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
Concurrent Cause Doctrine Does Not Apply When all Causes are Excluded
Post 5119
Death by Drug Overdose is Excluded
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geQtybUJ and at https://lnkd.in/g_WNfMCZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Southern Insurance Company Of Virginia v. Justin D. Mitchell, et al., No. 3:24-cv-00198, United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division (October 10, 2024) Southern Insurance Company of Virginia sought a declaratory judgment regarding its duty to defend William Mitchell in a wrongful death case pending in California state court.
KEY POINTS
1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted in part and denied in part.
2. Duty to Defend: The court found that the Plaintiff has no duty to defend William Mitchell in the California case due to a specific exclusion in the insurance policy.
3. Duty to Indemnify: The court could not determine at this stage whether the Plaintiff had a duty to ...
GEICO Sued Fraudulent Health Care Providers Under RICO and Settled with the Defendants Who Failed to Pay Settlement
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDpGzdR9 and at https://lnkd.in/gbDfikRG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Post 5119
Default of Settlement Agreement Reduced to Judgment
In Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, Geico General Insurance Company, and Geico Casualty Company v. Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D., DEO Medical Services, P.C., and Healthwise Medical Associates, P.C., No. 24-CV-5287 (PKC) (JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 9, 2025)
Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Company and other GEICO companies (“GEICO”) sued Defendants Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D. (“Onyema”), et al (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging breach of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to resolve a previous, fraud-related lawsuit (the “Settlement Agreement”). GEICO moved the court for default judgment against ...
ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 14
Post 5118
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geddcnHj and at https://lnkd.in/g_rB9_th, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
You can read the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://lnkd.in/giaSdH29
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
The Historical Basis of Punitive Damages
It is axiomatic that when a claim is denied for fraud that the fraudster will sue for breach of contract and the tort of bad faith and seek punitive damages.
The award of punitive-type damages was common in early legal systems and was mentioned in religious law as early as the Book of Exodus. Punitive-type damages were provided for in Babylonian law nearly 4000 years ago in the Code of Hammurabi.
You can read this article and the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ZIFL-07-15-2025.pdf
Insurer Refuses to Submit to No Fault Insurance Fraud
...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
