Commercial, Tort and Other Cases
GDG Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. Government of Belize
Siegel's client GDG contracted to lease telephone equipment to the government of Belize and alleged $20 million in overdue payments. The case gave rise to two separate appeals. In the first, Siegel persuaded the 11th Circuit to reverse the district court's decision dismissing GDG's case on grounds of forum non conveniens and international comity. The decision set an important precedent fleshing out the doctrine of international comity and holding foreign governments and companies to their commitments to litigate in the U.S. See 749 F.3d 1024 (11th Cir. 2014). GDG's first brief is here. In the second appeal, the 11th Circuit again agreed with Siegel and affirmed the trial court's decision denying Belize's motion to dismiss the case based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The decision resolved novel questions concerning what country's law governs FSIA cases and is one of very few to base waiver of FSIA immunity on ratification. See 849 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2017). GDG's second brief is here. the case was covered by Bloomberg's U.S. Law Week and Law360, and both decisions are cited in Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law and Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice and Procedure.
In re Volkswagen of America
Siegel argued this appeal to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (17 judges) in May 2008. The resulting decision set the standard in this circuit for deciding motions to transfer venue and established the framework for appellate review of transfer decisions by the district courts. A panel of the court of appeals initially denied Volkswagen's petition for writ of mandamus seeking to order the district court to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), then reversed itself and issued the writ mandating transfer. Siegel persuaded the full court of appeals to rehear the petition en banc, though the court ultimately split 10-7 in favor of Volkswagen. See 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Gil Ramirez Group v. Houston Independent School District
Siegel served as co-counsel for appellant the Gil Ramirez Group, a family-owned construction company denied contracts by the Houston Independent School District allegedly because it refused to pay bribes to an HISD trustee. The district court dismissed GRG's case as speculative, but the Fifth Circuit agreed with Siegel and held that GRG properly alleged injury under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Court also reinstated one of GRG's state law claims. The case was widely covered in Houston media and Law360. See 786 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 2015).
Monga v. Perez
Israel and Angelica Perez's son suffered severe neurological damage at birth caused by their medical providers' negligence in failing to induce earlier delivery or order a C-section. Siegel persuaded the court of appeals to reject the Perezes' consulting obstetrician's claim that their expert witness's opinion on their son's condition in utero was flawed and required dismissal. After the appeal, the case settled favorably. See 2018 WL 505263 (Tex. App. [14th Dist.] 2018).
Westlake Petrochemicals, L.L.C. v. United Polychem, Inc., et al.
Siegel represented a California corporation, United Polychem, and its owner in appealing a $6.3 million damages award obtained by Westlake arising from an unconsummated $60 million sale of ethylene. The Fifth Circuit reversed the award and ordered entry of judgment in favor of United Polychem's owner, whom the district court held liable under a personal guaranty. It also reversed the award against United Polychem and remanded for a retrial on Westlake's damages using legal standards more favorable to United Polychem. See 688 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012).
Lone Star OB/GYN Associates v. Aetna Health Inc.
Siegel was brought in to argue this appeal to the Fifth Circuit after the briefing was completed and the court scheduled oral argument. In a case important to doctors throughout Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, Siegel represented Ob/Gyn specialists who sued under Texas law to obtain timely payment of bills submitted to Aetna for treatment of Aetna health plan members. Aetna argued that the physicians' claims were preempted by ERISA, the federal law governing certain aspects of health plans. The court of appeals held in favor Siegel's client, rejecting Aetna's preemption argument and deciding that Texas law protects doctors from delayed payment. See 579 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2009).