January 9, 2012 in Business, Legal, Legal Articles by jferris

Pregnant Woman Alleges Gender Discrimination When Fired from Texas Nursing Position

A recent Texas employment lawsuit shows what an employer should not do when an employee becomes pregnant. In Dailey v. Millennial Care Management, Inc., a nursing home supervisor in Prestonwood told her employer that she was pregnant. The next day she was fired. The employers, Prestonwood Rehabilitation & Nursing Center Inc. and Millennial Care Management Inc. say they let Seneada Dailey go because she did not take care of a patient situation adequately.

Dailey alleges she was terminated because she was pregnant. The case documents allege that Prestonwood’s human resources director said their “…insurance bills were too high and employees don’t need to be having babies.” Dailey alleges gender discrimination and seeks recovery of front and back pay, compensatory and exemplary damages, and related legal fees. As the Director of Nurses at the Prestonwood facility, Dailey asserts she was in charge of supervising 100 nurses.

Generally speaking, an employer cannot terminate an employee because the employee becomes pregnant. Likewise, an employer subject to the Family and Medical Leave Act cannot terminate an employee for seeking FMLA leave due to pregnancy. FMLA leave can be used for the birth of a child and the first few months of taking care of a newborn. An employee is allowed to use 12 workweeks of unpaid leave under these and other medical circumstances.

Additionally, an employer is required to maintain group health insurance coverage for an employee on FMLA leave. When relevant, employees will still need to pay their portion of the premiums. These health benefits can generally only be stopped if the employee alerts the employer that she will not be returning to work or fails to return to work when the FMLA timeframe ends.

When a worker returns from FMLA leave, she is generally entitled to resume her previous position in the company or hold an equivalent one with similar pay, benefits, status, and other terms of her employment. Workers cannot be subjected to retaliation or discrimination for using FMLA leave.

Pregnancy discrimination is against the law and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits employers from discriminating against pregnant employees. That said, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has noted a rise of 81 percent in alleged pregnancy discrimination cases between 1992 and 2010.

If you are an employer who has been accused of pregnancy discrimination or you are an employee who has been subjected to pregnancy discrimination, you should contact a knowledgeable employment attorney to protect your rights.

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

December 19, 2011 in Business, Legal, Legal Articles by jferris

Texas Oil and Gas Attorney Jordan Highlights Opportunities in Eagle Ford Shale

The Eagle Ford shale in south Texas is one of the latest oil and gas hotspots. Estimates predict that billions of dollars of oil and gas will be produced from this very thick layer of rock. Production has almost quadrupled for natural gas, and oil has increased tenfold in just one year alone. With some leases going for over $10,000 an acre, landowners and communities stand to gain substantial monies and appreciation of their properties.

Yet at the same time, some oil and gas pipeline companies have been wielding their influence to take advantage of the situation and exercise their eminent domain powers at the expense of landowners. Numerous companies are vying to construct pipelines across thousands of miles of land to handle the new production. Earlier in the year, pipeline companies could claim eminent domain to acquire an easement on a coveted piece of mineral-rich property with few restrictions. Texas law allowed them to do so and the only recourse landowners sometimes had was to try to negotiate for compensation or possibly face a lawsuit from the pipeline company.

But since Sept. 1, Texas law now says that pipeline companies must make a good faith offer to the landowner and give the landowner more time to respond to the offer before the company can file a lawsuit. There are numerous other requirements that pipeline companies must now meet and there are also numerous additional rights and protections that have been granted to landowners. Lawsuits have gone up sevenfold in the last year as companies vie for their piece of the Eagle Ford shale. Individuals and communities have shown concern about the pace of development and their rights being suppressed.

A skilled Texas oil and gas attorney can give legal guidance to landowners to ensure they are having their rights upheld, know their options, and that an offer is adequate and fair. Any offer a pipeline company gives should be based on numerous factors, including a current appraisal of the land or easement’s value. Should negotiations break down, a skilled oil and gas lawyer can be critical for having the landowner’s concerns addressed in a courtroom. An Eagle Ford oil and gas attorney can also assist when an oil and gas lease dispute arises or conflicts over mineral rights, drilling, or environmental issues surface.

The Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan counsels individuals and landowners in the Eagle Ford Shale area of south Texas. Texas oil and gas lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has decades of oil and gas industry experience, not only from the legal perspective, but also from his background as a petroleum landman and petroleum engineer.

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

November 28, 2011 in Business, Legal, Legal Articles by jferris

Employers Should Proceed With Caution and Consult Legal Counsel When Workers Claim Discrimination

If you are an employer faced with claims from an employee, perhaps the best advice that can be given is that you should promptly consult with legal counsel that has specialized knowledge in the employment area. Just as you have the expertise to run your business, a lawyer with specialized knowledge in the employment area should have the skills to help you navigate the sometimes complex area of employee claims.

There are, however, a number of suggestions that generally apply that could lessen the likelihood of having a discrimination claim made against you or make it easier to defend against such a claim. First, if such a claim has been made, care should be taken to determine whether the alleged harasser or discriminator and the alleged victim should be separated or placed on leave. Appropriate managers should be informed and it should be stressed that retaliation will not be tolerated. If there are upcoming performance reviews or planned business changes, consideration should be given to whether such matters will give an appearance of retaliation.

Of particular importance is when an employee makes a discrimination claim and the employer needs to go over a negative employment review or is aware of an impending wave of layoffs. When an employee has made a discrimination charge, being laid off can be a huge opportunity for that person to claim retaliation. Employers should make sure their practices steer clear of being construed as retaliation.

One of the more important steps an employer can take to lessen the likelihood of being successfully sued for discrimination is to keep good records. Recordkeeping provides concrete evidence of job performance factors that occurred before the employee claimed discrimination. Disciplinary actions and poor performance should be well documented. If they are not, you may be left with a swearing match over the quality of an employee’s performance. Another step that can lessen the likelihood of discrimination claims is to require that all promotions/demotions be approved by a second-line supervisor.

Another means to lessen the likelihood of a discrimination claim is through training. Employers and workers can benefit from training to educate them about the pitfalls of discrimination and how it should be thoroughly avoided in the workplace. From seminars to online modules, employers can encourage such education. Training can help prevent discrimination, negative and false stereotypes, and subconscious bias that can sometimes take over a business’ hiring and promotion practices, as well as performance evaluations and other routine tasks in the workplace.

Employers should contact a skilled discrimination attorney in order to lessen the risk of discrimination and retaliation claims. A knowledgeable attorney can discuss the important steps to take to ensure your business is complying with the law and help educate managers to make wise decisions. A good attorney can be both proactive to lessen the likelihood of a suit and reactive to lessen the impact of a suit.

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

October 10, 2011 in Business, Legal, Legal Articles by jferris

Austin Employment Attorney Jordan Comments on Workers’ Comp Retaliation Case

An employee who just returned from medical leave was astonished to learn he was being fired the first day back on the job. In the case of Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation v. Kyle Barousse in Houston’s First District Court of Appeals, Barousse’s wrongful termination judgment against Hertz was recently affirmed. The appellate court found that the evidence legally and factually showed Hertz wrongfully terminated Barousse.

It all started when Barousse was riding in a company-owned auto during a sales call and a truck ran into them. Barousse was the central Texas region sales director. He sought medical attention after the accident, but paid for these bills himself as he believed Hertz did not want workers’ compensation claims. As his injuries were too extensive, Barousse ultimately had to file a workers’ comp claim and recuperate during a month-long leave of absence in October.

While he was gone, his boss and the region’s human resources manager began to prepare performance improvement reports showing his lack of sales and an action plan for every 30 days for the next 90-day period when objectives were not met. In November, he returned to work and was given the corrective measures he needed to meet to achieve his manager’s and the company’s goal. But by the end of that month, Barousse was again in excruciating pain. Doctors advised that he would need several months before he could return to the workplace.

Hertz Rental Cars started an initiative to restructure its employees and a regional vice president tagged Barousse as a possible candidate for elimination. Other sales directors were given alternate employment within the company when their positions were either consolidated or done away with completely. The trial evidence showed that Hertz decided to conceal their displeasure with his workers’ comp claim and medical leave, and kept Barousse unaware while he has gone.

In October of the next year, Barousse was cleared to return to work. The first day back he was asked to go to the human resources office and was told he was being laid off with a severance package. Barousse did not sign the release for the severance and instead filed suit. At trial, the Texas court found that Hertz violated the state’s workers’ comp anti-retaliation statute and awarded Barousse $665,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The only change on appeal was to vacate the $100,000 punitive award.

In Texas, the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan has represented employees and employers in employment lawsuits for over 20 years. Austin employment attorney and Austin business lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has substantial experience in employment lawsuits, including wrongful termination and retaliation claims, as well as a wide range of business disputes.

To learn more, please contact Austin noncompete lawyer, 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.

September 26, 2011 in Business, Legal, Legal Articles by jferris

The Battle of the Dr Peppers Brewing in Texas

The fight for logos, sales territories, and a piece of history is brewing in Texas as Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. takes on Dr Pepper Bottling Company of Dublin, Texas. DPS, as the parent company is sometimes called, is taking one of its bottlers to court after the bottler has allegedly refused to stop using retro logos and sell its unique version of the soda outside of its licensed selling territory. The bottler says it is the oldest Dr Pepper bottler around and has done nothing to harm the brand since it began bottling in 1891.

The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas alleges that Dublin Dr Pepper has infringed on the parent company’s trademark and diluted it, practiced unfair competition, violated numerous license agreements, and breached its contract.

“In the simplest terms, the bottler in Dublin is using a logo that is no longer authorized and is taking business from fellow Dr Pepper bottlers who play by the rules and sell within their defined territories,” said Jim Johnston, president of beverage concentrates for DPS. “We owe it to our other bottlers to stop these unauthorized practices.”

Dr Pepper, like many other soda and beverage companies, has been using retro logos in its sales and marketing campaigns throughout the last year. But these campaigns are for a limited time and with specific guidelines for its bottlers. Dublin Dr Pepper has six logos that use images from the days of soda fountains, Texas flags, patriotic designs, and the town name to woo consumers. The bottling company has a big local presence and online demand. Many fans love the fact that Dublin Dr Pepper uses pure cane sugar in its drink versus anything synthetic to sweeten it.

But the parent company says Dublin Dr Pepper is over-reaching its six county selling territory of Comanche, Eastland, Erath, Hood, Hamilton and Bosque. Soft drink companies give rights to bottlers for exclusive territories that are enforceable via the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act of 1980. The act is in place to prevent cut-throat competition and foster profitability among bottlers. Yet violations can also cause contract terminations from the parent company and licensee, which could put the bottler in a tough spot. DPS licenses the Dr Pepper brand to 170 bottlers throughout the U.S. and Canada.

“We have been a loyal partner to Dr Pepper Snapple longer than any other bottler, and we’ve worked successfully with several different ownership groups for our parent company to become one of the company’s most successful franchisees,” Dublin Dr Pepper said on its website. “It is unfortunate that Dr Pepper Snapple’s attorneys are asking our overburdened court system to resolve what we believe is a business matter, but we look forward to telling our side of the story before a judge and jury, and we will continue to provide great products and great service to every one of our customers.”

Other bottlers and DPS say that Dublin Dr Pepper is cutting in on their profits by selling the soda and also clothing and related merchandise through its website, restaurants, retailers, and solicitations on Facebook. DPS alleges that Dublin Dr Pepper is profiting from consumers in New York, California, and even nearby in Collin County in the city of Plano. The license agreement the two signed in 2009 purportedly prohibits such sales.

In Texas, Austin business litigation attorney, Austin franchise attorney and Austin business lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has represented individuals and businesses for more than 20 years. He is knowledgeable and experienced in a wide range of business and litigation matters. The Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan is known for aggressively defending their clients’ interests in mediation, negotiation, and litigation. To learn more, please contact Austin business litigation lawyer and 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 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 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 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.