Octane Energy Operating

This opinion addresses competing motions for summary judgment regarding liability for Defendant's alleged breach of a reciprocal waiver agreement. More specifically, the Court considers whether there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the definiteness of the agreement's essential terms and the parties' mutual assent to those terms. The Court concludes no such fact issues exist to preclude summary judgment for Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion and denies Defendant's motion. This opinion addresses whether a leaseholder is a third-party beneficiary to a reciprocal waiver agreement between two operators, and whether the Court's jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit is affected by the Court's disposition of the leaseholder's third-party-beneficiary claim. The Court concludes (1) the leaseholder is not a third-party beneficiary to the reciprocal waiver agreement, and (2) the Court retains jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit after the leaseholder's claims are dismissed. Ruling that recent resolutions with some defendants do not affect the Court's jurisdiction over remaining claims and declining to rule at this stage whether the remaining defendant owes fiduciary duties to certain plaintiffs. Denying the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 91a. The Court first finds that the case falls within the Court's jurisdictional scope and that the plaintiff's non-suit was not filed in time to prevent the court's ruling on the Rule 91a motion. It next finds that the plaintiff's application to wind up a partnership under section 11.314 of the Business Organizations Code provided sufficient factual allegations to support her claims at this early stage of the case. The Court declined to award fees. This opinion addresses the ability of the Court to adjudicate legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims arising out of an alleged attorney-client relationship involving an attorney, two business associates, a

This opinion addresses whether a leaseholder is a third-party beneficiary to a reciprocal waiver agreement between two operators, and whether the Court's jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit is affected by the Court's disposition of the leaseholder's third-party-beneficiary claim. The Court concludes (1) the leaseholder is not a third-party beneficiary to the reciprocal waiver agreement, and (2) the Court retains jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit after the leaseholder's claims are dismissed. Ruling that recent resolutions with some defendants do not affect the Court's jurisdiction over remaining claims and declining to rule at this stage whether the remaining defendant owes fiduciary duties to certain plaintiffs. Denying the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 91a. The Court first finds that the case falls within the Court's jurisdictional scope and that the plaintiff's non-suit was not filed in time to prevent the court's ruling on the Rule 91a motion. It next finds that the plaintiff's application to wind up a partnership under section 11.314 of the Business Organizations Code provided sufficient factual allegations to support her claims at this early stage of the case. The Court declined to award fees. This opinion addresses the ability of the Court to adjudicate legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims arising out of an alleged attorney-client relationship involving an attorney, two business associates, and multiple business entities. The Court declines to consider whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the attorney and business entities but does address whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims emanating from the alleged relationship. The Court concludes the legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims are improperly before it and, accordingly, dismisses all claims against the attorney-Defendant without prejudice. Granting Plaintiff's motion to remand for untimeline

Granting Defendant's motion to strike untimely filed summary-judgment evidence. Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. One plaintiff is not entitled to damages as a matter of law, is not entitled to lost revenue or production as a matter of law, has produced evidence of redesign costs and additional expenses incurred as a result of Defendant's breach, and the record contains evidence of that plaintiff's expectancy damages. While Plaintiffs do not allege a specific theory/category of reliance damages in their petition, the Court nonetheless addresses Defendant's argument and holds that the plaintiff has not produced evidence of reliance damages. This opinion addresses competing motions for summary judgment regarding liability for Defendant's alleged breach of a reciprocal waiver agreement. More specifically, the Court considers whether there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the definiteness of the agreement's essential terms and the parties' mutual assent to those terms. The Court concludes no such fact issues exist to preclude summary judgment for Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion and denies Defendant's motion. This opinion addresses whether a leaseholder is a third-party beneficiary to a reciprocal waiver agreement between two operators, and whether the Court's jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit is affected by the Court's disposition of the leaseholder's third-party-beneficiary claim. The Court concludes (1) the leaseholder is not a third-party beneficiary to the reciprocal waiver agreement, and (2) the Court retains jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit after the leaseholder's claims are dismissed. Ruling that recent resolutions with some defendants do not affect the Court's jurisdiction over remaining claims and declining to rule at this stage whether the remaining defendant owes fiduciary duties to certain plaintiffs. Denying th