Jack O'Neill

Bar / Professional Activity

• Appointed by President of Houston Bar Association to Houston Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Committee, 2020
• Houston Young Lawyers Association, Director, 1978 to 1979
• Member, American Board of Trial Advocates
• Texas Bar Foundation
• International Association of Defense Counsel, Member
• State Bar of Texas Section of Litigation, Director, 1998 to 2000

Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)

• American Arbitration Association Case No. 01-20-0000-2681 - Best Choice Anesthesia & Pain, PLLC v. Aetna Network Services LLC; lead counsel for Plaintiff Best Choice Anesthesia in seeking higher rates of reimbursement for anesthesia services. Amount in controversy: $4,000,000., 2021
• Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company vs. Amber Harvest, LLC, et al. vs. West 17th Resources, LLC, et al. Cause No 12-03-00055-CVK, in 81st District Court of Karnes County, Texas. Lead counsel for Amber Harvest, LLC, in dispute over ownership of mineral interests. Amount in controversy: $5,000,000. Case to be set for trial in 2022., 2021
• Amber Harvest, LLC vs. Marathon Oil Company; lead counsel for Amber Harvest in $20,000,000 dispute involving recoupment of post-production costs by Marathon Oil Company from overriding royalty payments due to Amber Harvest; matter successfully settled for substantial multi-million dollar amount to be paid by Marathon to client Amber Harvest, LLC., 2021
• Bristol Hospice-Texas, L.L.C. vs. Lumicare Health TX4, LLC d/b/a Lumicare Hospice, et al.; Cause No. 21-09-12069; 457th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas; lead counsel for Defendants in action for breach of contract, unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets, seeking unspecified actual damages, exemplary damages and attorneys' fees., 2021
• Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-3002 - PetroChina International (America), Inc. v. BCI Brasil China Importadora E Distribuidora S.A. - United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division; lead counsel for Plaintiff PertroChina in action seeking damages for repudiation by defendant of international shipment of ethanol; amount in controversy $2,500,000., 2021
• International Centre for Dispute Resolution Case No. 50-117-T-00228-11 and Cause No. 2011-21713, EProduction Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Intelligent Agent Corporation, 129th District Court, Harris County, Texas; lead counsel for Plaintiff in seeking declaration of ownership of technology, specific performance of contract, damages of $1,500,000, recovery of over $1,000,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses, and take-nothing judgment against Defendant on Defendant's counterclaim of $120,000,000; judgment entered granting all relief sought by client, plus entry of take-nothing judgment against Defendant on Defendant's counterclaim., 2012
• Case No. 04-19-00519-CV, McCombs Energy, Ltd. v. F4 Resources, L.P., et al., Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas, 2020
• Case No. 50-198-T-00317-13 and Case No. 50-20-1300-0317,  In the Matter of the Arbitration Among Paul James Hudson, et al. v. Weatherford Holdings Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., et al., American Arbitration Association, 2016
• Case No. 18-20189, Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen, et al., United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2018
• Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-02376, Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 2018
• Case No. 18-0472, In re William H. Forney, Jr., et al., Supreme Court of Texas, 2018
• Cause No. D150045-C, City of Dallas v. Cary "Mac" Abney, et al. v. Sabine River Authority of Texas, 260th District Court, Orange County, Texas; lead counsel for Plaintiff City of Dallas in action over water rights; amount in controversy $300,000,000+; case successfully settled prior to trial., 2017
• Case No. 04-18-00075-CV, In re William H. Forney, Jr., et al., Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas, 2018
• Case No. 13-19-00427-CV, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP v. Warwick-Athena, LLC and Texas Crude Energy, LLC, Thirteenth Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi, Texas; lead counsel for Appellee Texas Crude Energy in appeal by Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company from adverse summary judgment rendered by trial court; appeal voluntarily dismissed by Burlington pending oral argument of appeal, with no compensation, agreement or other benefit paid to or conferred upon Appellant Burlington., 2021
• Cause No. C2014-0346B, David C. Jones, M.D., P.A., v. McKesson Speciality Health Pharmaceutical 207th District Court, Comal County, Texas, 2017
• Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-03646, Kevin Brewer v. McKesson Corporation, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 2013
• Case No. 12-20147, Mariner Energy, Incorporated, et al. v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2013
• Cause No. 2010-15225, Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. v. KCS Resources, LLC, 129th District Court, Harris County, Texas, 2016
• Civil Docket No. 71151-A, Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. v. KCS Resources, LLC, 42nd Judicial District Court, DeSoto Parish, Louisnana, 2015
• Case No. 14-13-00348-CV, Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. v. KCS Resources, LLC, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas, 2014
• Case No. 14-11-00712-CV, In re KCS Resources, LLC, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston Texas, 2011
• Cause No. L-19-0031-CV-B, Warwick-Athena, LLC and Texas Crude Energy, LLC v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP, 156th District Court, Live Oak County, Texas; lead counsel for Plaintiff Texas Crude Energy in action seeking (a) removal of oil and gas field Operator, (b) judgment establishing that Operator is required to drill wells in which all working interest owners elected to participate, and (c) damages. Amount in controversy $200,000,000+., 2021
• Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Maximino Garza, 371 S.W. 3d 157 (Tex. 2012), 2012
• In re Eckstein Marine Service, L.L.C., 672 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2012), 2012
• Cause No. 2017-CI-05774, McCombs Energy, Ltd. v. F4 Resources, L.P., et al., 224th District Court, Bexar County, Texas; lead counsel for Defendants in action seeking disgorgement damages of approximately $40,000,000 and unspecified damages for alleged breach of fiduciary duties; case settled on eve of trial for dismissal of all claims by Plaintiff and payment by Plaintiff of multi-million dollar amount to Defendants., 2021
• Cause No. 2017-17018, William H. Forney, Jr., et al. v. McCombs Energy, Ltd., 334th District Court, Harris County, Texas; lead counsel for Plaintiffs, former executives of Defendant, in action seeking payment of unpaid compensation and other benefits in approximate amount of $35,000,000; lead counsel for same Plaintiffs in same action in defending counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeking damages of approximately $50,000,000; case settled on eve of trial for substantial multi-million dollar payment to clients by Defendant, and no payment by clients to Defendants on Defendants' counterclaims., 2021
• Millennial Services LLC v. MBM Ventures if IL, LLC, et al., 333rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, 2019
• Cause No. L-13-0061-CV-B, Texas Crude Energy, LLC, et al. v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP, et al., 156th District Court. Live Oak County, Texas; lead counsel for Plaintiff Texas Crude Energy in action (a) seeking judgment that overriding royalty interests owned by affiliate of Texas Crude could not be extinguished by new or amended oil and gas leases entered into by Burlington, and (b) seeking judgment that elections by Texas Crude to participate in the drilling of new oil and gas wells were timely made under Joint Operating Agreement. Partially settled on eve of trial with Burlington agreeing to relief sought by Texas Crude Energy and payment by Burlington of millions of dollars in attorneys' fees and expenses. Amount in controversy; $500,000,000 - $750,000,000. Remainder of case, concerning post-production costs deducted by Burlington from overriding royalty payments to affiliate of Texas Crude Energy, currently pending and to be set for trial in 2022., 2021
• Civil Action No. 4:08-cv-02343, The York Group, Inc. v. Wuxi Taihu Tractor Company, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division; lead counsel for Defendants Wuxi Taihu Tractor Company, et al. in action to enforce permanent injunction barring Defendant Wuxi Taihu Tractor Company from manufacture and importation of certain burial caskets into the United States and barring Defendant Wuxi Taihu Tractor Company from other alleged unfair competition practices; amount in controversy $10,000,000+., 2021
• Case No. 17-0266, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP v. Texas Crude Energy, LLC, et al, Supreme Court of Texas, 2019
• Case No. 13-16-00248-CV, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP v. Texas Crude Energy, LLC, et al., Thirteenth Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi, Texas; lead counsel for Appellee Texas Crude Energy in appeal by Burlington Resources of summary judgment granted against Burlington Resources by trial court in case concerning deductibility by Burlington of post-production costs from overriding royalty payments to Texas Crude Energy; summary judgment upheld on appeal., 2017
• In re Air Disaster at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, on 8/29/90, 81 F.3d 570 (5th Cir.(Tex.) April 29, 1996); lead counsel for Defendant General Electric Company in appeal by Plaintiffs of summary judgment granted against Plaintiffs by trial court in action stemming from crash of Air Force C5A shortly after takeoff from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany; summary judgment in favor of client General Electric upheld on appeal; amount in controversy $50,000,000.
• Cause No. 2014-02648, Spitzer Industries, Inc. v. Weatherford U.S., L.P., 80th District Court, Harris County, Texas, 2016
• Case No. 01-16-00899-CV, Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. Spitzer Industries, Inc., Court of Appeals for First District, Houston, Texas, 2017
• Apache Corp. v. Moore,891 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.App.-Amarillo July 29, 1994)
• Tom L. Scott, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 556 (Tex. October 24, 1990)
• Khan v. Trans Chemical Ltd., 178 Fed.Appx. 419 (5th Cir.(Tex.) May 05, 2006)
• Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc., 725 F.2d 970 (1984)
• Swank v. Sverdlin, 121 S.W.3d 785 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.) September 04, 2003)
• Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co. (America) Inc., 654 F.2d 302 (1981)
• Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth, 943 S.W.2d 436 (Tex. April 18, 1997)
• Perez v. Lockheed Corp., 88 F.3d 340 (5th Cir.(Tex.) July 05, 1996)
• Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. October 24, 1990)
• In re Eckstein Marine Service L.L.C., 672 F.3d 310 (5th Cir.(Tex.) February 22, 2012)
• Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 755 S.W.2d 170 (1988)
• Nelson v. Williams, 135 S.W.3d 202 (Tex.App.-Waco March 24, 2004)
• Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc., 643 F.2d 353 (1981)
• Apache Corp. v. Moore, 960 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.App.-Amarillo July 31, 1997)
• Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc., 469 F.Supp. 1 (1979)
• Nelon v. Mitchell Energy Corp., 941 F.Supp. 73 (N.D.Tex. August 28, 1996)
• Bareford v. General Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir.(Tex.) September 16, 1992)
• American Precision Vibrator Co. v. National Air Vibrator Co.,764 S.W.2d 274 (1988)
• Beverick v. Koch Power, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 145 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.) December 29, 2005)
• Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc., 687 F.2d 129 (1982)
• John Wood Group USA, Inc. v. ICO, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 12 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.) March 09, 2000)
• Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc., 664 F.2d 480 (1981)

Representative Clients

• Pierce & O’Neill is representing these leading players in the Texas energy sector in a breach of contract lawsuit against Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP (owned by ConocoPhillips Company). The primary issue in case is whether by renewing, extending or modifying oil & gas leases, Burlington is able to extinguish overriding royalty interests owned by clients in numerous oil and gas leases in the highly productive “Eagle Ford Shale” area in south Texas. A secondary issue in the case is whether an oil and gas “Operator” is entitled to deduct “post-production costs” from payments to owners of overriding royalty interests. A high-profile and widely followed case by oil and gas attorneys, oil and gas companies, landowners and holders of overriding royalty interests in the State of Texas, for several reasons. First, the contract involved in the case is a standard form “Joint Operating Agreement” universally used in the oil and gas business. Thus, the case has extremely wide applicability. Second, the amounts of money associated with overriding royalties are frequently very large. As a result, an Operator’s ability to extinguish overriding royalties is widely important on a significant scale. Third, there are few issues more closely followed in the oil and gas business than the deductibility of post-production costs from overriding royalty payments. $500 million+, 2022
• Pierce & O’Neill was personal and insurance coverage counsel in this case, which related to a refined products pipeline that ruptured and released a substantial volume of refined product near Birmingham, Alabama. CECO had performed maintenance on the pipeline a little over a year prior to the incident. The operator of the pipeline claimed CECO’s negligence in performing the maintenance caused or contributed to the pipeline rupture. The operator pursued litigation against CECO seeking to recover substantial damages arising from the rupture of the pipeline. We settled the case in August 2022. $30 million+, 2022
• Pierce & O’Neill was lead defense counsel for BPX in this high-profile case, which saw approximately 60 landowners in DeWitt County, Texas sue BPX and others for personal injury, property damage, nuisance, and environmental cleanup and remediation related to a large-scale incident involving loss of control of an oil and gas well, which took place in October 2019. The well flowed uncontrolled for approximately three weeks. Residents in the immediate vicinity were evacuated and relocated for a period of time following initial loss of control of the well. We settled the lawsuit in June 2022. $50 million +, 2022
• PetroChina International (America), Inc. is a subsidiary of global energy company PetroChina International Co. We represented this client in federal court in Houston, Texas, in an action for breach of contract against a company that failed to accept and pay for a shipment by sea of anhydrous ethanol to be delivered in Brazil. The case involved the novel issue of what constitutes proper service under the Hague Convention of a court-issued summons and the plaintiff’s complaint upon a foreign company in Brazil. It also pivoted on the issue of whether e-mails exchanged between the parties formed part of their contract. $2.5 million +, 2021
• Our client, a community-based company providing in-home hospice care throughout the United States, and based in Denver, Colorado, with an office in The Woodlands, Texas (a 200,000 member community located 25 miles north of Houston, Texas), has been sued for the alleged illegal solicitation of employees of the plaintiff and for the alleged theft of trade secrets from the plaintiff. The two organizations involved in this case are two of the most significant hospice companies that provide such services. This case is essentially an attack on our client’s business practices, in an effort to eliminate or substantially lessen our client’s ability to compete., 2022
• We represented Amber Harvest in a matter against Marathon Oil Eagle Ford LLC (an affiliate of Marathon Oil Corporation), which withheld payments of overriding royalties from our client. Amber Harvest claimed that Marathon was not legally entitled to withhold such payments. This case involved the novel application of the “voluntary payment rule” under Texas law to the payment of overriding royalty interests in oil and gas properties. Marathon had previously made such payments to our clients but then “clawed them back” by deducting them from ongoing payments. The issue in the matter was whether Marathon, having voluntarily made the payments in the past, was entitled to recoup them out of future payments. $20 million+ We are also acting for Amber Harvest in a lawsuit relating to the extent of the overriding royalty interest of Amber Harvest, LLC in specific oil and gas producing acreage in south Texas. This case involves competing oil and gas leases purportedly covering the same acreage. The issue in this matter is which lease covers the specific acreage in question, and the oil and gas revenue from that acreage. $5-10 million, 2021
• This is an action brought in federal court in Houston, Texas by The York Group, Inc. seeking enforcement of a prior state court judgment obtained by York against Wuxi Taihu Tractor Company, Ltd. (Pierce O’Neill was not involved in the prior state court action in which the judgement was obtained.) Both companies are manufacturers of caskets. The state court judgment sought to be enforced by The York Group permanently enjoined our client from manufacturing or selling lookalike caskets in the United States. In this matter, The York Group seeks damages from Wuxi Taihu for our client’s alleged violation of the state court judgment. This case has involved novel issues relating to the legitimacy of the underlying state court judgment, and specifically whether under Texas law, a defendant company can make an appearance in a state court action pro se, rather than through an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. $10-20 million, 2022
• In March 2017, Jack O’Neill – thanks to his prowess in the courtroom – was instructed by four former McCombs Energy Ltd. executives to sue the company’s partnership, its general partner and Red McCombs alleging they were owed “revenue distributions” under different agreements. This was a high-profile and contentious dispute involving a major player in the Texas energy sector. Houston-based McCombs Energy was created to make investments in oil and gas ventures on behalf of Red McCombs and his family. Forbes calculates McCombs has a $1.6 billion net worth. McCombs Energy counter-sued our clients, accusing them of taking “trade secrets” to launch a competing business, back-dating agreements and stealing through self-dealing that included granting oil and gas interests to themselves that are "carried" and paid once they become profitable. Cases were pending in both Houston and San Antonio. However, we were able to settle the dispute favorably just days before a trial was due to begin in the State District Court of San Antonio. $40 million, 2021
• Due to our reputation as a skilled trial law firm, Pierce & O’Neill was approached by a lawyer at another firm to assist with the representation of 24 doctors who were being sued for alleged fraudulent transfer of assets. This case is noteworthy because the plaintiff who had obtained an $11,000,000 medical malpractice judgment against a doctor and the doctor’s employer in a previous medical malpractice action, was seeking to collect this judgment from 24 other doctors. They practiced medicine with the same company that employed the doctor against whom the previous judgment was obtained, and, following that judgment, allegedly denuded the company of assets, rendering the company incapable of paying the judgment. Kenneth Morris, a Houston-based attorney who was not involved in the underlying medical malpractice suit but who now represents the doctors, retained us as co-counsel. This is a well-known case in the Houston medical community, since most doctors practice in groups or companies they have formed – posing the question of whether such doctors can be held liable for the medical malpractice of a doctor with whom they work. $11 million, 2022
• Pierce & O’Neill is further acting for Texas Crude Energy and Amber Harvest in a first-of-its-kind breach of contract lawsuit against Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP. This case is widely-followed in the oil and gas industry in Texas because of the primary issue involved in the case, which is whether an oil and gas Operator under a standard form Joint Operating Agreement can elect to participate in the drilling of oil and gas wells but then refuse to drill the wells in which it has elected to participate, in alleged violation of the Joint Operating Agreement, subjecting the Operator to removal as Operator under the Agreement. The importance of the issues involved in this case to the oil and gas industry cannot be overstated, since ultimately, the issues involve an Operator’s ability to control development of oil & gas fields. $300 million +, 2022
• Representative clients and references are available upon request to [email protected]., 2020

Honors

• Martindale-Hubbell® "AV Preeminent" Rating, the highest peer rating standard. This is given to attorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise, communication skills, and ethical standards by their peers, Martindale-Hubbell
• Recognized in Chambers USA among the leading Commercial Litigation attorneys, 2024, Chambers USA
• Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers, 2024, Lawdragon
• Recognized in Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for Commercial Litigation, 2022, 2024-2025, Lawdragon
• Selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America in Commercial Litigation, 2014-2025, BL Rankings
• Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America as a leading practitioner in Commercial Litigation, Appellate Law, and Oil & Gas Law – Litigation, 2014–2025, Best Lawyers
• Selected for inclusion in Texas Super Lawyers, 2003 - 2018, Super Lawyers

Educational Background

• University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1969, cum laude, 1969

Scholarly Lectures / Writings

• Author, “Legal Consequences and Ethical Implications of Physical Evidence Spoliation,” Institute for Energy Law of the Center for American and International Law, 9th Annual Energy Litigation Conference, October 12, 2010
• Co-Author, "Valuation of Oil Royalties:  From the Perspective of the Payor," 47 Institute on Oil & Gas Law, 7 TAX'N 6-1 (Matthew Bender, 1996)
• Co-Author, "Damages," 14 The Advocate 362 (1995)
• Co-Author, "Injunctive and Monetary Relief in Class Actions in the Fifth Circuit," State Bar of Texas Antitrust Business Litigation Section Report (April, 2002)

• Gas
• Natural Resources
• Oil
• Pipeline
• Transportation