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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
