Jeffrey Brian Mead

Jeff Mead represents a broad range of clients, at every stage of commercial litigation and arbitration, in state and federal courts, at the trial and appellate levels, on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants, and in complex cases involving a wide variety of subject matters, allegations, defenses, counter-claims, and damages.

Super Lawyers® magazine named him a Texas Rising Star in 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Jeff has represented parties in:

• cases implicating the United States and Texas Constitutions (in which he has represented governmental entities and private parties)
• condemnation matters (in which he has represented governmental entities and landowners)
• securities matters (in which he has represented broker-dealers, corporations, and shareholders)
• oil and gas matters
• consumer finance mortgage litigation
• matters involving private equity portfolio companies
• bankruptcy litigation (in which he has represented Ch. 11 debtors and creditors)
• post-judgment collection efforts

Jeff's representative experience includes: 

• Represented private-party purchasers of $180 million in oil and gas interests in five distinct arbitrations
• Represented regional tollway authority by: defending multi-million-dollar putative class action involving challenges brought under the United States and Texas Constitutions; acquiring property for a 10-mile extension of toll road; advising on matters involving governmental immunity; and advising on legislative, administrative, and governance issues
• Represented debtors in multi-million-dollar Chapter 11 cases involving wood pellet manufacturing facilities
• Represented creditor and reorganization plan proponent in multi-million-dollar Chapter 11 case involving life insurance policies
• Represented nationwide mortgage servicers at trial-court and appellate level in defense of improper servicing allegations including breach of contract, negligence, violations of state and federal debt collection acts, fraud, violations of the Texas Property Code, wrongful foreclosure, wrongful eviction, violations of the Texas Constitution, violations of the Texas Theft Liability Act, trespass to try title suits, suit to remove cloud on title, violations of TILA, and violations of RESPA
• Represented broker-dealers in connection with alleged $485 million Provident Royalties Ponzi scheme
• Represented former NFL/MLB player-turned-celebrity and his affiliated entities in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit brought by disgruntled investors
• Represented California-based businesses in a Texas federal-court matter that was dismissed on federal due-process grounds for lack of personal jurisdiction
• Represented lender in securing $1.5 million judgment
• Represented and advised minority shareholders in collecting on $500,000 judgment obtained against corporation, officers, and directors
• Represented non-Texas entity in domesticating and collecting on $500,000 non-Texas judgment
• Represented natural gas utility in MDL court in case alleging wrongful death based on exposure to asbestos
• Represented oil and gas company in Texas state-court matter regarding mineral ownership
• Represented natural gas distributor in suit brought by landowner regarding pipeline installation
• Represented landowners in numerous eminent domain matters brought by Texas Department of Transportation
• Represented Texas real estate broker in matter before the Texas Real Estate Commission
• Represented criminal defendant accused in federal indictment of participating in a drug conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy
• Represented federal defense contractor in dispute over property ownership with city, city commission, city board, and state commission
• Represents Dallas-area non-profit organizations in guardianship- and probate-related matters involving the elderly and economically disadvantaged

Notable Matters and Reported Decisions

• Thompson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 775 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2014): The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment entered by the federal district court for our client Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”). In particular, the Fifth Circuit held: DBNTC’s removal from state court was proper and timely; the federal district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the dispute; the federal district court properly vacated the state court’s improperly entered default judgment against DBNTC; dismissal of DBNTC’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on limitations grounds was proper; and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment could not apply to the limitations period of a claim alleging failure to make required disclosures.
• Reyes v. North Texas Tollway Authority (N.D. Tex.): Jeff was part of a team of Locke Lord attorneys who helped secure summary judgment, which was affirmed on appeal, for the North Texas Tollway Authority (“NTTA”). The suit involved claims brought by a putative class of tollroad users who alleged the administrative fees imposed on the third set of invoices sent to the users were unconstitutionally excessive. The plaintiffs sued NTTA and numerous NTTA officials (board members, officers, and staff) in their individual and official capacities, and sought millions of dollars in damages for alleged violations of: the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation under Article 1, Sections 17 and 19 of the Texas Constitution; the right to equal treatment and protection under Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution; and the prohibition of excessive fines under Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution.  In a series of rulings, the federal district court dismissed all claims against all defendants, and entered a judgment for NTTA. See Reyes v. N. Tex. Tollway Auth., 830 F. Supp. 2d 194 (N.D. Tex. 2011) (agreeing with NTTA’s interpretation of the pertinent statute to permit a single administrative fee for each unpaid toll, dismissing all claims other than the federal due process claim, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief, and dismissing all the individual defendants); Reyes v. N. Tex. Tollway Auth., No. 3:10-CV-0868-G, 2014 WL 2616841 (N.D. Tex. June 12, 2014) (dismissing the plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim); Reyes v. N. Tex. Tollway Auth., 186 F. Supp. 3d. 621 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting NTTA’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding in no uncertain terms that “[t]he fee passes rational basis review.” Reyes v. N. Tex. Tollway Auth., No. 16-10767, 2017 WL 2772577 (5th Cir. June 27, 2017).
• Applied Food Scis., Inc. v. New Star 21, Inc., No. 6:07-CV-00359-WSS, 2009 WL 9120113 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2009): The federal district court granted motions to dismiss filed by California-based clients New Star 21, Inc. and Piacere International, Inc. The motions argued that forcing the clients to litigate IP-related allegations in Texas violated their due process rights, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court agreed, holding that the clients had too few contacts with Texas to be amenable to suit in Texas, meaning the court lacked general personal jurisdiction. The court also held that the clients’ Internet presence was insufficient to create specific personal jurisdiction in Texas. The court dismissed the complaint against the clients.
• City of Wylie v. Luevano, No. 4:13-CV-00414, 2014 WL 935332 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2014): The City of Wylie sought a state-court order compelling the repair, demolition, or removal of what it characterized as “nuisance” improvements on a tract of real property, and sought real damages, recovery of costs associated with the repair / removal work, and a civil penalty of $1,000 per day. The City named the homeowners in the suit, but also named our clients Wells Fargo (a former lienholder) and Freddie Mac (the then-current lienholder). Our clients removed the action to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. The federal district court, in adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss the case, held that the plain language of Texas Local Government Code § 54.018(b)(2)—the statute relied on by the City—does not provide a cause of action against former or current lienholders. The district court also held that statute could not apply to our clients because they were not “the owner or the owner’s representative with control over the premises.” The City appealed the district court’s order, and the parties settled the matter while the appeal was pending.
• Brimmer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:13-CV-342, 2013 WL 1842287 (N.D. Tex. May 2, 2013): The plaintiff (a former homeowner) sued our client Wells Fargo (the homeowner’s loan servicer) in state court under Section 51.003 of the Texas Property Code. The plaintiff sought to determine the fair market value of real property he previously owned, and that Wells Fargo sold at foreclosure sale for a price that plaintiff said was too low. The plaintiff alleged he was owed nearly $100,000 as an offset to the deficiency he still owed Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo had not filed a deficiency suit to recover the deficiency, but had reported the deficiency to the pertinent credit bureaus. Wells Fargo removed the suit to federal district court and sought dismissal. After denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, the court examined Section 51.003. The court held that the plain language of the statute required a deficiency suit to be initiated before the offset provision in Section 51.003(c) could be asserted. The court also held that the mere reporting of credit information about a person is not an “act” to collect a discharged debt within the meaning of Section 51.003. The court thus held that the plaintiff’s case was not ripe, held there was no subject-matter jurisdiction, and dismissed the case.
• Jeanbaptiste v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14-10671, slip op. (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014) (per curiam) (refusing to apply the discovery rule to toll limitations on former homeowner’s foreclosure-related claims and affirming federal district court’s granting of Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss); Jeanbaptiste v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:14-CV-0264, 2014 WL 6790737 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2014) (adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting Wells Fargo’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, and awarding Wells Fargo more than $25,000 in attorney’s fees)