Scott Skelton and Keith Langston have just taken plaintiff/defense bar relations to a new level — way beyond exchanging fruit baskets during the holidays. On Feb. 12 at Baylor Medical Center in Dallas, Langston, an associate with Daingerfield’s Nix Patterson & Roach , gave Skelton, a partner in Lufkin’s Zeleskey Law Firm , one of his kidneys. “You can’t get any better than that,” says Skelton. Skelton says he has defended his client, John Crane Inc., against about 4,000 of Langston’s plaintiff-asbestos clients. “We took depositions in his office probably 200 days a year for several years. That’s how I got to know him. I think he always thought I treated his clients with respect and we got along,” says Skelton, who has IgA Nephropathy, a protein disorder that causes the kidneys to fail. When Skelton mentioned his condition to one of Langston’s colleagues while attending an asbestos seminar in Houston, she went back to the firm and told Langston. “And he immediately picked up the phone and called me and literally the first words out of his mouth were, ‘I want to donate you a kidney,’ ” Skelton says. Skelton is now working out of a Dallas apartment because he has to make multiple visits to see Dallas doctors while he’s healing. Langston returned to work a few days after the surgery and last week was on a well-earned Nix Patterson & Roach firm retreat to Cabo San Lucas, Skelton says, so Langston couldn’t be reached for comment. But Skelton says he and Langston think everyone should consider becoming organ donors. “ We both think it’s important,” he says.
No Cert for You
On Feb. 23, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari in Singleton, et al. v. Volkswagen of America (a.k.a. In Re: Volkswagen ), the long, hard-fought mandamus ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that made it easier for the defense to transfer products liability suits out of the Eastern District of Texas. On Oct. 10, 2008, the 5th Circuit ruled 10-7 in In Re: Volkswagen of America Inc., et al. that U.S. District Judge T. John Ward of Marshall clearly abused his discretion when he denied Volkswagen’s motion to transfer from Marshall to Dallas a products liability suit stemming from a fatal motor vehicle accident that occurred in Dallas. The 5th Circuit determined it could grant Volkswagen’s petition for a writ of mandamus because Ward abused his discretion. While plaintiffs have a broad choice of venue in such cases, the decision gives trial judges less discretion in keeping a case when relevant witnesses are located in another district. The decision has been influential. On Dec. 29, 2008, the Federal U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals borrowed liberally from the opinion to reach an identical conclusion in In Re: TS Tech USA Corp., et al., which found that Ward abused his discretion in keeping a patent suit in the Eastern District. “We’re disappointed by the court’s denial. We thought the case raised some important questions about whether courts of appeals should intervene in transfer decisions,” says Martin Siegel , a Houston solo represents the plaintiffs seeking cert in In Re: Volkswagen. “ But we understand that getting the Supreme Court’s ear is never easy.” Danny Ashby , a partner in the Dallas office of K&L Gates who represents Volkswagen, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.
