- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

MEDLIANT INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

KATRINA PONCE DE LEON, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 1:23–cv–00203–MAC

JOINT CONFERENCE REPORT

The plaintiff, Medliant Inc. (“Plaintiff”), and the defendant, Katrina Ponce de Leon

(“Defendant”), file this Joint Conference Report pursuant to the Court’s Order to Conduct Rule 

26(f) Conference dated September 13, 2023. See Doc. 9. 

1. A factual and legal description of the case that sets forth the elements of each cause 

of action and each defense: 

A. Plaintiff’s position: 

This is a breach of contract case. On September 23, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant entered 

into an Agreement for Employment (the “2018 Agreement”) for Defendant to immigrate to the 

United States from the Republic of the Philippines to work as a full-time registered nurse for 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff agreed to sponsor Defendant through the immigration process, pay all costs 

and expenses associated with the immigration process, pay all expenses associated with 

Defendant’s travel to the United States (including one month’s living accommodations), and 

reimburse Defendant for all federal and state license-related nursing application fees and 

expenses. In exchange, Defendant agreed to work five thousand two hundred (5,200) straighttime hours for Plaintiff. If Defendant departed prior to fulfilling her commitment, Defendant 

agreed to reimburse Plaintiff for all costs incurred during the immigration process and further 

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1243
- 2 -

agreed to pay Plaintiff liquidated damages in the sum of $2,500 for each month remaining of the 

term of her employment.

On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the Agreement for 

Employment (the “2022 Agreement”), which reconfirmed the parties’ obligations set forth in the

2018 Agreement. Shortly thereafter, Defendant began working for Plaintiff at Baptist Hospitals 

of Southeast Texas in Beaumont. 

Effective February 15, 2023, Defendant resigned from Plaintiff approximately twentyone (21) months short of fulfilling her commitment under the 2022 Agreement thereby triggering 

the 2022 Agreement’s liquidated damages provision. The liquidated damages owed by 

Defendant are separate, and are in addition to, the costs of immigration due to be reimbursed by

Defendant. 

On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff demanded Defendant pay the liquidated damages owed and 

reimburse Plaintiff for the costs of immigration. Defendant refused, which resulted in this 

lawsuit. In addition to the monetary remedies described above, Plaintiff also seeks recovery of its 

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant as provided for in the Agreement and any additional damages 

permitted by law.

On September 11, 2023, Defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds of forum non 

conveniens and for failure to state a claim. See Doc. 8. Plaintiff responded (Doc. 10), Defendant 

replied (Doc. 13), and Plaintiff sur-replied (Doc. 16). Accordingly, this motion is fully briefed. 

For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Response and Sur-reply, the forum selection clause is 

permissive, and the motion should be denied. If, however, the Court concludes the forum

selection clause is mandatory, the Court should still deny the motion because the public interest 

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1244
- 3 - 

factors heavily weigh against dismissal.1 Separately, for the reasons set forth in Defendant’s 

Response and Sur-reply, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should also be 

denied because it is either premature or substantively without merit. 

B. Defendant’s position: 

As set forth in her pending motion to dismiss, Defendant maintains that this case was 

filed in the wrong venue and should be dismissed for forum non conveniens. In particular, the 

parties’ Agreement contains a mandatory forum-selection clause requiring that all disputes be 

venued in the 8th Judicial District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada. Medliant’s Agreement specifies 

that it “chooses to utilize” that court for any disputes that arise out of the contract – including this 

one. The Court should therefore dismiss Medliant’s complaint so that the parties can litigate this 

dispute in the agreed-upon forum. 

Alternatively, Ms. Ponce de Leon seeks to dismiss Medliant’s complaint for failure to 

state a claim. First, federal regulations prohibit Medliant from seeking damages for the costs of 

immigration. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b). Second, the provision in the Agreement purporting to 

allow Medliant to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs is unconscionable and unenforceable. 

Third, Medliant’s attempt to recover liquidated damages is an unenforceable penalty, and fourth, 

the Agreement is void because it is against the public policy of the state of Nevada, whose law 

governs disputes arising under the Agreement. For all these reasons, Medliant’s case should be 

dismissed. 

 

1

 Despite representing to the Court that Defendant was a Florida resident in her motion (see Doc. 

8, PageID #34) and in her reply (see Doc. 13, PageID #799 and fn. 3 (Defendant “now lives in 

Florida, from which she can book a direct flight to Las Vegas but not to Beaumont”)), it came to 

the attention of Plaintiff that Defendant lives in Beaumont, and Plaintiff informed Defendant of 

this issue. Shortly thereafter, counsel for Defendant confirmed Defendant lives in Beaumont. See

Doc. 19. 

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1245
- 4 - 

2. The date the Rule 26(f) conference was held, the names of those persons who 

attended, and the parties they represented: 

The parties participated in the Rule 26(f) conference on Wednesday, October 11, 2023. 

R. Brandon Bundren, lead counsel for Plaintiff, and David H. Seligman, counsel for Defendant, 

attended the conference. 

3. A list of any cases related to this case pending in any state or federal court, 

identifying the case numbers and courts along with an explanation of the status of 

those cases: 

There are no cases related to this case that are pending in any state or federal court. 

4. An agreed discovery/case management plan, if agreement can be reached, which 

will be used by the court to prepare a Scheduling Order: 

A. Plaintiff’s position: 

Attached as Exhibit 1 is a Proposed Scheduling Order, which is based on a previously 

agreed-to Final Status Conference of June 7, 2024. Specifically, on October 11, 2023, during the 

Rule 26(f) Conference, counsel for the parties discussed multiple Final Status Conference dates 

between June–October of 2024. For various reasons, the Final Status Conference date that 

worked for both parties was June 7, 2024, and counsel for Defendant specifically agreed to this 

date. Lead counsel for Plaintiff told counsel for Defendant that Plaintiff would circulate a 

proposed Scheduling Order consistent with the Final Status Conference date of June 7, 2024. 

Plaintiff’s recitation of the Final Status Conference agreement is consistent with 

Plaintiff’s representations in its Sur-Reply in Further Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, filed 

on October 20, 2023. See Doc. 16, PageID #1047 (“Counsel for the parties have conferred under 

Rule 26(f), discovery is underway, and the parties agreed to a Final Status Conference of June 7, 

2024, pending approval from the Court.”). 

On October 23, 2023, consistent with the Rule 26(f) Conference and its representations in

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1246
- 5 - 

its Sur-Reply, Plaintiff circulated a draft of the Joint Conference Report and proposed 

Scheduling Order with the previously agreed-to Final Status Conference date of June 7, 2024. On 

October 25, 2023, counsel for Defendant circulated a revised draft of the Joint Conference 

Report and a revised Scheduling Order, which for the first time proposed a Final Status 

Conference date of February 7, 2025. Counsel for Plaintiff reminded counsel for Defendant by 

email that the date proposed by counsel for Defendant was not what was agreed to during the 

Rule 26(f) Conference. In fact, no 2025 Final Status Conference dates were discussed during the 

Rule 26(f) Conference. Counsel for Plaintiff further advised counsel for Defendant that this case 

is a simple breach of contract case and does not need a runway of 18 months to go to trial on a 

single claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff submits that because this case involves a single claim for 

breach of contract, this Court should enter a Final Status Conference date of June 7, 2024, and 

enter Plaintiff’s proposed Scheduling Order, which is attached as Exhibit 1. 

B. Defendant’s position: 

Defendant respectfully submits that her proposed schedule (attached as Exhibit 2) 

provides a reasonable timeframe for discovery, in the event that the Court denies her pending 

motion to dismiss. Counsel for Ms. Ponce de Leon disagrees that the parties committed to July 7, 

2024 as an appropriate date for a pre-trial conference. To the contrary, during the parties’ 26(f) 

conference, Counsel for Ms. Ponce de Leon specifically informed Plaintiff’s counsel that he 

would need to discuss the proposed dates with other attorneys at his firm before committing to 

any particular set of dates. Defendant’s counsel is a non-profit legal organization based in 

Denver, Colorado with limited resources. After internal discussions about the schedules of the 

lawyers participating in this litigation and the resources that Defendant’s counsel is able to 

dedicate to this case, Defendant proposed the discovery schedule set out here. Plaintiff has 

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1247
- 6 - 

suggested this is a run-of-the-mill breach of contract action. In fact, as Defendant describes in 

her motion to dismiss, if this case proceeds in this Court, Defendant may raise a range of 

affirmative defenses and even counterclaims that could require extensive fact development and 

discovery. Defendant’s proposed discovery schedule is reasonable and appropriate for a case of 

this nature. 

5. A suggested date for the Final Status Conference, at which time the final pretrial 

conference and the trial will be scheduled: 

A. Plaintiff’s position: June 7, 2024. See supra, 4(A). 

B. Defendant’s position: February 7, 2025. See supra, 4(B).

6. The expected length of trial and whether it will be to a jury or the bench: 

The parties expect that this case will take three days to try to the Court. 

7. Whether the parties jointly consent to trial before a magistrate judge: 

The parties do not consent. 

8. Other matters:

The parties have agreed to produce documents in searchable, PDF format. 

The parties have also agreed that they do not need to log privileged documents dated on 

or after May 25, 2023. 

Plaintiff anticipates asking the Court to enter a Protective Order to govern the production 

of Plaintiff’s trade secret or other confidential, development, and/or commercial information that 

is produced in this case. 

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1248
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ R. Brandon Bundren

R. Brandon Bundren

Texas Bar No. 24050353

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

1600 Division Street, Suite 700

Nashville, Tennessee 37203

P: 615.252.4647 

F: 615.248.3047 

bbundren@bradley.com

Attorney for Medliant Inc.

/s/ David H. Seligman by permission RBB

Rachel Williams Dempsey (pro hac vice) 

David H. Seligman (pro hac vice) 

Juno Turner (pro hac vice) 

P.O. Box 371689, PMB 44465

Denver, Colorado 80237-5680 

P: 720.441.2236 

rachel@towardsjustice.com

david@towardsjustice.com

juno@towardsjustice.com 

Attorneys for Katrina Ponce de Leon

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1249
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 25, 2023, I electronically filed a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, through 

the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system, which will serve all counsel of record listed below: 

Rachel Williams Dempsey (pro hac vice)

Email: rachel@towardsjustice.org

David H. Seligman (pro hac vice)

Email: david@towardsjustice.org

Juno Turner (pro hac vice)

Email: juno@towardsjustice.org

TOWARDS JUSTICE

Attorneys for Defendant

/s/ R. Brandon Bundren

R. Brandon Bundren

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1250