To Be Sued for Barratry in Texas the Court Must Have Jurisdiction
Post 5050
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyqqF_6r ans at https://lnkd.in/gBxwZBCR, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
A LAWYER WHO PAYS OR GIVES OR OFFERS TO PAY OR GIVE A PERSON MONEY OR ANYTHING OF VALUE TO SOLICIT EMPLOYMENT COMMITS BARRATRY IN TEXAS
A lawsuit that involved claims for alleged barratry and conspiracy to commit barratry filed by Appellants against the law firm McClenny Mosley & Associates, PLLC, Texas attorneys James McClenny and Zach Mosley, their Louisiana partner Richard William Huye, III, and Appellee Tort Network, LLC d/b/a Velawcity (“Velawcity”), an Arizona company that executed several Marketing Service Agreements with the law firm to provide advertising and marketing services. An appeal to the Court of Appeals of Texas involved the trial court’s order sustaining Velawcity’s special appearance and dismissing Appellants’ claims against Velawcity for lack of jurisdiction.
In Wayne J. Adams, Bonnie Brown, Claude Britton, III, Curtis Davis, Carey D. Yazeed, Dwane Borel, James S. Dartez, Lloyd Cox And Lynda I. Jenkins v. Tort Network, LLC D/B/A Velawcity, No. 01-24-00169-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (March 18, 2025) the trial court’s ruling was affirmed.
Background of the Case
The Appellants, who are Louisiana residents, alleged that following Hurricane Ida, they were solicited through an illegal barratry scheme that involved Velawcity and the law firm McClenny Mosley & Associates, PLLC (MMA). The Appellants contend that from December 2021 to August 2022, MMA entered into multiple Marketing Service Agreements with Velawcity to provide marketing services, which included prescreening potential clients for legal claims related to the hurricane.
The Appellants asserted that these contracts were executed in Texas and that Velawcity acted as an agent for MMA in soliciting clients unlawfully. They are seeking damages for four acts of barratry allegedly committed against each of them, totaling $360,000.
Jurisdictional Issues
The primary issue was whether the Texas courts have personal jurisdiction over Velawcity. The Appellants argue that Velawcity has sufficient contacts with Texas due to its contracts with MMA, which they claim involved the solicitation of clients in violation of Texas law. They assert that Velawcity’s actions constituted a tort committed in Texas, thus invoking the Texas long-arm statute. In contrast, Velawcity argues that its activities were primarily conducted in Louisiana and that it does not maintain any business presence in Texas, nor did it solicit clients for MMA in Texas.
Velawcity’s Defense
Velawcity filed a special appearance to contest the jurisdiction, asserting that it lacks minimum contacts with Texas necessary for the court to assert jurisdiction. It highlighted that the solicitation occurred in Louisiana and that the Appellants are also Louisiana residents. Velawcity emphasized that it had no physical presence or business operations in Texas, and that any communications regarding the contracts were not sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court ultimately sustained Velawcity’s special appearance, concluding that the Appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient contacts to establish specific jurisdiction in Texas. The court noted that while the contracts were significant, they did not connect Velawcity to Texas in a manner that would justify jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The court affirmed the decision to dismiss the claims against Velawcity for lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that the alleged tortious conduct took place outside Texas and that the Appellants did not provide adequate evidence to establish a substantial connection between Velawcity’s activities and the operative facts of the case.
The Appellants’ claims against Velawcity were dismissed, leaving them to pursue their case against the other defendants, MMA and individual attorneys involved in the alleged Barratry scheme.
ZALMA OPINION
The suit against Velawcity would have had no jurisdictional difficulty if filed in Louisiana but the Plaintiffs could find no contact with Texas, that recognizes a Barratry tort, other than the fact that it signed a contract with MMA which practices in Texas. MMA has been sued multiple times, is in bankruptcy and there is a supposedly active FBI investigation into criminal conduct by MMA and its lawyers. The Plaintiffs, who are residents of Louisiana can be sued separately in Louisiana courts for their alleged misconduct.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
