Trial Briefing
A trial attorney has a lot to do preparing
a case for trial. Responding to a removal to federal
court, motions for summary judgment, Daubert/Robinson motions and finding the case law you need to support
getting your evidence admitted can take big chunks of time.
Consider hiring someone with experience doing those
things so you can focus on developing your case for
trial without getting bogged down and distracted. For
the past twelve years, the majority of my work has
been supporting trial lawyers with motions to remand;
responding to and preparing motions for summary judgment;
preparing all kinds of trial briefs; responding to
Daubert/Robinson motions; and preparing the briefs
necessary to make sure my team gets their evidence
before the jury. I have assisted in jury selection,
including preserving Batson complaints and supporting
challenges for cause with case law. My practice has
been focused in the area of complex plaintiff's personal
injury and health care fraud cases. I am admitted to
practice in Texas state courts and in the following
federal courts: the Fifth and Tenth Circuit courts
of appeal and all of the federal districts in Texas.
I have appeared pro hac vice in cases in Arizona, Missouri,
Illinois, and North Carolina.
Below
are case descriptions and links to representative samples
of trial briefs prepared by Ms. Shackelford:
Boudloche v. Dairyland County
Mutual, was filed in
the Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Texas in the
Southern District of Texas. Suit was brought
after Dairyland County Mutual refused to pay its policy
limits arising out of a collision in which Dairlyand’s
insured fell asleep and struck a parked vehicle resulting
in the death of a wife and mother, and brain damage
to her husband, leaving their two young children virtual
orphans. After Dairyland refused to pay its policy
limits and a judgment in excess of its policy limits
was certain, Dairyland convinced its insured to file
bankruptcy. Ms. Shackelford second-chaired the
suit against Dairyland that resulted in an $8.5 million
dollar judgment after a four-day bench trial. The
case was settled for a lesser confidential sum while
on appeal. The documents linked are from the court records. Document Link >
Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law
Clementa Arizpe, obtained
an automobile insurance policy from Dairyland County
Mutual Insurance Company prior to April 30, 1994.
The Dairyland policy provided Mr. Arizpe with bodily
injury liability insurance limited to $20,000.00
per person and $40,000.00 per occurrence. Mr. Arizpe's
policy with Dairyland was in effect on April 30,
1994, when he was involved in an automobile accident.
The accident caused the death of the other driver,
Carlota Torres, and severely and permanently injured
her passenger Jose Torre. Document Link >
Trustee's Reply
This Stowers case was tried to the Court March
31-April 2, 1998. The primary issue to be decided
by the Court is whether the June 1, 1994 offer to settle
the claims of the Torres family was one that Dairyland
County Mutual Insurance should have accepted, considering
the likelihood and degree of Arizpe's potential exposure
to an excess judgment.
Document Link >
Corona v. Ford Motor Co.,
a wrongful death case filed in Edinburgh, Texas, arising
out of a collision that caused a rollover of a 1992
Ford explorer. Plaintiffs claimed that Juan Corona
was wearing his seatbelt and the failure of the seatbelt
latch to remain closed, and the improper opening of
the Explorer’s left
front door during the collision caused Mr. Corona’s
fatal injuries. Juan Corona was survived by his
widow and three young children. Ms. Shackelford
assisted with the trial briefing. The case was
settled after three weeks of trial for a confidential
amount. It is very common for the defendant in
these cases to attempt to exclude plaintiffs’ expert
witnesses. A link is provided to the brief opposing
exclusion of plaintiff’s biomechanics expert. Document
Link >
Nueces County v. Ford Motor
Co., Plaintiff,
Nueces County, sued Ford over fuel system defects in
its crown Victoria Police Interceptors. The case
was filed in state court, but Ford Motor Company removed
the case to federal court. Plaintiff’s
First Amended Motion to Remand is attached. After
two years, and consolidation with other similar cases
into an MDL, the case was remanded, In re Ford Motor
Co. Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Products liability
Litig., No. 1:02 CV 15000, MDL Docket No. 1488, 2004
WL 1170145 (N.D. Ohio May 19, 2004). Document
Link >
St. Clair County v. Ford
Motor Co., filed in St. Clair
County, Illinois was a class action on behalf of Illinois
law enforcement seeking damages for defects in their
Crown Victoria Police Interceptor fuel systems. Before
trial, Ford Motor Company filed a motion seeking summary
judgment that Michigan Law applied to Plaintiffs’ punitive
damage claims and that even if Illinois law applied,
Plaintiffs had no factual or legal basis to go to trial
on punitive damages. Plaintiffs won the motion
and the punitive damage issue was tried to the jury. Document
Link >
The Shackelford Law Firm, Perry & Haas, and the Allene Evans Law Firm, three independent law firms practicing cooperatively.
The Shackelford Law Firm does not offer any guarantee of case results. Past success in litigation does not guarantee success in any new or future lawsuit. This website describes some of the cases that Shackelford Law Firm has worked on in the past. The description of those cases is summary in nature. You should be aware that the results obtained in each of the cases we have worked on was dependent on the particular facts of each case. The results of other cases will differ based on the different facts involved.
