alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND

DEVELOPMENT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) 

INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC. 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-487-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-488-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-489-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-490-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-491-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-492-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-493-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-494-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-495-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-496-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-497-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 

RESPONSE REGARDING NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

 The arguments contained in ZTE’s “Notice of Supplemental Authority” are improper 

briefing, filed without leave, and should be stricken or ignored. ZTE’s pretext for filing a new brief 

without leave is unpersuasive. In re Andra does not represent a change in law. See In re Andra 

Group LLP, Case 20-2009 (Dkt. No. 41, Order) (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2021). Rather, it applies existing 

law to the specific facts of a specific case. ZTE already had full opportunity to argue the law 

relating to agency and ratification to the facts of this case, which differ from In re Andra. ZTE’s 

belated attempt to re-brief these issues should be rejected. 

 To the extent this Court is taking “notice” of In re Andra, however, it should take notice 

that the District Court dismissed only the Non-Store Defendants. See ZTE’s Notice, Ex. A *3-4. It 

did not dismiss the “Stores” defendant because it found venue was proper against that defendant. 

Id. This, of course, contradicts ZTE’s incorrect argument, raised for the first time during the 

hearing on its motion, that if venue is improper as to any defendant, a court must dismiss all

defendants. 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 103 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

Therefore, WSOU respectfully requests that the Court strike ZTE’s “notice” because it is 

not a notice. Rather, it is more briefing filed without leave, filed without even consulting WSOU, 

and is argumentative. 

Dated: August 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Ryan Loveless 

James L. Etheridge 

Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Mark D. Siegmund 

State Bar No. 24117055 

mark@waltfairpllc.com 

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC. 

1508 North Valley Mills Drive 

Waco, Texas 76710 

Telephone: (254) 772-6400 

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432 

 

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically 

via the U.S. District Court [LIVE]-Document Filing System to all counsel of record August 5, 

2021. 

/s/ Ryan Loveless 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 103 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

 Plaintiff 

-vMICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

 Defendant 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

W-20-CV-00454-ADA 

W-20-CV-00461-ADA 

W-20-CV-00465-ADA 

ORDER TO PAY TECHNICAL ADVISOR 

The Court previously appointed Dr. Joshua J. Yi to serve as a technical advisor on this 

case. The Court has reviewed Dr. Yi’s invoice for services through March 16, 2021 and finds the 

requested amount ($26,370.36) to be reasonable and necessary. As such, the Court ORDERS

payment to be promptly made as follows: 

Plaintiffs: $13,185.18 

Defendant: $13,185.18 

Dr. Yi will separately provide deposit instructions. 

SIGNED this 17th day of March, 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 1
#### E. A. Granchelli et al., Appellants, v Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In February 1985, plaintiff sustained water damage to his real property resulting in a loss of approximately $116,000, and commenced this action when defendant insurer denied coverage on the ground that plaintiffs loss was not a direct loss within the meaning of its policy. According to plaintiff, a windstorm blew open a roof door, and subzero air entered the building, causing a pipe to freeze and thereafter to burst, resulting in the water damage. The policy at issue insured against direct loss "by * * * (2) [w]indstorm or hail [and] (3) [e]xplosion, excluding loss * * * (b) by rupture or bursting of * * * (ii) water pipes”. In granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that, while the windstorm was a link in the chain of events leading up to the loss, it was too remote to be deemed the direct cause of the loss. We disagree.

Direct loss is equivalent to proximate cause *(see,*18 Couch, Insurance 2d § 74:712, at 1022; Annot, *What Constitutes n’Direct Loss” Under Windstorm Insurance Coverage, 65*ALR3d 1128), and we find that the burst water pipe could have been proximately caused by the windstorm *(see, Lipshultz v General Ins. Co.,*256 Minn 7, 96 NW2d 880; *see also, Federal Ins. Co. v Bock,*382 SW2d 305 [Tex]; *Fred Meyer, Inc. v Central Mut. Ins. Co.,*235 F Supp 540 [D Ore]). Furthermore, the policy exclusion of loss by the bursting of water pipes applies only to explosions *(see, Lipshultz v General Ins. Co., supra; cf., Williams v Liberty Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*334 Mass 499, 135 NE2d 910; *Abady v Hanover Fire Ins. Co.,*266 F2d 362). *840(Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fallon, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              46
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      390
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        315
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   887
<PP&E>                                          34,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,766
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,404
<BONDS>                                          2,293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         24
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,087
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,324
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    748
<INCOME-TAX>                                       270
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                478
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       478
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Commodity Credit Corporation 

# AGENCY:

Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Sunshine Act meeting correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        In                         **Federal Register**                         document 65-FR-192 beginning on page 58983-58984 in the issue of Tuesday, October 3, 2000, make the following correction:                     

The CCC Board Meeting scheduled for October 10, 2000, at 2 p.m., in Room 104-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building has been canceled. The meeting will be rescheduled at a later date. 

Dated: October 4, 2000.

Juanita B. Daniels,

Acting Secretary, Commodity Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 00-26037 Filed 10-5-00; 12:52 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410-05-P