We’re not hanging around at S.D. Tex. – Newly appointed US District Judge Charles Eskridge III, who’s resume included representation of Lehman Brothers after the financial crisis of 2008 is being assigned #OCWEN cases#judge #financialcrisis #AuditTexas https://t.co/9MF2MkF1b9 pic.twitter.com/ck9z2PaX8H
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
Troubled Non-Bank Mortgage Servicer Ditech Holding is Purchased by two Co’s that Lead Back to Wall St. and Softbank. Not Only Getting a Steal of a Deal #judge Sim Lake was Foreclosing in #Ditech Name Before the #PR Release hit the Media #ForrestGump #NYC https://t.co/NfhX7g5RKM pic.twitter.com/PxORWTbljN
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
WHO ARE THE FEDERAL JUDGES IN S.D. TEX.?
Former Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith, S.D. Houston Texas
Discusses “Judge Shopping” by the US Attorney’s Office
Current judges
As of October 31, 2019:
| # | Title | Judge | Duty station | Born | Term of service | Appointed by | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active | Chief | Senior | ||||||
| 55 | vacant | — | — | — | ||||
| 50 | District Judge | Jose Rolando Olvera Jr. | Brownsville | 1963 | 2015–present | — | — | Obama |
| 51 | District Judge | Fernando Rodriguez Jr. | Brownsville | 1969 | 2018–present | — | — | Trump |
| 45 | District Judge | Nelva Gonzales Ramos | Corpus Christi | 1965 | 2011–present | — | — | Obama |
| 52 | District Judge | David S. Morales | Corpus Christi | 1968 | 2019–present | — | — | Trump |
| 35 | Senior Judge | Janis Graham Jack | Corpus Christi | 1946 | 1994–2011 | — | 2011–present | Clinton |
| 53 | District Judge | Jeff Brown | Galveston | 1970 | 2019–present | — | — | Trump |
| 34 | Chief Judge | Lee H. Rosenthal | Houston | 1952 | 1992–present | 2016–present | — | G.H.W. Bush |
| 26 | District Judge | Lynn Hughes | Houston | 1941 | 1985–present | — | — | Reagan |
| 36 | District Judge | Vanessa Gilmore | Houston | 1956 | 1994–present | — | — | Clinton |
| 39 | District Judge | Keith P. Ellison | Houston | 1950 | 1999–present | — | — | Clinton |
| 41 | District Judge | Andrew Hanen | Houston | 1953 | 2002–present | — | — | G.W. Bush |
| 48 | District Judge | Alfred H. Bennett | Houston | 1965 | 2015–present | — | — | Obama |
| 49 | District Judge | George C. Hanks Jr. | Houston | 1964 | 2015–present | — | — | Obama |
| 54 | District Judge | Charles R. Eskridge III | Houston | 1963 | 2019–present | — | — | Trump |
| 27 | Senior Judge | David Hittner | Houston | 1939 | 1986–2004 | — | 2004–present | Reagan |
| 28 | Senior Judge | Kenneth M. Hoyt | Houston | 1948 | 1988–2013 | — | 2013–present | Reagan |
| 29 | Senior Judge | Sim Lake | Houston | 1944 | 1988–2019 | — | 2019–present | Reagan |
| 33 | Senior Judge | Ewing Werlein Jr. | Houston | 1936 | 1992–2006 | — | 2006–present | G.H.W. Bush |
| 37 | Senior Judge | Nancy Friedman Atlas | Houston | 1949 | 1995–2014 | — | 2014–present | Clinton |
| 38 | Senior Judge | Hilda G. Tagle | Houston | 1946 | 1998–2012 | — | 2012–present | Clinton |
| 43 | Senior Judge | Gray H. Miller | Houston | 1948 | 2006–2018 | — | 2018–present | G.W. Bush |
| 12 | Senior Judge | Carl Olaf Bue Jr. | inactive | 1922 | 1970–1987 | — | 1987–present | Nixon |
| 24 | Senior Judge | Hayden Wilson Head Jr. | inactive | 1944 | 1981–2009 | 2003–2009 | 2009–present | Reagan |
| 30 | Senior Judge | Melinda Harmon | inactive | 1946 | 1989–2018 | — | 2018–present | G.H.W. Bush |
| 44 | District Judge | Diana Saldaña | Laredo | 1971 | 2011–present | — | — | Obama |
| 46 | District Judge | Marina Marmolejo | Laredo | 1971 | 2011–present | — | — | Obama |
| 25 | District Judge | Ricardo Hinojosa | McAllen | 1950 | 1983–present | 2009–2016 | — | Reagan |
| 40 | District Judge | Randy Crane | McAllen | 1965 | 2002–present | — | — | G.W. Bush |
| 42 | District Judge | Micaela Alvarez | McAllen | 1958 | 2004–present | — | — | G.W. Bush |
| 31 | Senior Judge | John David Rainey | Victoria | 1945 | 1990–2010 | — | 2010–present | G.H.W. Bush |
Judge Ellison of S.D. Tex. Houston District Court Bites Back at Outrageous 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith’s Opinion Over Zealously Protecting JPMorgan Chase by Attacking Ellison in Error #judge #jpmorgan #opinion #houston #texas #AuditTexas #lawtwitter https://t.co/9MF2MknqjB pic.twitter.com/p93TfPQgeD
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
What does a “robe” mean to a #judge?
A throwback to 1999 when #ethics and opinions were per the law. #TEXAS Judge Ewing Werlein; Libel Ruling Against Dow Jones reversed based on withholding of #evidence AFTER THE JURY TRIAL – striking $22.7M LIBEL AWARD #lawtwitter #AuditTexas pic.twitter.com/X7cbJz0mM2
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
Hole said the judge’s son, Javier Alvarez Martinez, became a nonparticipating partner at the firm after he passed the bar several years ago. #judge Alvarez’s son is not listed as an #Attorney on the website, but Hole said the website has “technical issues” https://t.co/WcT9QP7Ega pic.twitter.com/qQZ6DUO9R6
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
Judge Hanks “The U.S. presented significant and credible evidence from multiple sources from which a jury could conclude that Allied’s conduct of reckless underwriting and originating loans from unregistered offices…” #judgehttps://t.co/VpXSYa2Zh7 pic.twitter.com/07ecLI9vo8
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
“Plaintiffs allege that Shapiro violated TDCPA § 392.101 by conducting business as a third-party debt collector in #TEXAS without the requisite surety bond.
Shapiro responds… However, these responses lack merit. ” Says #judge Nancy Atlas
See p.17+ https://t.co/xokUENtSR8 pic.twitter.com/IEwNVZDOZ0— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
SDTX Judge Lynn Hughes name never makes it onto the Opinion of the 5th Circuit in this ISIS sentencing case #transparency #texas #isis #trump #AuditTexas #appellatetwitter #lawtwitter #WeThePeople #judge https://t.co/pmtPHz18un pic.twitter.com/m93yl8FZ4T
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
A Texas appeals court affirmed judgments sanctioning South Texas lawyers Cheryl and Ronald Hole for failing to change the name of their law firm after former name partner Micaela Alvarez left the firm following her appointment as a federal district judge in McAllen, Texas in 2004.
A three-judge panel of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Edinburg concluded on Aug. 24 that a trial judge did not err by granting a partial summary judgment in favor of the Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline because the commission conclusively established that Cheryl and Ronald Hole, whose firm is known as Hole & Alvarez, violated Rules 7.01(a) and (c) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 7.01(a) prohibits lawyers from practicing at a firm with a name that is misleading or contains names other than those at the firm, although the firm name can include the name of deceased or retired partners. Rule 7.01(c) prohibits the name of a lawyer occupying a judicial position from being used in the name of a firm while the lawyer is not actively practicing at the firm.
Ronald Hole, who represented himself and his wife before the appeals court, said he disagrees with the Aug. 24 memorandum opinion, and will seek a motion for rehearing.
The name is proper, he said. We do have an Alvarez in the firm as well.
He said the judge’s son, Javier Alvarez Martinez, became a nonparticipating partner at the firm after he passed the bar several years ago. Hole said Alvarez Martinez is based in Austin but does some work for the firm.
Judge Alvarez’s son is not listed as an attorney on the Hole & Alvarez firm website, but Hole said technical issues prevent him from updating the website.
Hole said the opinion does not properly address the statute of limitations issue he and his wife raised, since Judge Alvarez left Hole & Alvarez in December 2004 and the disciplinary suit was not filed until 2014. He said the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel was aware many years ago that they were using the Hole & Alvarez name, and the commission took no action until a lawyer he sued threatened to report me to the Bar.
My goal is to have the judgment thrown out and get my attorney fees back, Hole said.
Cynthia Canfield Hamilton, a senior appellate disciplinary counsel for the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel who handled the appeal, did not respond to a request for comment. Claire Mock, public affairs counsel for the office, declined comment.
In 2014, the commission filed the disciplinary suits against the Holes, alleging they were violating Rules 7.01(a) and (c) because they continued to use the Hole & Alvarez name in their practices.
Judge Rhonda Hurley of the 98th District Court in Travis County, who presided over the proceedings, denied motions for summary judgment filed by the Holes in the suits, but granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the commission, concluding that the commission had established as a matter of law that the Holes had violated the disciplinary rules. After those rulings, according to the opinion, the parties stipulated that the sanctions against Roland and Cheryl Hole would be no greater than a public reprimand and attorney’s fees.
On Nov. 1, 2015, Hurley signed final judgments of public reprimand against each of the lawyers for violating the disciplinary rules. The judge also ordered Cheryl Hole to pay $1,000 in attorney fees to the commission, and Ronald Hole to pay $1,500.
Benavides, joined on the appellate panel by Chief Justice Rogelio Valdez and Justice Nelda Rodriguez, held that the court agrees that the lawyers violated Rule 7.01(c) because Alvarez left the firm in December 2014 after she was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. A plain reading of Rule 7.01(c) states that the name of a lawyer occupying a judicial position shall not be used in the name of a firm, or in communications on its behalf, during a period in which the lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing with the firm, Benavides wrote.
Benavides also wrote that Rule 7.01(a) does permit a firm to include the name of a retired partner in the firm’s name, but in this case, Judge Alvarez was not a retired member of the firm because she did not terminate her career in the practice of law by becoming a federal judge.
Additionally, the court found that the Holes failed to conclusively prove the commission’s petitions were barred by the statute of limitations and found the commission did not waive its right to seek disciplinary proceedings against the Holes.
“It’s very rare to have a #judge [Kenneth M. Hoyt] overtly and explicitly call out bad behavior by city officials,” said Sharon Dolovich, a UCLA #law professor “It’s troubling in a rule-of-law society that prizes #liberty to the greatest possible extent.”https://t.co/TNzS3b5t1e
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
Death Row inmates’ #attorney said she didn’t believe she had the expertise to represent the man at this stage. #judge Tagle’s order notes that the attorney is no longer allowed to practice in the 5th Circuit because of “rude behavior toward court staff”.https://t.co/lBiCNajd2N pic.twitter.com/ekJ1oYEdHq
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 4, 2019
Texas Judge; $22.7m Libel Ruling Against Dow Jones Thrown Out
A federal judge in Houston threw out a $22.7-million libel ruling against Dow Jones & Co., saying that the plaintiff, a now-defunct Houston investment firm, withheld important evidence in the case.
U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein ordered a new trial, finding that MMAR Group Inc. won its favorable verdict in 1997 “through its own misconduct and misrepresentations,” preventing the publisher of the Wall Street Journal from presenting a full and fair defense.
Two months after the jury verdict, Werlein struck down the $200 million in punitive damages, letting stand actual damages of $22.7 million. In the original verdict, a jury decided that five sentences in an article by Laura Jereski published Oct. 21, 1993, were false and defamatory against MMAR. Lawyers for MMAR blamed the article for the investment firm’s demise later that year.
Dow Jones argued that the firm collapsed for other reasons and that the disputed sentences were accurate or substantially true.
In its latest motion, lawyers for Dow Jones argued that they discovered after the trial that MMAR had withheld audiotapes of conversations among MMAR executives that would have bolstered Dow Jones’ claims.
MEET THE S.D. TEX. HOUSTON DIVISION FEDERAL JUDGES
![DONATE TO THE LAST STAND](https://cdn.lawsintexas.com/cb:Eo5i~20d8c/w:350/h:350/q:eco/f:best/ig:avif/https://lawsintexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LITAMOLASTSTAND-1.png")
