676 Fed.Appx. 341 (5th Cir. 2017), 16-50163, Pilepro, L.L.C. v. Heindl
|Citation:||676 Fed.Appx. 341|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||PILEPRO, L.L.C.; BLUE EMERALD, INCORPORATED, Formerly Known as PilePro, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RICHARD HEINDL, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, ROBERTO R. WENDT, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, STEELCOM LIMITED, Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant|
|Attorney:||For ROBERTO R. WENDT, PILEPRO, L.L.C., BLUE EMERALD, INCORPORATED, formerly known as PilePro, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Counters Defendants - Appellees: Andrew S. Brown, Brown Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Austin, TX; Rebecca Ashley Applewhite, Austin, TX; Roger James George, Jr., Trial Attorney, George Bro...|
|Judge Panel:||Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||February 13, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. USDC No. 1:12-CV-829.
PilePro, LLC v. Chang, 152 F.Supp.3d 659, (W.D. Tex., 2016)
For ROBERTO R. WENDT, PILEPRO, L.L.C., BLUE EMERALD, INCORPORATED, formerly known as PilePro, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Counters Defendants - Appellees: Andrew S. Brown, Brown Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Austin, TX; Rebecca Ashley Applewhite, Austin, TX; Roger James George, Jr., Trial Attorney, George Brothers Kincaid & Horton, L.L.P., Austin, TX.
For RICHARD HEINDL, STEELCOM LIMITED, Defendants-Thirds Parties Plaintiffs - Appellants: Andrew C. Callari, Esq., Callari & Summers, Dana Point, CA; Ryan D. V. Greene, Terrill Firm, P.C., Austin, TX; Douglass Dodson Hearne, Jr., Austin, TX; G. Alan Waldrop, Waldrop Firm, Austin, TX.
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
This is a dispute between two former business associates, Roberto Wendt and Richard Heindl. The plaintiffs sued for damages under RICO and state law. After the disputes were clarified in the briefs and at oral argument, the parties agree that only one issue remains for resolution:
whether the district court erred in declaring the ownership of non-party Contexo, a company that ultimately received certain patent rights for modular connectors.
After a thorough bench trial, the district court denied all claims for damages and made certain...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP