Real Trial Lawyers for Real Problems


Warning: Use of undefined constant post_types - assumed 'post_types' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/customer/www/hop-law.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/hoplaw/sidebar-right.php on line 45

Employment Law

Appellees’ Brief

Trejo v. Loya, et. al.

This brief was filed in the Dallas Court of Appeals in response to an appellate brief filed by the Defendants at trial. The Defendants were appealing a $1.2M verdict obtained by Heygood, Orr & Pearson against a property owner and property manager for the death of a young girl struck and killed by a pickup truck while crossing an apartment parking lot. The issues in the appeal included issues of negligence, causation, respondeat superior liability, the existence of duties to licensees and invitees, allocation of liability, joint and several liability and the allegedly improper admission of evidence. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

Utter v. North American Bancshares, Inc.

This pleading was a response to a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in a breach of contract case brought on behalf of a former bank executive by his widow. The suit alleged that the bank had orally promised the executive a 5% equity interest in the bank payable upon his death or the sale of the bank. The 123-page response addresses issues including the enforceability of oral agreements, the statute of frauds, promissory estoppels, partial performance, the parol evidence rule, statutes of limitations, the doctrine of ratification, the rule against perpetuities, failure of a condition precedent and the economic loss rule. The court denied the defendants’ motion and the case later settled during trial. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Defendants’ Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Boisseau v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

This motion sought summary judgment in a breach of contract case brought against 7-Eleven by a manufacturer’s representative. The plaintiff alleged that 7-Eleven tortiously interfered with a redemption agreement between the plaintiff and third parties by obtaining confidential documents from parties to the agreement. The motion argued that 7-Eleven’s alleged act of interference did not cause the plaintiff actual damages and that her alleged damages actually flowed from the alleged breach of an entirely separate agreement. The court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Defendants’ No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

Boisseau v. 7-Eleven, Inc..

This motion sought a no-evidence summary judgment in a breach of contract case brought against 7-Eleven by a manufacturer’s representative. The plaintiff alleged that she had an oral or implied contract with 7-Eleven pursuant to which the plaintiff agreed to not represent her customers with respect to sales to any convenience stores other than 7-Eleven and 7-Eleven agreed it would not terminate its relationship with her absent reasonable notice and good case. The motion argued that the plaintiff had no evidence of an agreement sufficiently definite to be enforceable. The court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Bragg v. Danka Industries, Inc.

This motion was filed in a wrongful termination case pending in state court in Texas. The basis of the motion was that Plaintiff waited more than four years after his termination to bring suit and his claims are therefore barred by limitations. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

King v. Texas Smokehouse Foods

This motion was filed in an employment discrimination case pending in federal court in Texas. The basis of the motion was that Defendants had a non-discriminatory, non-pretextual justification for the plaintiff’s termination. Moreover, the motion asserts, Defendants did not engage in any intentional acts of discrimination against the plaintiff. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Moreland v. Texas Smokehouse Foods

This motion was filed in an employment discrimination case pending in federal court in Texas. The basis of the motion was that Defendants had a non-discriminatory, non-pretextual justification for the plaintiff’s termination. Moreover, the motion asserts, Defendants did not engage in any intentional acts of discrimination against the plaintiff. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.