Represented client in a malicious prosecution claim against the United States to remedy a wrongful prosecution initiated fourteen years prior. In 1999, Nolan’s eventual client and various co-defendants were wrongfully indicted for allegedly handling or transporting hazardous waste in violation of federal laws. The United States eventually dismissed the charges approximately four years later, when a federal district court excluded the testimony of a “confidential informant” who would have served as the United States’ key witness. Shortly thereafter, a co-defendant from the criminal prosecution initiated a civil claim against the United States for malicious prosecution, premised on the United States’ decision to pursue the charges based on accounts from the unreliable informant. Nolan’s eventual client declined to join that malicious prosecution suit, because legal principles made it evident there was no good faith basis to do so. That action nonetheless drug on for years, when a series of fortuitous events revealed criminal investigative agents for the United States had manipulated evidence and misled other United States representatives to procure the indictment in 1999. On behalf of his by-then client, Nolan filed a malicious prosecution claim against the United States in August 2013—approximately ten years after the criminal charges had been dismissed. A federal district court dismissed the claims as time barred. Nolan appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where he briefed and presented oral argument to persuade the court the United States fraudulently concealed key facts necessary for the malicious prosecution claim to have accrued. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case, reviving the malicious prosecution claim.

Represented client in action to recover enhanced attorneys’ fees to remedy the United States’ inappropriate attempts to enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Munsch Hardt’s client was the target of a Department of Labor (DOL) investigation and eventual civil enforcement action, wherein the DOL alleged the client mischaracterized workers under the FLSA. The DOL initially sought civil penalties against the client, which were roughly equivalent to the Company’s entire net worth. A team of Munsch Hardt attorneys obtained summary judgment dismissal of the DOL’s enforcement action, then sought to recover attorneys’ fees under provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act. The district court awarded fees under a provision that caps recoverable fees, but declined to award fees under a provision reserved for situations in which the United States acts in “bad faith.” The United States appealed the fee award made against it, and Nolan cross-appealed on behalf of the client requesting the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rule the more punitive bad faith provision had been triggered. The Fifth Circuit agreed and ruled the United States indeed had conducted the investigation and enforcement action in bad faith, reversing the district court.

Represented a 107-year old, national civil rights organization in federal lawsuit to enjoin unauthorized use of its service marks. Nolan’s client authorizes public service organizations serving local communities to represent affiliation with the national entity only subject to contractual terms of affiliation. Absent the contractual agreement, the local entities have no rights to use the national entity’s service marks. Notwithstanding this prohibition, a local entity that had been “disaffiliated” from Nolan’s client refused to accede to its disaffiliation and discontinue use of the client’s service marks. This prompted the client to seek preliminary injunctive relief from a federal district court. Nolan’s litigation team secured the relief—enforcing the disaffiliation and prohibiting further service mark infringement pending final resolution on the merits. 

Obtained a favorable ruling for a client in a case that addressed a fundamental aspect of contract law and asked the court to revisit the implied-revocation doctrine for the first time since 1947. The main issue in this contract dispute was whether a purported offer to settle a debt for a reduced sum was accepted before it was revoked. The case’s rulings were appealed and reversed several times before being reviewed by the Texas Supreme Court, which issued its verdict in January 2022.