around him at the time? Questions, questions, questions. Endless questions will dog this investigation until investigators figure out what happened to cause the dumpster to fall.

The reason for its fall is important in terms of whether or not there was third party liability and whether or not there was negligence afoot that day. Dumpsters just don’t fall off forklifts because they can. There has to be a reason for it. While the exact cause of the man’s death was not evident at the time, chances are the autopsy will show blunt force injuries.

Once more information is known, the family of the deceased worker may wish to file a wrongful death lawsuit. In order to pay their bills while they are waiting to go to court, they could apply for pre-settlement funding to carry them over until verdict or a settlement. Litigation funding is specifically designed to help cash strapped plaintiffs get back on their feet financially, pay all of their bills off and then have the luxury of waiting, debt free, for their case to be resolved.

Plaintiffs don’t pay any money to apply for lawsuit funding and don’t have to go through a credit check or even have a job. The only thing they need to have is a case that stands a good chance of winning when it goes to court. If by chance they do not win their lawsuit, the pre-settlement funding they were advanced to being with is still theirs to keep, with no strings attached. It’s worth checking litigation funding out if you need money to pay bills while your lawyer works to bring you justice.

Daren Monroe writes for Litigation Funding Corp. To learn more about lawsuit &ufding and litigation funding, visit Litigationfundingcorp.com.

August 27, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Middle Class Americans Caught In The Middle Of Tort Reform

In an interesting turn of events, a Harvard law professor suggests it’s about time lawyers did something about how they are perceived. Too much time is spent protecting jurisdictions instead of solving problems.

Unfortunately, there is a prevailing myth that lawyers are ambulance chasers and take frivolous cases to court to get paid big bucks. There are a number of things wrong with that thought. First, most lawyers do not chase ambulance for business. Most of them have more than they can handle at any given time. Secondly, while there may be some cases that seem questionable on first blush in terms of being successful in court, typically, a lawyer takes a case because there appears to be merit in it and/or a point of law.

As for making big bucks, that is not the case. Many lawyers get a portion of a settlement on winning for a client; a portion that goes right back into the firm to help it represent other clients who need them. Granted big cases sometimes have big wins, but it should be remembered that a big firm with a big case and a big track record for winning, will also have big office overhead.

But back to the concept that lawyers need to change how they are perceived. There may well be some truth in that observation. The law professor went on to point out that not much time is spent preventing problems in the justice system, because everyone is too busy protecting their behinds. How does that impact on lawyers? If you want the justice system to work in any given state, the money to do that has to come from the legislature. If the legislature perceives lawyers as money-grubbing talking heads out just for fame and fortune, state courts will continue to face underfunding and staggering case loads.

Justice is needed at all levels of the legal system, but as it exists right now, the middle class are slammed between a rock and a hard place when it comes to medical malpractice lawsuits. In many states, there has been med mal caps implemented that are designed to cap damages for victims of medical negligence. For those plaintiffs who are so severely injured that they need care for the rest of their lives, capping medical malpractice damages is an outrageous travesty of justice.

What is even more frightening is that there are also some states that are currently contemplating bringing in a loser pays law. Think about that for a minute. The seriously injured victim goes to court with a medical malpractice case and for some reason, the case is lost. The loser pays approach would mean the victim would pay the price, twice. Once as a victim of medical negligence and for the second time as a severely injured victim who lost a court case. And the victim gets huge sums of money from where?

What is happening here is that these kinds of restrictive laws are trying to scare victims away; victims that don’t have the ability to access money to pursue a valid claim in court. What does that say about the justice system?

Robert Webb is an Atlanta personal injury lawyer with Webb & D’Orazio, a law firm specializing in Atlanta personal injury, malpractice, criminal defense, and business law. Learn more at Webbdorazio.com.

August 27, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Hat Strapped To Baby While Using Pacifier Poses Asphyxiation Threat

It is completely amazing how many dangerous things are being made and marketed for babies that have the potential to do serious harm, or kill them.

The number of product recalls in the marketplace over the last year has grown by leaps and bounds. It’s quite frightening to read about them. They affect the very food we eat, the equipment we use, the tools we rely on and even the products that are supposed to be safe for our babies and small children.

Unfortunately, more and more items of a highly questionable nature, supposedly designed for babies, are being recalled for a variety of reasons ranging from they pose a choking threat to severing fingers and from posing a threat of asphyxiation to death. Makes you think twice about buying baby products, doesn’t it?

One of the more recent recalls involved an article of clothing called a Beeni Baby Hat. Cute name. Cute product, but deadly. The hats were designed with straps on the sides and a removable soother that would be held (by the holder) in the baby’s mouth, which sounds like a good idea. However, it was discovered that if the baby spits up, and no one was around, the baby could choke to death, hence the product recall.

While the idea may have been a bright one in conception, it certainly lacked something in its execution and posed a serious threat to babies. The recall was the right thing to do, but if you give that some further thought, if someone had one of these hats and was not aware of the recall, what would happen if their baby choked to death because it spit up while wearing one of these contraptions?
The answer to that question would be that the maker of the product, despite the recall, would still be held liable for marketing a defective product that either seriously harmed, or killed a child. If the parents of that child also chose to file a personal injury lawsuit or a wrongful death/defective product lawsuit, they would need money to pay their bills while waiting for their case to go to court.
Bills don’t stop coming if someone has been injured or killed, and if their baby had survived a brush with choking, the child would have huge medical bills. The child may also have sustained brain damage if they could not breathe due to choking and did not get medical attention fast enough. It would be hard for the parents to handle their usual expenses, plus medical costs for their child.

Should they choose to file a lawsuit and need funding, they could apply for a lawsuit loan to tide them over until justice is done. Litigation funding is considered to be an emergency loan to help the plaintiff get back on their feet financially until their case is resolved. Applicants for a lawsuit cash advance only need to outline their case to the lawsuit loan company, and wait until it is assessed for its chances of winning in court.

If the case is deemed winnable, the pre-settlement funding is sent straight to the plaintiff’s bank account, for use to pay all of their bills right away. It’s a good deal for the plaintiff who does not have to pay any upfront fees, monthly payments or other hidden charges. It’s a straight out lawsuit loan and should they lose their case in court, they get to keep the money, with no further obligation to the litigation funding company.

Daren Monroe writes for Litigation Funding Corp. To learn more about lawsuit &ufding and litigation funding, visit Litigationfundingcorp.com.

August 4, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Enforceability of Noncompete Agreement Raised in Texas Hair Salon Lawsuit

An appeals decision in the Fifth District Court in Dallas, Texas shows that employees who have at-will status can still be subject to noncompete employment agreements. The appeals court decided in late May that a trial court had erroneously thrown out the case of the Jon Scott Salon, Inc. v. Jacalyn Garcia and Lindsey Gresham. Garcia and Gresham worked for the Jon Scott Salon and in their employment agreements had signed that they would not directly or inadvertently market to the salon’s customers within a 10-mile radius for one year when they left the company.

When these two hair stylists and cosmetologists terminated their employment on April 13, 2010, they started a new salon within the off-limit radius. Jon Scott allegedly started to get an extraordinary amount of no-show appointments and cancellations. At the original trial, Jon Scott claimed breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information, theft, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial judge threw out the case due to their at-will employment, but in the appellate court, the judge said that status does not bar their employment contract responsibilities. The lawsuit will now go back to the trial court to decide if the hair stylists violated the noncompete agreement.

The appellant opinion stated that, “…once the employer fulfills the promise to divulge the confidential information, the contract becomes enforceable and may support a covenant not to compete.” By signing the documents and using the salon for, “…opportunities and resources to develop contacts and goodwill, they agreed to refrain from using the goodwill for the benefit of any person or entity other than appellant [Jon Scott Salon].”

In a personal-service industry such as a hair salon, non-compete agreements can be vital to the business’ success, especially with the high employee turnover that the industry has. It’s not just high-paid technology, sales, or CEO positions that may warrant these types of agreements to safeguard a company’s client base, and marketing and sales tactics. Texas law on noncompete agreements has changed dramatically over the years, and courts look to numerous factors to determine enforceability.

Disputes involving noncompete agreements can be complex, so having a knowledgeable business attorney on your side – whether you are a business owner, individual, or employee – is advised.

Austin noncompete attorney, Austin business attorney and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience working on behalf of individuals and businesses in many diverse industries. He can help answer questions about the enforceability of these agreements and what conduct is allowed under a noncompete agreement. To learn more, please contact Austin noncompete lawyer and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

August 3, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

$39M at Stake in Houston Breach of Contract Dispute

MRO Services, LLC thought it was beginning a great business relationship with the Dresser-Rand Group, Inc. in mid March of this year to market and sell Dresser-Rand’s maintenance agreements and equipment services. Yet little after a month of doing business, Dresser-Rand terminated what was supposed to be a five year exclusive contract. MRO was to earn $35,000 a month for the first year of the agreement as a retainer fee, a commission of up to 5 percent for all maintenance agreements sold, and reimbursement of travel costs as approved by Dresser-Rand’s budget.

When MRO was served a letter ending the agreement on April 18, MRO started looking into why Dresser-Rand terminated the relationship. MRO’s lawsuit and complaint documents in Texas’ 113th District Court allege that the contract ended because Dresser-Rand said that MRO’s founder had acted improperly at a social gathering they hosted. MRO says this is “bogus” and alleges that Dresser-Rand wrongfully ended the contract and owes it $38.9 million in damages.

MRO focuses on technical and service-related risk management products for power plants and the energy industry. Dresser-Rand’s maintenance products, heavy industrial turbines, and steam turbines were a good fit for MRO’s many energy industry clients.

“Even if these specious allegations were completely true, Dresser-Rand still had no contractual right to terminate the agreement,” the complaint says. Instead, MRO claims Dresser-Rand might have not realized the true cost of the contract, Dresser’s senior personnel might have viewed them as a threat or did not want them to work for a competitor, or wanted to scale back its operations with power plants.

When businesses are faced with complex contract disputes and terminations, it is imperative that they get legal counsel early on. Austin business litigation attorney and Austin breach of contract attorney Gregory D. Jordan understands the importance of resolving business disputes quickly and efficiently. Most business disputes can be settled short of litigation; yet if litigation is the only route, you want a trial attorney that will aggressively pursue and protect your business’ rights.

At the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan, Austin business litigation lawyer and Austin breach of contract attorney Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience successfully representing businesses and individuals in business contract disputes. To learn more, please contact Austin business attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

August 3, 2011 in Business, Criminal Defense, Legal Articles, Personal Injury by jferris

Wrongful Death And Medical Malpractice Lawsuits May Go Hand In Hand

Often, death due to medical malpractice results in a wrongful death lawsuit.

In this case, a medical doctor was sued for wrongful death and malpractice in the death of a well-known professional golfer. The father of the deceased, on behalf of her estate, filed the complaint. After a year-long investigation into the suicide of the young woman golfer, the father indicated in his lawsuit that he felt the doctor was directly responsible for his daughter’s death because of what he did and did not do; meaning he did things he should not have done and did not do things he should have done.

Evidently, although the woman also played golf with the doctor named as defendant in the lawsuit, she was also a patient of his. He was the last person to see the woman alive, and even though he called 911, he removed all drugs from her premises and also took her suicide note. The woman had been on multiple prescription drugs, including anti-anxiety meds, pain meds, and cough and headache medications. The coroner ruled her death a suicide due to asphyxia and the overload of drugs she had in her system at the time of her death.

The doctor pled guilty to obstruction of justice for taking evidence from the scene and was sentenced to a year’s probation and 40 hours of community service. None of this would bring the young woman back, and the family, hoping that this would never happen to anyone else, chose to file a wrongful death lawsuit on the heels of the man’s criminal conviction.

Wrongful death is not usually about getting even with the person or persons involved in the death. It is usually about the family not wanting anyone else to experience what happened to their loved one. It is about closure and moving forward in the memory of the deceased. It is also about insurance money that will help the family cope financially and be able to get on with their lives. They have sustained a significant loss emotionally and psychologically with the death of their daughter. They need not also suffer a financial loss to compound their devastation.

Robert Webb is an Atlanta personal injury lawyer with Webb & D’Orazio, a law firm specializing in Atlanta personal injury, malpractice, criminal defense, and business law. Learn more at Webbdorazio.com.

August 2, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Austin Attorney Gregory D. Jordan Advocates Legal Guidance to Lessen the Rollercoaster Ride in the Oil and Gas Industry

Austin, Texas – The leasing, exploration, production, sale and transportation of oil and gas can be a rollercoaster ride filled with booms and busts. Not only do landowners and producers have to deal with fast changing economics, but every week, numerous lawsuits appear in Texas courts and beyond challenging the rights of one party or another. Disputes over leases, royalties, mineral ownership and processing occur frequently. The oil and gas industry can be a white-knuckle ride for those landowners or businesses without proper legal guidance.

“Skilled legal counsel can help you untangle difficult situations,” said Austin oil and gas attorney Gregory D. Jordan. “If you are a mineral owner who is considering signing a lease or you are concerned that an oil company may not be performing as it should on your property, it’s a good idea to talk with knowledgeable legal counsel. The decisions you make about your minerals could impact the remainder of your life.”

Oil and gas law is a unique legal field. Most attorneys have little or no experience with it. When someone is confronted with an issue involving leasing acreage or an oil and gas dispute, it is important for them to know whether their attorney is knowledgeable in this area. Just as you would not go to a podiatrist to perform heart surgery, it might not be in your best interests to seek legal advice on oil and gas matters from an attorney who lacks experience in this area.

“At times, dealing with an oil and gas company can make someone feel like they’re on a rollercoaster,” Jordan said. “A good oil and gas attorney can give his client confidence in going over the bumps. He should be able to intelligently discuss the law in this area so a client can make informed decisions.”

It is helpful if an oil and gas attorney has substantial experience in the oil and gas industry so that he will understand his client’s needs. For example, Jordan notes that he has been involved in the oil and gas industry for more than 30 years, and before obtaining his law degree, he worked as a petroleum landman and petroleum engineer. Since becoming a lawyer he has experience in:
- negotiating oil and gas leases for landowners and oil companies
- representing oil and gas companies and individuals before the Railroad Commission
- working with engineers and other technical experts
- counseling mineral owners and oil companies on their rights and options
- property damage claims
- claims regarding royalty payments
- claims involving purported property development issues
- unitization and pooling disputes
- processing or gathering of oil and gas production complaints

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin, Texas oil and gas attorney, Austin business litigation lawyer and Austin business attorney. To learn more, please go to http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.