Skip to main content

Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises

Tex. Bus. Ct.October 29, 2025No. 25-BC01A-0013

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment contending that Plaintiff's tortious interference with contract, defamation, and business disparagement claims are barred by the limitation-of-liability provision in the parties' 2022 agreement. Granting a third-party defendant's special appearance arguing no personal jurisdiction over him because he did not commit any tortious acts while in Texas. Because the respondents did not plead or prove that this defendant has sufficient Texas contacts giving rise to the claims against him to support personal jurisdiction over him for any pled cause of action, the court granted the non-resident's special appearances and dismissed the claims against him without prejudice. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g), the Court issues this decision holding that (1) fact issues preclude the Court from determining whether the liquidated-damages clause in the parties' contract is an unenforceable penalty and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's cost-basis theory is not the correct measure of the plaintiff's actual damages. In this force-majeure dispute arising out of Winter Storm Uri, parties to a contract for the sale of natural gas dispute whether the seller should have (i) purchased gas on the spot market to cover any production shortfall or (ii) bought back its delivery obligation. The Court holds that the parties' contract did not obligate the seller to take either action as a prerequisite or alternative to declaring force majeure or as a contractually required "reasonable effort." Denying defendant's motion for summary judgment arguing that a contract does not require it to pay royalty payments on "revenues actually received by [the defendant] for final disposal of solid waste in the sanitary landfill operated on the Property," where the disposal is in a part of the landfill that is not on the Property. This opinion addresses whether a party may remove a case concer

What This Ruling Means

**Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises: Court Ruling Explained** **What Happened:** Fiberwave sued AT&T Enterprises over several workplace-related issues, including claims that AT&T interfered with their business contracts, spread false information about them (defamation), and damaged their business reputation. The case also involved a third-party individual who AT&T tried to bring into the lawsuit. **What the Court Decided:** The court made a mixed ruling. It partially granted AT&T's request to dismiss some claims, finding that a liability limitation clause in a 2022 agreement between the companies may protect AT&T from certain allegations. However, the court didn't dismiss all of Fiberwave's claims. The court also ruled that the third-party individual couldn't be sued in Texas because he didn't commit any wrongful acts while in the state, so Texas courts don't have authority over him. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows how limitation-of-liability clauses in employment contracts and business agreements can protect employers from certain types of lawsuits. Workers should carefully review any contracts they sign, as these clauses may limit their ability to seek full damages if disputes arise. The ruling also demonstrates that where someone is located when alleged wrongdoing occurs can affect whether they can be held legally responsible.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.