GUILLERMO “MEMO” ALARCON
Guillermo “Memo” Alarcon focuses on general civil litigation. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of areas. Memo has experience in cases involving real estate, oil and gas, administrative law, construction, partnership disputes, and other complex business disputes. Memo has handled cases in federal and state court both at the trial and appellate level.
Memo served as a judicial law clerk for Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Briefed and argued on behalf of a landowner in an administrative appeal from the Railroad Commission of Texas. The case involved the legality of certain types of horizontal wells and the Railroad Commission’s permitting process. A video of the oral argument can be seen here.
Obtained an emergency order from a court of appeals halting the construction of an oil and gas road on the client’s property. A copy of the emergency motion can be found here and the court’s order granting the motion can be found here.
Filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the winning side at the Supreme Court of Texas in a case involving a land owner’s ability to challenge the validity of a tax foreclosure sale after the statute of limitations has expired. The Supreme Court ruled that when a landowner does not receive adequate notice of the foreclosure sale, the landowner can later challenge the sale, even after the expiration of the state of limitations. The amicus briefs can be found here and here, and the Supreme Court’s opinion can be found here.
Part of a team representing a real estate developer that obtained reversal of a trial court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration provision contained in the Declaration of a condominium regime. The court’s opinion can be found here.
Real Estate, Title, and Construction Disputes
Represented a mineral owner in a challenge to a 20-year-old property tax foreclosure sale.Obtained a summary judgment in favor of the landowner on the grounds that the mineral owner did not receive constitutionally adequate notice of the foreclosure sale. Obtained summary judgment in a case involving the validity of an option contract covering agricultural land.
Defended developer in dispute with homeowners association over ownership rights under declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Achieved summary judgment dismissal of claims against client.
Assisted in representing the owner of a hotel located in downtown Austin in a design and construction defects case. Case resulted in favorable settlement.
Assisted in representing a real estate developer in a case involving defective construction of a wet pond and other storm water infrastructure. Case resulted in favorable settlement.
Represented landowner in dispute with oil and gas lessee regarding surface use. Case resulted in favorable settlement.
Represented multiple clients in cases involving title to mineral, surface interests, deed interpretation, adverse possession, boundary disputes, etc.
Assisted in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of a real estate developer in a case involving a person who injured herself on the developer’s property.
Assisted in removing a case to federal court and obtaining a dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
Represented the purchaser of defective industrial machinery against the manufacturer.
Assisted in representing partner in a limited partnership regarding claims for breach of fiduciary duty and usurpation of partnership opportunity.
Pro Bono Work
In addition to maintaining a busy practice, Memo always tries to be handling at least one pro bono case. Some of these cases have required extensive litigation. For example, Memo represented an Austin family in a lawsuit against individuals who claimed to have purchased an undivided interest in the family’s home. As another example, Memo successfully defended a mother against a lawsuit by a sperm donor who claimed to have parental rights. This case was one of first impression for Texas courts and involved much briefing on issues of family and constitutional law. After a trial, the court ruled in the mother’s favor.