Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50163/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50163

PILEPRO, L.L.C.; 

BLUE EMERALD, INCORPORATED, 

 Formerly Known as PilePro, Incorporated, 

 Plaintiffs–Appellees, 

ROBERTO R. WENDT, 

 Plaintiff– 

 Counter Defendant– 

 Appellee, 

versus 

RICHARD HEINDL, 

 Defendant– 

 Third Party Plaintiff– 

 Appellant, 

STEELCOM LIMITED, 

 Third Party Plaintiff– 

 Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:12-CV-829

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50163 Document: 00513872402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2017
No. 16-50163

2 

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

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 declarations regarding ownership interests, including that “Contexo is wholly or partially owned by PilePro LLC, Enrico Farroni, 

and Roland Harzenmozer.” We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law 

and pertinent portions of the record and have heard extensive arguments from 

counsel. We see no reversible error in the district court’s careful examination 

of the complex facts and conflicting claims. 

 The judgment is AFFIRMED. We make no comment on the effect of the 

judgment on non-parties. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 16-50163 Document: 00513872402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2017