Martin Siegel has an extensive background in appellate and trial-level briefing and argument cutting across a broad range of substantive and procedural areas, including constitutional law, commercial disputes, product liability, personal injury, federal preemption, consumer protection, jurisdiction, venue, removal and remand, governmental immunities, ERISA, maritime, employment law and others.

Siegel’s experience began as a federal appellate law clerk and deepened over years of representation of corporate and institutional defendants, the United States, and individual and corporate plaintiffs. He has briefed and/or argued appeals in the U.S. Supreme Court; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth and Federal Circuits; the Texas Supreme Court; and several state appellate courts.

Some of his more significant cases include:

In re Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG.

Siegel argued this appeal to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (17 judges) in May 2008.  The resulting decision sets the standard in this circuit for deciding motions to transfer venue and establishes 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).

To read the plaintiff-respondent’s en banc brief in this case, click here.

Westlake Petrochemicals, L.L.C. v. United Polychem, Inc., et al.

Siegel's client, a California corporation, is appealing a $6.3 million award obtained in federal district court by Westlake arising from a failed $60 million sale of ethylene.   The case involves complicated issues of contract formation under the UCC, two Texas statutes of frauds, construction of conditions precedent, and personal guaranty agreements.  See Case No. 10-20634 (5th Cir. 2011) (decision pending).  To read the appellant's brief, click here.

.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 the case for 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).

Gus H. Comiskey, III and TC3, Inc v. FH Partners LLC

The appellant in this complex commercial case case paid nearly $1 million for land in Houston but, just as he was on the brink of acquiring the property, the lender refused to convey title based on a cross-collateralization clause in loan documents executed by the prior mortgagor.  The trial court granted a directed verdict dismissing various counterclaims against FH Partners, and Comiskey appealed.  See Case No 14-10-01001-CV (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (decision pending).  To read the appellant's brief, click here.

Harry F. Connick, et al. v. John Thompson

John Thompson spent 18 years on death row in Louisiana until investigators discovered blood testing withheld by New Orleans prosecutors at the time of his trial in 1985.  After being released, he won a civil judgment against the district attorney's office under § 1983 based on the office's deliberate indifference in failing to train junior prosecutors in their constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.  Siegel wrote a brief urging affimance of Thompson's award in the U.S. Supreme Court and before the Fifth Circuit en banc on behalf of centers in criminal law and ethics at NYU Law School, Stanford Law School, and three others. The brief argues that the need to train prosecutors in the law and ethics of required disclosure is vital and refelcts a growing nationwide consensus.  Nonetheless, the Supreme Court overturned Thompson's award in a 5-4 decision. Justice Ginsberg's dissent cites Siegel's brief.  See 131 S.Ct. 1350 (2011).   To read the amici brief in the Supreme Court in this case, click here.

O’Neill v. SeaRiver Maritime, Inc.

Douglas O’Neill obtained a significant award under the Jones Act after he was injured by exposure to hydrogen sulfide while working aboard an oil tanker in the Persian Gulf. SeaRiver appealed, raising difficult issues involving the proof necessary to establish causation in toxic exposure cases and related Daubert questions. Siegel briefed the appeal for O’Neill. In a complete victory for O’Neill, the Fifth Circuit rejected SeaRiver’s arguments, affirmed the trial court’s evidentiary and Daubert rulings, and upheld the award. See 2007 WL 2491011 (5th Cir. 2007). To read O’Neill’s brief in this case, click here.

Texas Democratic Party v. Tina Benkiser, Chairwoman of the Republican Party of Texas.

The Texas Democratic Party sued the Republican Party of Texas to prevent it from substituting a new Congressional candidate for Tom DeLay after his withdrawal from the 2006 election. TDP argued that it was too late to substitute candidates, while RPT claimed replacement was permitted because DeLay had moved to Virginia and was therefore constitutionally ineligible to serve. Siegel handled most of the briefing in the district court, wrote the briefs for TDP in the Fifth Circuit on an expedited schedule and shared oral argument with the party’s full-time counsel, obtaining a complete vindication of TDP’s position that it had standing to bring the case and that DeLay’s replacement would violate the Constitution’s Qualifications Clause and state election law. See 459 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2006). To read the Texas Democratic Party’s briefs in this case, click here.

Greater Houston Small Taxicab Co. Owners Ass'n v. City of Houston

Siegel represented an association of sixty small taxi companies in their constitutional challenge to a Houston ordinance allocating 211 new taxi permits.  The ordinance favors large, established taxi companies over their smaller competitors despite the small companies' claim that they provide the same level of service to passengers.  Although the Fifth Circuit agreed with the association that laws arbitrarily benefiting certain private companies over others without aiding consumers -- "naked economic preferences" -- can violate the Equal Protection Clause, it ultimately upheld the ordinance.  See 660 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2011).  The opinion has been described as one of ten of the most important issued by the court in 2011.  James C. Ho and Michael D.Y. Sukenik, Ten of the Fifth Circuit's Most Important Opinions of 2011, Texas Lawyer, December 19, 2011 at 34.  To read the association's brief, click here.

Setien SA de CV v. Balli Steel, PLC., et al.

Setien SA de CV, a Mexican commodities trading firm, alleged that Balli Steel, a London-based steel broker, breached the parties' contract to sell 10,000 coils of cold rolled steel, costing Setien millions of dollars in damages when it could not provide the steel to its largest customer and lost other orders.  In the resulting international arbitration, Siegel was asked to draft Setien's statement of claim and other briefs and argue the legal issues, including complex questions of agency, contract law and damages under the Texas Business and Commerce Code.  The Arbitrator awarded over $2 million to Setien.  Case No. ___ (Privately Administered Arbitration).  To read Setien's posthearing brief, click here.

  Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.

Siegel represented Accolade in this patent infringement case about technology that permits computers to be run remotely as "virtual machines" through wesites.  The district court held that Accolade released claims against one defendant based on a settlement agreement executed with another.  After Siegel's brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the parties entered into a favorable settlement resulting in withdrawal of the adverse district court decision.  See Case No. 1009-1509.  To read the appellant's (Nonconfidential) brief, click here.  

Preston v. Dyer

Siegel was asked to defend an arbitral decision worth over $2 million in this divorce case.  The arbitrator awarded spousal support payments pursuant to a pre-nuptial agreement, but the losing party seeks to vacate the award on appeal.  See Case No. 09-11-00200-CV (Tex. App. -- Beaumont 2012) (decision pending). To read Appellee's brief, click here.

 Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al.

Siegel represents amicus curiae The American Jewish Committee in this challenge by an inmate to Texas correctional system rules preventing him from eating a kosher diet.  The district court found Moussazadehn insincere in his stated desire to keep kosher in light of past lapses in his religious practice, but AJC argues that Jewish law would not condemn him as disingenuous simply because his observance has been imperfect. See Case No. 09-40400 (5th Cir. 2012) (decision pending).  To read AJC's amicus brief, click here.  

City of New York and Rudolph Giuliani v. United States and Janet Reno.

New York City challenged provisions of the 1996 welfare and immigration reform laws that invalidated local rules against disclosing the immigration status of aliens to federal law enforcement. In a case of first impression, the Second Circuit held that the federal provisions do not violate the Tenth Amendment’s bars on interfering with state operations or conscripting state officials to carry out federal tasks. See 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999). Siegel wrote the federal government’s trial and appellate briefs and successfully argued the appeal in the Second Circuit. To read the United States’ brief in this case, click here.

Grigsby v. ProTrader Group Management LLC, et al.

In this arbitration, Grigsby claimed that the defendants violated securities laws and committed minority shareholder oppression by squeezing him out of the company he co-founded shortly before it was sold for $150 million. As part of the team representing Grigsby, Siegel briefed and argued summary judgment motions and other issues, including ratification, duties owed under the Texas Revised Partnership Act, the statute of limitations for 10b-5 claims under Sarbanes-Oxley, standards for recovery for shareholder oppression, and others. The arbitrators accepted Grigsby’s legal positions and awarded him $43 million in compensation (attorneys’ fees: $12,274,249.79; expenses: $977,466.04). Case No. AAA 70 180 00648 02. To read some of plaintiff Russell Grigsby’s briefs in this case, click here.

Bianchetti v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

Under the Warsaw Convention, airlines may be liable for death and indury caused by “accidents” that occur on board during international flights. An “accident” is defined as “an unexpected or unusual event,” but case law is unsettled as to when an airline’s failure to abide by its own policies constitutes an accident under the Convention. In this case in federal district court in San Francisco, Siegel represented the plaintiff and convinced the court that Delta’s failure to expedite medical assistance to a passenger stricken with deep vein thrombosis precluded summary judgement on the “accident” question. See __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2007 WL 3027351 (N.D. Cal. 2007). To read the plaintiff’s brief in this case, click here.

Barahona v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al.

The plaintiff sued Toyota when his son was rendered a quadriplegic following a collision, alleging that the defective design of the Toyota Echo’s seatback caused the injuries. Toyota twice filed writs of mandamus in the Court of Appeals and once in the Texas Supreme Court attacking various discovery and other rulings. Siegel wrote the plaintiff’s responses, obtaining denials of Toyota’s petitions. See 191 S.W. 3d 498 (Tex. App. – Waco 2006, mandamus denied, Case No. 06-0449, Tex Sup. Ct., June 5, 2006). Siegel also briefed several Daubert, summary judgment and other motions, resulting in rulings favorable to the plaintiff. To read one of plaintiff’s responses to petitions for mandamus in this case, click here.

Ayala v. Ford Motor Co.

In this wrongful death case, Ford argued that it complied with applicable federal safety standards and was therefore not liable under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.008(a). When the plaintiffs responded that Ford’s inadequate disclosures to NHTSA rebutted the presumption of nonliability under § 82.008(b)(2), Ford replied that subsection (b)(2) is impliedly preempted under the reasoning in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001), a position the Sixth Circuit and other courts have adopted. Siegel handled the plaintiffs’ briefing, and the district court agreed with the plaintiffs that federal law does not conflict with § 82.008(b)(2) and that Buckman preemption applies only to fraud-on-the-agency theories of liability, not traditional state product liability claims. Case No. 2-04CV-395 (E.D. Tex. 2005). To read the plaintiffs’ brief on Buckman preemption, click here.

Rivera v. Heyman, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, et al.

Siegel represented the Smithsonian in this employment discrimination case raising the novel question whether the Smithsonian, a unique and independent federal trust instrumentality dating to 1836, was subject to § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which covers only executive branch employees. Following Siegel’s briefing and argument, the district court agreed with the government that the Smithsonian is not in the executive branch and therefore not subject to § 501. As a result of the case, Congress amended the Act to include the Smithsonian. On appeal, which Siegel also briefed and argued, the Second Circuit upheld the remainder of the district court’s decision holding that the plaintiff had no additional remedy under § 504 of the Act – a question on which several circuit courts had split – or state and local civil rights laws. See 157 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1998). To read the Smithsonian’s brief in this case, click here.

Good Samaritan Hospital Regional Medical Center, et al. v. Shalala.

Three hospitals and Medicare providers sued HHS seeking to compel review of a decision not to reopen the hospitals’ claims for reimbursement of various significant expenses. Siding with the government after Siegel’s briefing and argument, the Second Circuit held that jurisdiction to undertake the requested review was lacking, and that challenged HHS regulations were permissible in light of the Medicare Act. The Second Circuit reached this conclusion despite Ninth Circuit precedent to the contrary. See 85 F.3d 1057 (1996). To read HHS’s brief in this case, click here.

Law Offices of Martin J. Siegel

Bank of America Center

700 Louisiana, Suite 2300
Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 226-8566

martin@siegelfirm.com

Martin Siegel Appellate Law Offices – Siegelfirm Home – Martin Siegel
Appellate and Brief Experience – Biography – Legal Fees
Briefs and Publications – Contact