As a companion to the Fifth Court’s recent opinion in Aflalo v. Harris, which addressed a home seller’s damages when the contract price exceeded the market price, the Texas Supreme Court recently decided MSW Corpus Christi Landfill, Ltd. v. Gulley-Hurst, LLC, which involved the opposite situation:

“When the property’s market value at the time of breach exceeds the contract price, the correct measure of benefit of the bargan damages is the difference between the promised contract price and what the seller received.

No. 21-1021 (Tex. March 24, 2023) (per curiam) (emphasis in original).

The Fifth Court found an abuse of discretion by not reinstating a case after a DWOP, (a matter evaluated under the same standard as “conscious indifference” under Craddock), stating:

The record of the hearing on the motion to reinstate shows the Weldas’ counsel relied on the trial court’s statement at a pretrial hearing that “you probably won’t get reached” on the day of trial to explain his failure to appear at the October 6 trial. Thus, counsel’s testimony established he mistakenly believed that trial would not proceed on October 6 and thus failed to appear for trial. When an explanation is reasonable, as we have here, a trial court abuses its discretion in failing to reinstate. Under these circumstances, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the Weldas’ motion to reinstate to be overruled by operation of law.

Welda v. Mangavalli, No. 05-21-00145-CV (March 23, 2023) (mem. op.).

The concept of estoppel is recognized by modern Texas law in many distinct doctrines: quasi-estoppel, equitable estoppel, judicial estoppel, etc. And sometimes, just saying the right words at the right time creates an estoppel, as occurred in a recent Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opinion where this exchange occurred about a key jury instruction:

Held: “The record reflects Appellant specifically asked the trial court to ensure that the jury be instructed they had to agree ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Hogarth was an accomplice. We hold that Appellant, once he stated ‘I’m good’ with the instruction, is estopped from thereafter claiming that the instruction was improper.” Ruffins v. State, No. PD-0862-10 (Tex. Crim. App. March 29, 2023). I thank my friend Doug Gladden, a keen observer of Texas criminal law, for drawing this case to my attention.

A recent order in a long-running commercial dispute illustrates the challenge of crafting protective orders in Texas state court: “On January 24, 2023, we transferred sealed volumes 9 and 10 of the clerk’s record filed in appellate cause number 05-13-01700-CV into this appeal. We gave the parties an opportunity to obtain a sealing order in compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a and cautioned that we would order the volumes unsealed should the parties fail to file either a sealing order or status report by February 23, 2022.” At that point, having not received either one, the court ordered the volumes unsealed. Orca Assets GP v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 22-40043-CV (March 23, 2023) (order).

Olivares v. Chevron Phillips Chem.Co. distinguishes two closely related doctrines about the limits of judicial power, which are distinguished procedurally:

“Unlike the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, exclusive remedy is an affirmative defense. As an affirmative defense, exclusive remedy should not be disposed of with a motion to dismiss such as a plea to the jurisdiction; it should instead be raised through a motion for summary judgment or proven at trial. ‘Thus, pursuing the exclusive-remedy defense through a plea to the jurisdiction ‘is problematic and not to be encouraged.’”

No. 05-22-00057-CV (March 14, 2023) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).

In a dissent from a dismissal order in Chapman v. Doe, Justice Jackson questioned whether the Supreme Court had become too quick to vacate judgments, noting, inter alia, that “our common-law system assumes that judicial decisions are valuable and should not be cast aside lightly, especially because judicial precedents ‘are not merely the property of private litigants,’ but also belong to the public and ‘legal community as a whole.'” (reviewing United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950)).

As she was the sole dissenter on this point, her views are apparently not shared by a majority of that court, but her analysis is still thought-provoking and deserves study, as it examines a part of the appellate process that often goes largely unnoticed. Thanks to Ben Taylor for drawing my attention to this one!

Aflalo v. Harris arose from a contract to sell a house. The question was (generally) how to calculate the value of the house at the contractually specified sales time, and (specifically) when a later resale of a home can be probative of that value. The Fifth Court reviewed the specific facts of this resale to determine that it was probative, discussing and distinguishing Barry v. Jackson,  309 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.–Austin 2010, no pet.) (LPHS represented the successful appellant in this case.)

Ryan, an accounting firm, made a claim on its professional liability policy for losses caused by a rogue director’s submission of fraudulent tax returns. The insurer acknowledged an obligation to pay for losses resulting from employee “theft,” but instead:

“… maintain[ed] that that Weaver did not unlawfully take money from Ryan but that, instead, he started a chain reaction that caused money to improperly flow from the taxing authorities to Ryan’s clients, to Ryan, and then to Weaver and other employees.”

The Fifth Court found coverage for $346,612 paid to the director in bonuses, as an “unlawful taking” of those funds by him, and remanded for further consideration of related issues. Ryan, LLC v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 05-22-00286-CV (March 13, 2023) (mem. op.).

The Legislature is in session; thus, legislators are seeking continuances of trial settings pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 30.003. While the trial court in In re Jones did not expressly deny a state senator’s request for a legislative continuance, it implicitly denied it by, inter alia, setting a status conference and making a docket entry that said “Proposed Order Denied,” That was sufficient to justify mandamus relief, since a proper motion had been made under section 30.003 and relator would not have an adequate remedy by appeal. No. 05-23-00070-CV (March 10, 2023) (mem. op.).

US Bank “prayed for a declaration that [appellant’s] equitable title was subject to US Bank’s lien.”

But US Bank pleaded a suit to quiet title as its cause of action. “In such a suit, the plainitff has the burden to show (1) an interest in a specific property, (2) title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant, and (3) the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable.”

Because that claim didn’t match the requested relief, the Fifth Court reversed summary judgment for the bank. TFHSP, LLC v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 05-22-00002-CV (March 8, 2022) (mem. op.).

The interplay between appellate lawyers and courts (“we need the transcript now!”) and trial-court reporters (“I have twenty other transcripts due this month!”) is part of daily life in appellate practice. The situation in In the Interest of B.Q.L. goes to a whole other level, however, and presents a textbook application of Tex. R. App. 34.6. The Fifth Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, due to the lack of a reporter’s record, when the following facts were established in trial-court proceedings:

(1) Atkins [court reporter] testified she was not present at the trial held on June 8, 2021; (2) her testimony was untruthful; (3) Atkins was the reporter for the trial; (4) Atkins stated she has no notes from the trial; (5) Mother is not at fault for the reporter’s record not being transcribed; (6) the attorneys state the record is necessary to the appeal’s resolution; and (6) the record cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties. 

No. 05-21-01108-CV (March 6, 2023) (mem. op.).

Litigation between two parties about the ownership of a valuable Ferrari ended with a final judgment that awarded clean title to the car–except, lienholder Truist Bank was not joined as a party. Truist filed a bill of review; as the Fifth Court explained: “Ordinarily, a bill of review involves an independent action by a party to the former case. A nonparty, however, has standing to bring a bill of review if it had a then-existing legal right or interest that was prejudiced by the prior judgment.” The Court went on to reverse and render judgment for Truist on its bill, observing:

“Truist Bank asserted a meritorious defense based upon its unreleased priority lien, its possession of the original title to the Ferrari, and its challenge to Loyola’s right to relief in [another related] lawsuit. On this record, we are not persuaded by Loyola’s 2.403 Business and Commerce Code argument that, as a matter of law, he had a right to clear title, and we decline to so determine. … Truist Bank was prevented from establishing or protecting its priority lien rights by Loyola’s wholesale failure to serve, join, or notify Truist Bank in the … suit.”

Truist Bank v. Loyola, No. 05-21-00206-CV

The issue in Harry Hines Millennium Market Place LLC v. Pawn TX, Inc. was whether a commercial tenant vacated the leased premises on May 31, 2018.

The tenant’s principal testified that it did so, and also offered testimony about how it “gutted the showroom …, moved inventory and all pawns …, pulled down fixtures and back racks,” and made its last pawn-shop transaction on the premises on May 30.

The Fifth Court found the landlord’s contrary testimony to be conclusory (that the tenant “failed to vacate the premises and remained in possession of the Property for an additional two (2) months”). The Court also rejected the landlord’s argument that termination was ineffective absent formal notice, as the lease did not impose such a requirement and the common law does not otherwise impose one. (The Court also declined to consider several photographs submitted along with the landlord’s brief because they were not in the record.) No. 05-21-00778-CV (Feb. 28, 2023) (mem. op.).

The Baroque rules surrounding special-exception practice led to reversal in J.G. v. Jones, a claim by “J.G.” against the owner of the Dallas Cowboys alleging unwanted physical contact. In particular, the Fifth Court held:

• Preservation. Where, as here, the plaintiff amended in response to a special-exceptions order, the plaintiff preserved error by, inter alia, opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court distinguished a 1993 opinion in which the plaintiff did not amend in response to a similar order.
• Merits. The Court noted that of six deficiencies identified in the special exceptions, only two were challenged in the motion to dismiss. As to the location of the alleged conduct, the court found that her revised description “was at least a good faith attempt” that could not support dismissal; as to the use of initials, the court noted that “[a]ppellees do not dispute that they were informed of appellant’s identify before the trial court ruled on their motion to dismiss.”

No. 05-22-00215-CV (Feb. 27, 2023) (mem. op.). The Dallas Morning News recently reported on the case.

In the case of In re Commitment of Robinson, a civil-commitment case about a sexually violent individual, the trial court granted a directed verdict that the defendant was a “repeat sexually violent offender” and included an instruction to that effect in the jury charge. In a holding that likely has little effect outside this specific procedural setting, the Fifth Court found no plain error from that particular instruction in this specific case. No. 05-21-00795-CV (Feb. 23, 2023).

On a second appeal after an earlier remand from the Texas Supreme Court, the once-successful plaintiff in Credit Suisse AG v. Claymore Holdings LLC sought judgment for “an additional $25,235,910.61 for secondary market purchases in addition to the $40 million in damages for fraudulent inducement.” The Fifth Court noted:

• “[t]he jury was not asked to determine liability as to the secondary market purchases; therefore, the record contains no liability or causation finding” to support such damages;
• “Claymore did not object to the absence” of a question on those matters, and did not try to submit one either;
• in the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, on matters tried to the bench, “[t]here is not a separate section for fraudulent inducement of secondary market purchases”;
• The trial court’s conclusion of law that awarded such damages did not make “an implicit finding and conclusion” about liability and causation;
• The supreme court did not address this topic in its prior opinion, and because “[t]he jury made no liability finding on the secondary market purchases … there was nothing for Credit Suisse to appeal at that stage in the proceedings.”

No. 05-21-00649-CV (Feb. 14, 2023) (mem. op.).

Desperate to hear the fabled song of the Sirens, but knowing full well that they steered sailors toward the rocks, Odysseus told his crew:

“[T]ake me and bind me to the crosspiece half way up the mast; bind me as I stand upright, with a bond so fast that I cannot possibly break away, and lash the rope’s ends to the mast itself. If I beg and pray you to set me free, then bind me more tightly still.”

He survived. Not so, the appellants in Bienati v. Cloister Holdings, LLC, who disclosed during argument that:

“… because the probable right to recovery issue could impact the merits of the entire case, the trial court ‘abated it until this Court weighed in on the merits of the temporary injunction and whether there’s a probable right to recovery.”

The court of appeals held: “We have repeatedly disapproved the practice of postponing the trial on the merits of a case to obtain a ruling on the appeal of a temporary injunction. This practice not only delays the ultimate resolution of the merits of the parties’ dispute but wastes judicial resources.” It thus dismissed the appeal. No. 05-22-00324-CV (Feb. 10, 2023) (mem. op.).

The classic question of “who” was central to Western Healthcare LLC v. Herda, which involved the role of a “contractual delay” provision as a defense to a suit alleging a failure to pay certain workers: “[Plaintiffs] contended that because the work stoppage at issue affected Ellwood, rather than WHC, it should not defeat their claims. But the contractual provision does not specify that a particular employer must undergo a work stoppage to trigger its application; Ellwood’s closure certainly stopped the Providers’ ability to work at its hospital, which was the work bargained for in their contracts.” No. 05-21-00603-CV (Feb. 10. 2023) (mem. op.) (emphasis added).

On Wednesday at noon, I am doing a virtual CLE for the Dallas Bar that reviews the key cases, since last spring, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas. You can register here and you can download (subject to last-minute revisions) my PowerPoint here. I hope you can join me!

Kirk v. Atkins enforced a straightforward arbitration agreement (my apologies for the tilt, which appears in the original record) with broad, “any dispute” language:despite similarly broad “all remedies” language in another section about remedies: Held: “[I]t is possible to harmonize and give effect to both provisions of the agreement. The ADR paragraph, in which the arbitration clause is found, controls the process of resolving disputes between the parties, while the remedies paragraph describes the substantive relief that may flow from decisions on those controversies.” No. 05-21-00639-CV (Feb. 1, 2023) (mem. op.).

In a Tarot deck, the “Magician” (right) has the power to transform. In the Fifth Court, however, the phrase “reasonable and necessary” is not a “magic word.”

In a construction-contract dispute, even though “no witness explicitly testified that the expenses incurred were reasonable and necessary,” the Court reversed a JNOV and reinstated judgment on the jury’s verdict when the evidence allowed the jury to infer that the costs incurred were reasonable and necessary. That evidence included:

• detailed invoices;
• presented by a witness with extensive relevant experience;
• with a contract-based incentive to not incur excessive expense;
• general consistency with an estimate presented by the other side.

Bosque v. Barbosa, No.05-22-00230-CV (Jan. 30, 2023) (mem. op.). (Congrats to my LPHS colleague Greg Brassfield who tried the underlying case and successfully argued this appeal!)

These events produced a triable fact issue about whether the parties renewed a lease:

• On March 1, Property Manager emails Tenant about lease renewal, noting that “rent will be increasing to $2,275/month” from the current $2,200 monthly amount.
• That same day, Tenant responds that “yes, I would like to renew the lease. I will follow up this weekend with more information.”
• On March 12, Tenant sent a lengthy email about problems with her air conditioning, claimed roughly $4000 dollars in damages as a result, and ended: “I still intend to renew the lease and this settlement offer does not constitute a counter offer or rejection to your lease renewal offer on March 1 ….”
• On March 13, Property Owners’ counsel sent a notice of termination.

The Fifth Court noted: “Under the common law, an acceptance may not change or qualify the material terms of the offer, and an attempt to do so results in a counteroffer rather than an acceptance.” Bismar v. Mitchell, No. 05-21-00104-CV (Jan. 27, 2023) (mem. op.).

Justice Emily Miskel recently published a good article in Headnotes about recent appellate opinions involving issues with virtual trial proceedings. You can read the article on page 16 of the online publication or in this screenshot.

One World Bank v. Miller presents a dispute between Miller, the buyer from a used-car dealership of a 2014 Ferrari 458 Italia (example of one, to the right), and the lender for the dealership, which sued the dealership for alleged misconduct in the sale of 27 exotic cars. As to Miller, the suit was unsuccessful, as he established himself to be a bona fide purchaser for value under UCC Article 9, and thus not subject to the lender’s security interest in the dealer’s inventory. The lender argued on appeal that the Certificate of Title Act applied because of irregularities in the transfer of title to Miller, but the Fifth Court rejected that argument, agreeing with other courts’ precedent that the Legislature had expressed a preference for the UCC controlling over the Title Act in the event of tension between them. No. 05-21-00705-CV (Jan. 20, 2023) (mem. op.)

Maersk v. Mgbeowula presented what Maersk (the shipping company) apparently considered to be a collection matter arising from a freight delivery to Nigeria, and what the defendant contended was a problem created by an agent acting without authority. When Maersk’s Texas-law contract claims encountered rough seas at trial, it sought leave to amend with a claim based on maritime law. The trial court denied that request and the court of appeals affirmed, declining to raise that ship by concluding (among other matters) that there had been no trial by consent of such a claim:

“[T]he evidence admitted at trial was submitted by Maersk in support of its claims for breach of contract and sworn account under Texas law. Because the evidence was relevant to the pleaded claims, we cannot conclude that a claim under maritime law was tried by consent. … This is particularly so in light of Mgbowula’s objection at the start of trial to the use of any exhibit to invoke maritime law. While the evidence offered by Maersk might be relevant to a cause of action under maritime law, this does not change the fact that the requested amendment asserted a new substantive matter that would have reshaped Maersk’s case.”

No. 05-21-00820-CV (Jan. 20, 2023).

A hard-fought forum dispute between two shoe businesses led to an unusual forum dispute in In re ASCIS Am. Corp.

Dueling lawsuits between ASCIS (the plaintiff in a California case) and Shoebacca (the plaintiff in a Dallas case) led to a decision by a Dallas district court to stay proceedings in deference to the California one.

ASCIS then served a subpoena on a Dallas-based attorney who had previously represented Shoebacca. Unsatisfied with the attorney’s responsiveness, ASCIS filed an ancillary proceeding in Dallas to enforce the subpoena. Shoebacca then intervened in that case, raising claims that ASCIS had already been stayed by a Dallas court in favor of their resolution in California.

The Fifth Court sided with ASCIS and granted mandamus relief to require the dismissal of the intervention. No. 05-22-00994-CV (Jan. 20, 2023) (mem. op.).

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.002(a)(3) authorizes venue “[i]n the county of the defendant’s principal office in this state, if the defendant is not a natural person.”

Case law further says that a corporation may have more than one principal office in Texas, and that to qualify as a “principal office” location, the plaintiff must show that “the employees in the county where the lawsuit was filed (1) are ‘decision makers’ for the company, and (2) have ‘substantially equal responsibility and authority’ relative to other company officials within the state and case law.”

Logical enough, but still short on specifics. That’s why the Fifth Court’s recent opinion in Deere & Co. v. Bernal, building on an earlier Fifth Court case about this statute, is a helpful contribution. After a detailed review of the record about the responsibilities of a Dallas-based John Deere manager, the court held:

We see no meaningful distinction from the facts described in Roach that Deere’s system of routing certain parts to certain destinations preempts any higher level day-to-day decision making by the manager of the Dallas regional distribution center. Schick’s affidavit and deposition testimony, described above, identified numerous areas—other than the routing of particular parts—in which the manager of the regional distribution center is the authoritative figure in managing the regional facility and its layers and departments of employees. Schick did not identify a decision maker of higher authority in Texas who made day-to-day decisions in running the company, the employees, and the facility than the manager of the Dallas regional distribution center. 

No. 05-22-00916-CV (Jan. 17, 2023) (mem. op.).

A family-law dispute about the rights to a dog (considered personal property under the relevant Texas law) provides a good example of legal-sufficiency review:

Barlow asserts that because the AKC Canine Partners Certificate of Enrollment, the Certificate of Registry, the microchip registration, the pet profile at Petland and the Bill of Sale for the Canine show her as the “owner,” as a matter of law, she is the sole owner of the Canine. Barlow does not cite any authority directly on point here, and we have found none. We conclude that this documentary evidence is some evidence of ownership, but it is not conclusive and does not automatically preclude ownership by another.

…

Other evidence established the Canine was purchased on June 10, 2019, at Petland. Barlow was working at Petland at that time. With Barlow’s employee discount, the purchase price for the Canine was $1,100. Richardson contributed $500 towards the purchase price. While Barlow claimed Richardson gave her the $500 as a gift, which she later offered to repay, Richardson claimed she made the payment in accordance with the parties’ joint decision to purchase the Canine. The evidence showed that while the parties were in a dating relationship, they each had possession of the Canine at various times and Richardson was primarily involved in taking the Canine to the veterinarian and provided considerable financial support of same. While Barlow characterized this arrangement and Richardson’s possession as dog sitting, Richardson claimed her possession was that of a joint owner and evidence of her ownership interest. While there was conflicting evidence on the ownership of the Canine, the trial court was the final arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses, and its determination regarding ownership of the Canine is supported by the evidence.

Barlow v. Richardson, No. 05-21-00844-CV (Jan. 17, 2023) (mem. op.).

The Fifth Circuit and Texas Supreme Court both recently addressed limitations issues in commercial cases:

• Civelli v. JP Morgan Securities involved an investor’s claim that JP Morgan wrongly transferred certain shares of stock in an oil company. The Fifth Circuit declined to apply the discovery rule, stating: “Any injury incurred from the J.P. Morgan defendants’ alleged negligence in transferring the shares without plaintiffs’ consent arose at the time of the transfer. Because Civelli admits that he knew by February 2014 that they had transferred the funds, the rule of discovery does not apply.” No. 21-20618 (Jan. 11, 2023).
• Marcus & Millichap v. Triex Texas Holdings LLC was a suit against a real-estate broker about the sale of a gas station. The Texas Supreme Court held: “It is undisputed that Triex knew it was injured in December 2012. The question before us is whether the discovery rule defers accrual of Triex’s cause of action until it knew that Marcus & Millichap caused its injury. We hold that it does not.” No. 21-0913 (Jan. 13, 2023) (per curiam).

This affidavit was conclusory about the alleged misrepresentations; thus it did not avoid summary judgment in an insurance-coverage dispute:Orange Cup Drive In LLC v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 05-21-00448-CV (Jan. 6, 2023) (mem. op.).

A deadline issue, based on the interplay of Tex. R. Civ. P. 202 and the TCPA, was resolved against the timeliness of a TCPA motion in In re Petition of Oak Creek Investments:

Rule 202 ensures that the persons to be deposed have at least 15 days’ notice of the hearing, served “in accordance with Rule 21a.” See id. But the rule does not condition effective service on the inclusion of a hearing date in the petition. We conclude that appellants’ TCPA motion, filed more than 60 days after service of appellees’ Rule 202 petition, was untimely.

No. 05-22-00477-CV (Jan. 6, 2013) (mem. op.).

Now available! My (free) e-book, “Originalism Ascendant,” which builds upon recent media appearances to describe where the Constitution finds itself, for the rest of the 2020s, after the overruling of Roe v. Wade.

Topics include:

• How clear are the guidelines for state laws about abortion activity in another state?
• Will Lochner make a comeback?
• If so, what body of academic thought will provide guidance for the courts?
• What would Alexander Hamilton really think about modern economic regulation?
• Who exactly are “the people’s elected representatives” referred to by the Supreme Court in Dobbs?

The “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” teaches that “42” is the Ultimate Answer.  That may be true for intergalactic hitchhikers, but “683” is the Ultimate Answer for Texas temporary-injunction practice:

Here, the January Injunction states the applicants “are entitled to the relief sought” and an injunction is “necessary to restrain [Bailey and Edamame] from taking actions prejudicial to Applicants’ rights.” It does not, however, specify the facts the trial court relied on to reach those conclusions or provide any reason why the applicants are entitled to the relief sought in their application. The January Injunction does not explain why the four actions being enjoined need to be enjoined or how those actions could prejudice Applicant’s rights. The January Injunction is, therefore, conclusory. Further, the January Injunction does not specifically explain how appellees will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and why they have no adequate remedy at law. These conclusory statements are insufficient to comply with the requirements of rule 683. 

Bailey v. Ramirez, No. 05-22-00072-CV (Dec. 30, 2022) (mem. op.) (applying, inter alia, Indep. Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Collins, 261 S.W.3d 792, 794–95 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)).

The Fifth Court reviewed a commercial, “triple net” lease in Gaedeke Holdings II v. Chait & Henderson, concluding: “Under the Lease, the fixed amount Uptown paid in the first calendar year of the Lease term does not have any effect on the computation of Uptown’s “Pro Rata Share of Basic Costs” after the first calendar year, and in years two and beyond, Uptown’s “Pro Rata Share of Basic Costs” is based on Gaedeke’s Basic Costs in 2016, subject only to the 6 percent year-over year limitation on increases to Gaedeke’s controllable Basic Costs in 2016.” No. 05-20-01048-CV (Dec. 29, 2022) (mem. op.). An interesting amicus brief discusses different kinds of commercial leases.

Coming next week! My (free) e-book, “Originalism Ascendant,” which builds on recent media appearances to describe where the Constitution finds itself for the rest of the 2020s after the overruling of Roe v. Wade. A link will be available on this blog.

The Theft Liability Act allows the recovery of fees by a successful defendant; therefore, “a ‘defendant may be a prevailing party when a plaintiff nonsuits without prejudice if the trial court determines, on the defendant’s motion, that the nonsuit was taken to avoid an unfavorable ruling on the merits.” (citation and emphasis omitted).

Absent such a finding, however, when a defendant nonsuits a TTLA claim after the filing of summary-judgment motions on other claims, a trial court’s decision to not award fees is not reversible error.

In the “Department of Subtle Hints,” the Fifth Court noted that findings of fact were requested but not made, but no appellate argument had been made on that procedural point. Centurion American Custom Homes, Inc. v. Crossroads Opportunity Partners LLC, No. 05-21-00025-CV (Dec. 28, 2022) (mem. op.).

The governor has appointed Hon. Emily Miskel to the vacant position on the Fifth Court. Judge Miskel brings a strong background in family law and community involvement to the Court. Welcome, now-Justice Miskel!

The supreme court is reviewing the Fifth Court’s case of Kansas City Southern Ry. v. Horton, a case that presents a mix of federal-preemption and Casteel issues. It will also review CAE SimuFlite v. Talavera, which presents a similar mix of substance (whether Texas recognizes a claim for educational malpractice) and procedure (Rule 91a’s proper role). The supreme court’s summary of issues appears here.

The supreme court has preliminarily approved this addition to the Tex. R. App. P. about the clerk’s record:

Hopefully, this change will make it easier to follow Tex. R. App. 43.5 (and its supreme court analog), which says: “When a court of appeals affirms the trial court judgment, or modifies that judgment and renders judgment against the appellant, the court of appeals must render judgment against the sureties on the appellant’s supersedeas bond, if any, for the performance of the judgment and for any costs taxed against the appellant.”

A contentious easement dispute led to, among other matters, a damages judgment for the defendant’s alleged barricading of an access road. The damages included delay costs incurred when a contractor charged an extra fee after a TRO stopped the process of paving the road. Applying DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1990), the Fifth Court found that those damages were not recoverable on this claim:

“The trial court’s temporary restraining order cannot be [defendant’s] breach. And to the extent [Plaintiff] argues the order was wrongful, she did not allege either of two possible actions for wrongful injunction, nor prove the elements of malicious prosecution.”

MQ Prosper North LLC v. Coulter, No. 05-20-00880-CV (Dec. 12, 2022) (mem. op.).

In re Torres granted relief in a failure-to-rule mandamus proceeding. The issue of the effect of COVID-19 came up in the Fifth Court’s review of the record, and the Court observed:

Although real parties Diaz and Galvan make the general claim that trial courts are facing staffing shortages and COVID-related delays, the record before this Court does not contain any indication that the COVID-19 pandemic has prevented the trial judge from ruling on the pending motion. … Indeed, as this Court has noted in a prior case, “courts across Texas—including this Court—have continued to fully tend to most business of the courts and serve the citizens of Texas while implementing safety precautions above and beyond recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and accommodating Covid-19-related exigencies.”

No. 05-22-00715-CV (Dec. 7, 2022) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).

The supreme court granted mandamus relief as to an overly broad request for cellphone data in the case of In re Kuraray America, holding:

[W]e conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering production of Kuraray’s employees’ cell-phone data for a six-week or four-month period without a showing that each employee’s use of his cell phone on May 18 or 19 could have been a contributing cause of the ethylene release. …

Plaintiffs argue that cell-phone data from days, weeks, and months before the release is relevant because Kuraray negligently failed to supervise its employees and failed to implement adequate policies and procedures to protect against cell-phone misuse. But Kuraray’s policies regarding cell-phone use and its alleged failure to supervise its employees are relevant only if there is some evidence that cell-phone use could have been a contributing cause of the release itself.

No. 20-0268 (Dec. 9, 2022).

The Fifth Court clarified what is, and isn’t, in the record when the resolution of a summary-judgment motion involves motions for reconsideration/new trial:

• “When a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed after a summary judgment motion is heard and ruled upon, the trial court may ordinarily consider only the record as it existed before hearing the motion for the first time.”
• BUT: “[A] trial court may accept summary judgment evidence filed late, even after summary judgment, as long as the court affirmatively indicates in the record that it accepted or considered it. Where the trial court affirmatively indicates on the record that it accepted or considered the evidence attached to a motion to reconsider, this court reviews ‘the summary judgment based upon the grounds and proof in both prejudgment and post-judgment filings.'” 

Chang v. Liu, No. 05-20-00977-CV (Nov. 23, 2022) (mem. op.) (citations pmitted).

A medical records prove-up affidavit in McGee v. Tatum said the following:
But that statement was insufficient to establish causation: “[N]othing in the record shows that Cruz is a medical professional or that she was testifying as an expert medical professional. Furthermore, Cruz’s statement is nothing more that a ‘bare proclamation that this one event caused another and is not enough to establish causation.’” No. 05-21-00303-CV (Nov. 28, 2022) (mem. op.).

The venue issue in 7R Owners Assoc. v. Prezas was whether the defendant’s “principal office” was located in Dallas County. The following testimony did not support an argument that it was located there, as opposed to Palo Pinto County:

Mr. Ruff testified in May 2022 that he lives in Dallas. And since 2013, he has worked approximately one or two days a week out of 7R’s office in Palo Pinto County. He said that he works on 7R matters during “that same timeframe,” and he spends the rest of the week working on “other matters.” Appellees argue that, because Mr. Ruff lives in Dallas and is 7R’s sole officer and employee, “to the extent that 7R does conduct ‘daily affairs’” when Mr. Ruff is not in the Palo Pinto County office, those affairs are “necessarily performed in Dallas County by Mr. Ruff.”

No. 05-22-00776-CV (Nov, 30, 2022) (mem. op.).

Louis XIV, the “Sun King” who ruled France from 1643 to 1715, allegedly claimed: “L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the State.”). If, however, Louis served as the governor of Texas rather than the French monarch, he could not say that:

“The claim that the Governor’s commissioning of temporary justices would be attributable to the State, the named plaintiff, misunderstands the nature and structure of Texas’s government. As Respondents concede in their July 13 letter, ‘Texas does not have a unitary executive.’ See In re Abbott, 645 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. 2022) (‘[T]he Texas Constitution does not vest the executive power solely in one chief executive. Instead, the executive power is spread across several distinct elected offices … .’)”

State of Texas v. Volkswagen AG, No. 21-0130 (Tex. Nov. 18, 2022).

The appellant in NFVT Motors v. Jupiter Chevrolet argued that it only needed to show that a noncompete was of appropriate breadth to obtain reversal. The appellee countered that it had also sought summary judgment on the ground that the noncompete lacked consideration and the plaintiff had no damages. The court of appeals agreed with the appellee, specifically noting: “We may not consult the reporter’s record of the summary judgment hearing to determine if the judgment is limited to certain grounds. Nor can we look to docket entries that ordinarily do not form part of the record that may be considered on appeal.” No. 05-21-01031-CV (Nov. 16, 2022) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).

In the mandamus case of In re Sunoco Retail LLC:

• “The record further reflects that a hearing took place on November 14, 2022, on real parties in interest’s motion to compel. Relators did not provide a transcript of this hearing, and they did not state that a transcript has been requested and will be provided. Instead, relators include a statement in their petition that ‘[n]o testimony was presented and no exhibits were offered into evidence at the hearing.'”;
• BUT: “In the order granting real parties in interest’s motion to compel, the trial court stated that it had considered ‘the pleadings, evidence, affidavits, and argument of counsel.’ Thus, the trial court’s order indicates that the November 14, 2022 hearing was evidentiary, despite relators’ statement to the contrary.” (cleaned up).

Because “relators make factual statements about what transpired at the November 14, 2022, and they rely upon these statements when arguing the trial court abused its discretion,” the Court concluded that it “cannot evaluate relators’ argument without a record of the hearing,” and thus rejected the mandamus petition. No. 05-22-01225-CV (Nov. 18, 2022) (mem. op.).

The Texas Supreme Court recently clarified the proper way to dismiss a matter that has become moot on appeal:

MTGLQ’s purchase of the property preceded Alsobrook’s appeal. As the court of appeals correctly concluded, no live controversy existed between the parties after the foreclosure, rendering Alsobrook’s claims moot. The court of appeals thus correctly concluded that dismissal was required. But, as explained, mootness on appeal requires vacatur of the underlying judgment as well as dismissal of the case. The court of appeals should have vacated the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the case.

Alsobrook v. MTGLQ investors, LP, No. 22-0079 (Nov. 18, 2022) (citations omitted). I salute 600Commerce friend Ben Taylor for his persistent advocacy about this and related matters.

The much-maligned TCPA, even after amendments that significantly restricted its scope, is still a powerful tool in a proper case. In Austin v. Amundson:

• The TCPA applied to the communications at issue because “TCPA case law is clear that criminal acts are matters of public concern”;
• Malice, a necessary element of the plaintiff’s reputational claims, was not established by clear and convincing evidence; particularly when a key police report “‘advised’ the police department the parties had ‘… ongoing civil issues since 2016′”;
• As to other claims, falsity was not established when, among other matters, a police department did not more than close a case without further action, making “no finding that [the party] did not drive recklessly”;
• And a third set of claims, about allegedly derogatory statement to customers, were “[m]issing … the facts of when, where, and what was said”.

The Fifth Court thus reversed the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, rendered judgment on the claims that it addressed, and remanded for consideration of fee-related matters as potentially required by the statute. No. 05-22-00066-CV (Nov. 15, 2022) (mem. op.).

The Fifth Court remanded for a new trial based on a voir dire error about the civil-commitment statute that gave rise to In re Commitment of Hill, 334 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. 2011): “Counsel then asked the entire panel: ‘would anyone find it hard to give someone who’s been diagnosed by an expert as a hebephile, and that is a sexual attraction to what is parapubescent or postpubescent children, a fair trial?’ The state objected ‘to an improper commitment and comment on evidence’ and the court sustained the objection. Appellant’s counsel asked to approach but the court said ‘No. I sustained the objection. Move on.'” In re Commitment of Revels, No. 05-21-00868-CV (Nov. 8, 2022) (mem. op.).

A long-running jurisdictional dispute, on remand from the Texas Supreme Court after that court’s resolution of a procedural issue, produced a thorough analysis of personal jurisdiction in Chen v. Razberi Technologies, Inc. Among other practical points, the opinion reminds that “[w]hile it is often relevant to the inquiry, the focus is on the relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, not the plaintiff, the forum, and the litigation.” (citation omitted, emphasis added).

Here, “The connection between the Modrys’ causes of action and Texas is not weak because, like the other investors, they claim to have suffered harm in Texas when they entered into the Stock Purchase Agreement in Texas with a Texas-based company as a result of its director’s and majority shareholder’s misrepresentations and omissions.” No. 05-19-01551-CV (Nov. 8, 2022).

By close but decisive margins, Hon. Nancy Kennedy and Hon. Maricela Moore have won election to the Fifth Court. Congratulations to these two new Justices!

Hon. Erin Nowell and Hon. Amanda Reichek were unsuccessful in their races for the Texas Supreme Court, so their service on the Fifth Court will continue for the balance of their terms. The Texas Lawbook has a thorough review of other appellate elections around the state.

Depending on how quickly the Governor fills the vacancy created by the resignation of Hon. Leslie Osborne, the Court may briefly be all-Democrat – completing the reshaping that began with the 2018 election of the “Slate of Eight.”

The issue in Lurks v. Designer Draperies was whether the employer of a driver who caused an accident – a Mr. Heitzmann – could be liable for exemplary damages because Heitzmann was a vice-principal.

Noting Heitzmann’s statements to a police officer, his deposition testimony about his work, and his assertion of the Fifth Amendment in response to several questions about his drinking on the job, the Fifth Court “assume[d], without deciding, [that] the summary-judgment evidence raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether Heitzmann was consuming alcoholic beverages at DDF’s workplace, that he was drinking with employees of DDF, and, perhaps, that someone encouraged him to drive.” 

The Court then held: “What is missing from the foregoing evidence and potentially available inferences, however, is more than a mere scintilla of evidence that Heitzmann’s drinking or decision to drive while intoxicated was referable to DDF’s business. Without this evidence, we cannot conclude Heitzmann’s alleged tortious actions may be attributed to DDF.” No. 05-21-00908-CV (Aug. 3, 2022) (mem. op.).

Kam v. Adams, an attorney-client dispute about a retainer agreement, produced reference points on basic aspects of summary-judgment practice:

• “Because Adams’s evidence serves only to raise a fact issue, Kam was not required to offer a response to the motion for summary judgment or contradictory proof. ‘In our summary judgment practice, the opponent’s silence never improves the quality of a movant’s evidence.’” (citation omitted).
• “Although Adams disputes that this was their understanding, he is an interested witness. For the testimony of an interested witness to establish a fact as a matter of law, there must be no circumstances in evidence tending to discredit his testimony. Such circumstances are presented here by Kam’s complete reliance on Thomas in the creation and negotiation of the retainer agreement, as well as the continued negotiations and apparent changes made to the agreement, including to the non-refundable fee specifically, after Kam signed it.”
• In the specific context of intent to form a contract: “Intent is a fact question uniquely within the realm of the trier of fact because it depends upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” (citation omitted).

No. 05-21-00871-CV (Nov. 3, 2022) (mem. op.).

A concurrence to the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of review in Lester v. Berg, No. 21-0775 (Nov. 4, 2022) reminded of the importance of following that court’s precedent (even while denying review of a court of appeals opinion that disagreed with it):

“It is fundamental to the very structure of our appellate system that this Court’s decisions be binding on the lower courts.” Dall. Area Rapid Transit v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1338, 273 S.W.3d 659, 666 (Tex. 2008). “[I]n reaching their conclusions, courts of appeals are not free to disregard pronouncements from this Court, as did the court of appeals here.” In re K.M.S., 91 S.W.3d 331, 331 (Tex. 2002) (citing Lofton v. Tex. Brine Corp., 777 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Tex. 1989) (“This court need not defend its opinions from criticism from courts of appeals; rather they must follow this court’s pronouncements.”)).

The Fifth Court found that the trial court exceeded the bounds of permissible discovery under the TCPA in In re Quality Cleaning Plus:

Although the trial court acknowledged at the August 29 hearing that it could order limited discovery under the TCPA, there is no indication in the record that the trial court considered the limitations of Section 27.006(b) when it entered its post-August 24 discovery orders. Instead, the trial court reasoned that Section 27.006(b) did not apply because the discovery was outstanding and due before Quality Cleaning filed its TCPA motion and, thus, the discovery was not suspended. But the statute does not provide such an exception.

No. 05-22-01053-CV (Oct. 31, 2022) (mem. op.) (emphasis added).

The clerk sent notice of judgment to an outdated address for counsel, after he had notified the court of the change, and took no further action when that notice was returned by the Post Office. The Fifth Court granted relief from that judgment in a restricted appeal in Getmeplacement LLC v. Wiese Indus., LLC, No. 05-21-00133-CV (Oct. 31, 2022) (mem. op.).

I’m in the newest issue of Park Cities People, talking about the “Poster Wars” under the new Texas law about posters that feature the national motto:

In 2018, a mentally disturbed individual scaled the six-foot fence around an apartment complex and killed a resident. Wang v. TREA Churchill affirmed summary judgment for the defense, reviewing several aspects of what constitutes sufficient proof of foreseeability in this setting. No. 05-21-00880-CV (Oct. 24, 2022) (mem. op.).

Grisaffi v. Rocky Mountain High presents an unusual situation involving the “one-satisfaction rule” (and the choice it requires between recovery of stock and damages for the loss of the same stock), the “mandate rule” requiring an election pursuant to that rule, and the effect of another proceeding arguably implicating the subject matter of this case. The majority affirmed, finding a faithful application of the mandate rule; a dissent had a different view about the import of the other action. No. 05-20-00538-CV (Oct. 18, 2022) (mem. op.).

The plaintiff in Kivowitz v. Dorfman sought to “remove his deceased parents’ remains from mausoleum crypts on Hillcrest’s property.” The defendants had a different view; the unfortunate cemetery operators were stuck in the middle. The resulting litigation contributes to the – body – of law about recoverability of attorneys’ fees in declaratory-judgment cases.

“Caught between competing demands and mindful of its statutory and contractual obligations,” the cemetery sought a declaratory judgment, and “took no position regarding appropriate disposition of the Decedents’ remains.”  The trial court issued a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff was right, and assessed attorneys’ fees of $191,245.25 against the cemetery pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act.

The cemetery appealed, noting that the (surprisingly detailed) provisions about the handling of human remains in the Health & Safety Code did not allow for the recovery of fees. The Fifth Court agreed and reversed, citing primarily MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660, 669 (Tex. 2009) (“[A] party cannot use the [Declaratory Judgments] Act as a vehicle to obtain otherwise impermissible attorney’s fees.”). Put another way, the plaintiff did not urn a fee award by his suit.

The Fifth Court’s recent opinion, In the Interest of CJP, makes a somewhat gloomy observation about a Texas Supreme Court decision to grant review, quoting the Texas Law Review‘s style manual:No. 05-22-00233-CV (Oct. 14, 2022) (mem. op.). The paper about internal operating procedure  on the supreme court’s website paints a less-gloomy picture, however:As do the reversal statistics for 2021 available from the Office of Court Administration:

The Texas Supreme Court has preliminarily approved a welcome new rule about the effect of requesting oral argument:

The Stantons sued a construction contractor who did work on a commercial property near their home. The contractor sought to compel arbitration, arguing that their claim implicated an arbitration agreement in its contract with the relevant subcontractor. But the Stantons countered with evidence that the excavation work at issue was performed under a separate contract, directly with the property owners.

The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The Fifth Court affirmed. It noted the principle that “a bilateral agreement to arbitrate under the AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.” But that said, “[t]he subcontract between [the general] and [the sub] is not a bilateral contract with the Stantons.” Therefore, the trial court retained the authority to determine arbitrability. Scott + Reid General Contractors, Inc. v. Stanton, No. 05-22-00400-CV (Oct. 7, 2022) (mem. op.).

In a ruling that arose from an unusual joint mandamus petition, and drew significant amicus attention from trial-focused organizations, the Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus relief on October 7 as to an order requiring a virtual trial:

The Onion, America’s Finest News Source, recently weighed in at SCOTUS with a brilliant amicus brief about First Amendment protection for parody; this excerpt summarizes the overall flavor:

An unusual feature of Texas’s Reconstruction-era constitution is that it places county prosecutors in the judicial branch of government rather than the executive. As a result, last December, the Court of Criminal Appeals found a law unconstitutional that attempted to give the Texas AG prosecutorial authority over certain Election Code violations. Last week that court denied rehearing – given the several individual opinions and extensive briefing in the matter, here is a link to the case generally, from which one can find the original opinion and the various documents related to rehearing.

The supreme court has approved a new set of statewide rules about local court rules. A comment to new Tex. R. Civ. P. 3a summarizes their key features:

In a “failure-to-rule” mandamus proceeding about counsel’s motion to withdraw, the Fifth Court held:

“We do not adopt a ‘six-month rule’ or ‘ten-month rule’ or fix any similar bright-line demarcation for cases in which parties seek mandamus relief to compel expeditious disposition of motions. We do not repeat the myriad considerations, referenced above, that guide decision of each unique mandamus petition. All we hold is that—based on particular facts and circumstances here—ten months from filing the motion to withdraw and six months from the trial court’s hearing of the motion without ruling presents an unreasonable time warranting mandamus relief.”

In re Robinson, No. 05-22-00579-CV (Sept. 23, 2022) (mem. op.)

Reminding that the Family Code has some unique features not found in the more general Texas Arbitration Act, “which are expressly designed to avoid subjecting parties in divorce cases to arbitration when the contract containing the agreement to arbitrate is invalid or unenforceable,” the Texas Supreme Court held in In re Ayad that “[t]o comply with these statutes, a trial court must: (1) try the issue by giving each party an opportunity to be heard on all validity or enforceability challenges to the contract containing the arbitration clause, as well as an opportunity to offer evidence concerning any factual disputes or questions of foreign law material to the challenges; and (2) decide the challenges before ordering arbitration.” No. 22-0078 (Sept. 23, 2022) (per curiam).

The agreement at issue was an “Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement,” but the Court’s ruling did not require it to address any matters about the substance of that agreement.

After a recent ruling about appropriate jurisdictional discovery in a stream-of-commerce case, the Fifth Court reviewed the merits of a special appearance in another such matter in Far East Machinery Co. v. Aranzamendi.  Applying the current state of the law, including recent relevant opinions from both the Texas and United State Supreme Courts, the Court found that the record as to the following alleged contacts was insufficient to support personal jurisdiction in Texas over a claim about natural gas leaks from allegedly defective pipe:

• “arranging for the shipping of its products to the Port of Houston;
• some or all of the pipe was marked “FEMCO HOUSTON TX” and Far East Machinery’s deputy manager admitted Far East Machinery marked the pipe “FEMCO”;
• Far East Machinery has a website accessible in Texas advertising that its products meet certain standards of the American Petroleum Institute, and Far East Machinery stated on the sales documentation that the pipe had been tested and met those specifications;
• Far East Machinery has been involved in litigation in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas; and
• Far East Machinery’s deputy manager travels to Texas once a year.”

No. 05-21-00267-CV (Sept. 13, 2022) (mem. op.) (bullet points added).

Today, a birthday cross-post from sister blog 600Camp:

Today 600Camp celebrates its 11th birthday! For old times’ sake, here is the 10th-anniversary post from last year. Stir up some Shrimp Remoulade to celebrate properly!

In In re Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics Ltd., a dispute about “stream of commerce” personal jurisdiction, the Fifth Court observed:

As the Texas Supreme Court recently explained in Christianson Air Conditioning and Plumbing, a products liability case, ‘information sought in jurisdictional discovery must be essential to prove at least one disputed factor that is necessary to the plaintiff’s proposed theory or theories of personal jurisdiction.’ In that case, the supreme court observed that simply inserting the phrase ‘in Texas’ or ‘in Texas field conditions’ into a topic, as the plaintiffs in that case did, would not make it essential to prove specific jurisdiction.”

(citations omitted). Applying those principles, the Court reviewed ten corporate-representative deposition topics and held: “[T]he topics are too broad as they seek non-essential information that will not support [Plaintiffs’] stream-of-commerce plus theory.” No. 05-22-00495-CV (Sept. 16, 2022) (mem. op.).

Among many other issues, a question in LSC Towers, LLC v. LG Preston Campbell, LLC was whether a lease unambiguously foreclosed an access-easement claim:

In a (literally) picture-perfect description of ambiguity, the Fifth Court found this diagram ambiguous when “what might be a drawn pathway leading to the cell-tower lot from the south is scratched out, the word ‘Access’ with an arrow pointing to that same area is not scratched out.” No. 05-20-00433-CV (Aug. 30, 2022) (mem. op.).

An unusual application of Hughes tolling appeared in White Nile Software v. Travis. The issue of who was entitled to act on behalf of a potential legal-malpractice client remained unresolved for a whopping seven years:

“Thus, rather than coming to a conclusion in 2011, White Nile’s legal malpractice claims in state court were in a legal limbo while Mandell’s bankruptcy proceedings continued, pending a final determination of authority or capacity to take action on behalf of White Nile …  This issue was only resolved when the order of the bankruptcy court that Mandel had no shares in White Nile became final in October 2018.”

The Fifth Court concluded that this potential claims was tolled, quoting Hughes: “Where “a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by the pendency of legal proceedings, the time during which he is thus prevented should not be counted against him in determining whether limitations have barred his right.” No. 05-20-00354-CV (Aug. 29, 2022) (mem. op.).

The appellee in Hartsfield v. Hartsfield Cabinet LLC relied on a detailed list of line-items to obtain summary judgment on damages. The Fifth Court was left wanting:

Here, there is no specificity or supporting documentation. The affiant fails to specify the owner of the tools, files, and computers, which files and tools were allegedly stolen and given away, or the software that was allegedly destroyed or made unstable on the laptops that were allegedly taken and returned. Although the affiant avers that he consulted with an unidentified forensic expert who concluded that software had been destroyed, the expert is not identified, nor is the cost of replacing and re-programming the software explained or substantiated.

No. 05-21-00896-CV (Sept. 8, 2022) (mem. op.).

The dispute in In re Brown involved a trial subpoena to a corporate-representative witness. The court of appeals granted mandamus relief, analogizing Tex. R. Civ. P. 199 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). The corporation, however, had also cited the general subpoena rule – Tex. R. Civ. P. 176 – and the supreme court remanded for consideration of those arguments:

Brown raised the argument that corporate-representative trial subpoenas are available under Rule 176 in both the trial court and the court of appeals. Brown observes that Rule 176.6(b) states that a corporation may “designate one or more persons to testify on its behalf as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization” in response to a valid subpoena “commanding testimony.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.6(b). He further notes that an appropriate corporate-representative subpoena may command a person to “attend and give testimony at a . . . trial.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.2(a).”

No. 20-0992 (Tex. Sep. 9, 2022).

In 1915, Albert Einstein published an article about the structure of spacetime as defined by general relativity. In 2022, the Fifth Court reviewed the structure of spacetime as defined by the “time-notice” rule for premises-liability cases, finding that rule unsatisfied with this proof:

Nicholson testified that she had been in the store “maybe a minute” before she fell. She testified that there was “a substance on the floor” that caused her to fall, but she did not know what the substance was “because it was clear. It didn’t have, like, a color to it. It was a clear substance on the floor.” She testified that she was not sure how large the substance was before she fell because after she fell, “it was on my clothing. Like, my clothing was wet, so I’m not sure how much was down on the floor.”’

Nicholson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 05-21-00110-CV (Sept. 7, 2022) (applying Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812, 814 (Tex. 2002)).

Newsom, Terry, & Newsom LLP v. Henry S. Miller Commercial Co. reviewed the trial of an attorney-malpractice claim based on an untimely designation of a responsible third party. The Fifth Court found reversible charge error in the following jury instruction as an impermissible comment:

In resisting a motion to strike a designation of a responsible third party, the Terry Defendants would not have been required to prove the plaintiffs’ case that there was fraud in the underlying transaction. They could rely on evidence of the proposed transaction, its failure, and the identity of a responsible third party as the defaulting buyer in resisting a motion to strike a designation of a responsible third party.

No. 05-20-00379-CV (Aug. 31, 2022) (mem. op.).

The Texas Supreme Court granted review in United Rentals v. Evans, a challenging Batson issue. The supreme court does not take many jury-selection cases, much less Batson ones, so the opinion promises to be of broad general interest for civil trial practice.

For August’s end-of-month summary by the Fifth Circuit Bar Association, I contributed a one-page article about preparation for oral argument, complete with action picture (right), joining a similar one contributed last month by Association president Tom Flanagan of New Orleans. If you belong to the BAFFC, I encourage you to write one of your own! And if you don’t belong you should, it’s a great resource and features an outstanding body of work about the Fifth Circuit by the able Walter Woodruff, also of New Orleans.

Awards of appellate attorneys’ fees have become more detailed in recent months, following a Texas Supreme Court that clarified the necessary proof requirements. Bucking that trend, the prevailing party in Wafer v. Hiltop Residential obtained an award, “in the event of an unsuccessful appeal by [appellant], any reasonable and necessary amounts.” The Fifth Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as that language did not resolve the issue of appellate fees. The Court noted that the phrase was insufficient for “ministerial officers [to] carry the judgment to execution without ascertainment of facts” not stated in the judgment. No. 05-22-00546-CV (Aug. 29, 2022) (mem. op.).(Thanks to the eagle-eyed Ben Taylor for catching an error in my original post!)

The supreme court found that an excessive, unexplained delay in filing a mandamus petition barred relief in In re Self, observing:

Relators filed this mandamus petition on August 8, 2022. The petition seeks relief within eighteen days, by August 26, which relators contend is the deadline established by the Election Code for the relief they seek. The Libertarian Party nominated the disputed candidates, who had not paid the filing fee, in April 2022. Under relators’ view of the law, those candidates’ ineligibility attached in April 2022, when they were nominated despite not paying the fee. Nearly four months passed between the facts giving rise to the relators’ claims and the filing of this mandamus action. Relators do not provide any explanation for why these claims could not have been investigated and brought to the courts with the “unusual dispatch” our precedent requires of those who seek to use the court system to alter the conduct of elections.

(footnote omitted, emphasis added). While the “unusual dispatch” concept is unique to election-law cases, Self nevertheless provides a good general reference point for when laches will bar mandamus relief in civil cases more generally. No. 22-0658 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2022).

Fritz American Mangagement LLC v. Huge American Real Estate, Inc. reversed a summary judgment in a contract case, noting, inter alia, fact issues on the defense of waiver. Points from the Fifth Court’s opinion include:

• Legal standard. In addition to the often-used definition of waiver as “an intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right,” the Court further observed: “The elements of waiver include
  (1) an existing right, benefit, or advantage held by a party; (2) the party’s actual
  knowledge of its existence; and (3) the party’s actual intent to relinquish the right,
  or intentional conduct inconsistent with the right.” In the specific setting of a contractual right, the Court further said: “A waiver of a right granted in a contract can occur in any of three ways: the right may be expressly renounced; the renunciation may be shown when a party knowingly possessing the right is inactive or silent for an unreasonable period of time such that the intention to waive is implied; or waiver can occur if a party knowingly possessing the right acts in such a manner that the party misleads the other party into believing that a waiver has occurred.”  (all citations omitted).
• Factually. “[Plaintiff] gave this permission after declining to respond either affirmatively or negatively to Fritz’s e-mail seeking permission for the remodel. … This is particularly true in light of the evidence showing that both parties were experienced Burger King franchisees that understood the nature of franchisor requirements. That is, Fritz’s evidence supported a reasonable inference that Huge Real Estate would have understood the sort of remodel sought by Fritz, which was required to maintain a Burger King franchise on the premises pursuant to the lease.”  (emphasis added).

In In re Five Star Global, LLC, the Fifth Court granted mandamus relief to restore a case to the jury-trial docket, when the effort to enforce a jury waiver came too late:

“In addition to paying the jury fee, real parties also explicitly demanded a jury in six pleadings filed between November 15, 2019 and October 21, 2020. Although real parties deleted the “Jury Demand” paragraph in two of the pleadings, those pleadings still requested a jury in the prayer section, and the “Jury Demand” paragraph even re-appeared in their October 21, 2020 pleading. Moreover, real parties never objected to FSG’s jury demand until they filed their motion to strike in February 2021, which was fifteen months after they initiated the lawsuit against FSG.”

No. 05-22-00153-CV (Aug. 15, 2022) (mem. op.).

If you don’t subscribe to Jerry Bullard’s excellent updates about the Legislature’s activities relevant to appellate practice, you should. His most recent one advises of an upcoming House committee hearing about, inter alia, “potential solutions to improve the judicial efficiency of the state courts of appeals ….”

The Fifth Court granted mandamus relief based on the attorney-immunity doctrine in In re: Sams:

“Maltezos’s claim is based upon the kind of conduct involved in legal representation. Labeling the conduct as fraudulent or wrongful does not remove it from the scope of Sams’s legal representation. The face of Maltezos’s petition establishes that his claims are barred by the defense of attorney immunity. Accordingly, they have no basis in law and were properly subject to dismissal under Rule 91a. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Sams’s motion to dismiss. We conclude further that mandamus relief, rather than appeal, is appropriate in this case to spare the parties and the public the time and money spent on a fatally flawed proceeding.”

No. 05-22-00150-CV (Aug. 15, 2022) (mem. op.)

Full of Faith Christian Center, Inc. v. May affirmed a no-answer default judgment, making several points of general interest about that area of Texas procedure:

• Some service problems are fixable:  “T]he order denying the motion for default judgment was without prejudice and noted the returns failed to show Calvin’s authority to receive service. … The default judgment specifically referenced the second amended returns as support for the judgment and the court found all defendants were served properly and that the returns of service were on file at least ten days before the hearing on the motion to reconsider on July 31, 2020. These orders were ‘tantamount to formal amendment of the return of citation,’ and the record is sufficient to show valid service. An amended return relates back to the original return and is regarded as filed when the original return was filed.” (citation omitted).
• Even for a default judgment, basic damages principles must be followed: “The judgment awards punitive damages against appellants jointly and severally. This was error. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.006 (‘In any action in which there are two or more defendants, an award of exemplary damages must be specific as to a defendant, and each defendant is liable only for the amount of the award made against that defendant.’).”
• “86” Rule 44: “Rule 44.1(b) provides that when liability is contested, the court may not order a separate trial solely on unliquidated damages. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(b). However, when a defendant appeals a no answer default judgment, liability is not contested for purposes of this rule.”

No. 05-20-00859-CV (Aug. 11, 2022) (mem. op.).

The well-known poem Antigonish begins:

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away.

In that general spirit, in recent days, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District at Dallas had close en banc votes involving questions of arbitrability, as to a party who “wasn’t there”–who had not signed an arbitration agreement, but was nevertheless potentially subject to it. (The Dallas case is discussed here; the Fifth Circuit’s, here.)

Whether the timing is an example of synchronicity I will leave to others. The courts’ difficulty with these issues shows the strong feelings provoked by the issue of court access, even among very sophisticated jurists, in an area of the law with well-developed case law on many key points.

The en banc Fifth Court divided 7-6 on a difficult arbitration issue; specifically, whether a court or the AAA should resolve arbitrability as to wrongful-death claims brought by estate representatives. Agreeing with the panel majority, the full-court majority  saw it as an issue for the AAA; the dissent, one for court. A concurrence urged consistency with applicable federal law. Prestonwood Tradition, LP v. Jennings, Nos. 05-20-00380 and -00387 et seq. (Aug. 5, 2022).

Justice Pedersen wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Myers, Schenck (who wrote a concurring opinion), Osborne, Reichek, Goldstein, and Smith. Justice Partida-Kipness wrote the dissent, joined by Chief Justice Burns and Justices Molberg, Nowell, Carlyle, and Garcia. The panel consisted of Justices Pedersen and Goldstein in the majority and Justice Partida-Kipness in dissent.

The defense of waiver was not conclusively established in a contract dispute when:

“The only evidence we see that could potentially support waiver is the $85,000 check that Ganguly accepted from Kaur Ltd. But we conclude that this evidence does not suffice. Although the check bears the notation “For KERSEVA DEBT,” that notation does not indicate that the funds are being offered as payment in full; thus Ganguly’s acceptance of the check, without more, is no evidence of intent to relinquish Ganguly Holdings’ claim against Ker-Seva or of intentional conduct inconsistent with asserting that claim.”

Ganguly Holdings, LLC v. Ker-Seva, Ltd., No. 5-21-00124-CV (July 29, 2022) (mem. op.)

A recent Fifth Court opinion reminded of the importance of an offer of proof, in addition to arguing the related objection, to appropriately preserve error. In the same vein, Phoenix Thera-Lase Systems, LLC v. Curewave Lasers, LLC reminded of an additional step needed to preserve error as to a claimed violation of a motion in limine:

Here, Phoenix’ counsel objected immediately to Herbert’s reference to “two felonies.” However, counsel did not request an instruction to disregard; instead, following an off-the-record discussion at the bench, counsel withdrew the question that elicited the complained-of response. To the extent counsel did not request an instruction to disregard, any error is waived.

No. 05-20-00665-CV (Aug. 4, 2022) (mem. op.).

A well-known Zen koan involves the sound of one hand clapping. Similarly, JMJ Development, LLC v. Ramolia involved the Texas test for whether a judgment is final, which can be satisfied whether or not the judgment is, in fact, a resolution of all mattters in dispute:

Regarding finality, the trial court’s judgment states “This judgment finally disposes of all parties and claims and is appealable.” Appellants asserts this language conflicts with the language in the order granting summary judgment on “his claims” instead of granting summary judgment on all claims. However, nothing on the face of the order suggests that there is any claim or party that remains pending. Appellants’ argument might have merit had the judgment lacked the finality phrase. However, since the judgment included a finality phrase, it was clear and unequivocal, the record is irrelevant, and further analysis is prohibited.

No. 05-21-01100-CV (July 27, 2022) (mem. op.).

If you practice in Dallas County and want to move your case faster, associate judges can help speed up the process. Policies and procedures are available for both Associate Judges Hurdle and Merritt; in particular, as to court reporters:

My colleague Kyle Gardner and I wrote this article for the most recent Headnotes about two cases–one federal, one state–that summarize basic personal-jurisdiction principles for Texas in business cases.

The Texas Supreme Court has now given final approval to some new Rules of Appellate Procedure about the identification and disclosure of counsel.

Empower Texans, Inc. v. Dallas County involved open records request to Dallas County government. The panel majority held that “as a matter of law, the County’s conditional compliance by notifying Empower of the estimate costs for manipulation of data in order to redact and produce the electronic documents for inspection did not constitute a refusal to provide the requested information under [the statute] for purposes of waiving governmental immunity.” A dissent saw matters otherwise “[b]ecause the statute authorizes neither the conversion of files, the demand for payment of same, nor the resulting delay ….” No. 05-20-00546-CV (July 15, 2022) (mem. op.).

Gamble v. Anesthesiology Associates presented a tort claim, 2022-style, as follows:

• The accident. “Blain was also driving northbound on I-35 enroute to a business meeting in Oklahoma City for another Abeo client. During her drive, Richter called from his home in Kentucky to tell her he planned to announce his retirement to Anesthesiology Associates the next day. Blain answered the call on her hands-free Bluetooth device. She continued driving with her cruise control set at approximately eighty miles-per-hour while continuing the conversation. Blain hit and killed Gamble and the Good Samaritan. The accident investigation determined the collision occurred because of Blain’s inattentive driving while talking on the cellphone.
• Duty? “The critical fact in these cases [cited by Plaintiff] that is distinctly missing from the facts at hand is a passenger in close proximity distracting the driver. Here, the alleged distraction came from Richter’s phone call, which originated miles away in another state. Appellants have provided no Texas authority recognizing such an expansive duty. Until the Texas Supreme Court or the legislature indicates such a duty exists, we refuse to create one having such far-reaching implications for essentially all cellphone users anywhere in the world.” (emphasis added)

No. 05-20-01024-CV (July 21, 2022) (mem. op.).

Choi v. Brixmore Holdings provides a good example of when an offer of proof is required to preserve a matter for appellate review:

“Although it is the landlord’s duty to mitigate damages, the tenant has the burden of proving that the landlord has failed to mitigate damages and the amount by which the landlord could have reduced its damages. Neither the Guptas nor Choi offered or sought to offer evidence about Brixmor’s failure to relet the premises. Nor did they make an offer of proof of the amount of damages they contend Brixmor should have mitigated by undertaking an investigation before entering into the assignment, even though the trial court invited them to ‘submit an Offer of Proof on that via affidavit’ after sustaining Brixmor’s objection.”

No. 05-20-00516-CV (July 21, 2022) (mem. op.) (citation omitted).

Actress and inventor Hedy Lamarr said that “all my six husbands married me for different reasons.” Because judges can also reach the same decision for different reasons, the Fifth Court recently observed that “we ‘must uphold a correct lower court judgment on any legal theory before it, even if the court gives an incorrect reason for its judgment.'” Choi v. Brixmore Holdings, No. 05-20-00516-CV (July 19, 2022) (mem. op.).

Fans of appellate terminology will recall a recent blog post about the distinctions among the words “rendered,” “entered,” and “signed” in the context of judgments. The Fifth Court applied those distinctions in In the Interest of C.D.G., a challenge to a judgment entered nunc pro tunc. The Court said:

• “A judgment is ‘rendered’ when the decision is officially announced either orally in open court or by memorandum filed with the clerk. On the other hand, a judgment is ‘entered’ after being signed by the trial court judge.”
• Therefore: “The nunc pro tunc requirement is satisfied only if there is some evidence that the trial court had, at some point before the original order was entered, rendered judgment inconsistent with the language actually entered in the original order. If nothing in the record shows that there is a discrepancy between the judgment as rendered and the judgment as entered, we are compelled to hold that the error in the signed final judgment was a judicial error and thus a judgment nunc pro tunc cannot stand.”
• And importantly: “The focus is … on the actions of the court, not the parties. Thus, the mere fact that the parties entered into an [agreement] or filed it with the court, without more, does not translate that act into the entry of a judgment thereon by the court. A judicial error is an error which occurs in the rendering as opposed to entering of a judgment.”

No. 05-21-00132-CV (July 15, 2022) (mem. op.) (citations omitted, emphasis in original).

The Texas Supreme Court’s majority opinion in In re: Abbott–a mandamus about an appellate stay order in ongoing litigation about medical care for transgender youth–contained an intriguing footnote about the potential boundaries set by the Texas Constitution for appellate-stay orders:

“The State contends that, under an 1880 decision of this Court, courts of appeals exercising appellate jurisdiction lack any authority to “protect the parties from damage during the pendency of the appeal.” City of Laredo v Martin, 52 Tex. 548, 554 (1880). As we observed in Geomet, in which no party raised Martin, such a line of argument “amounts to a constitutional attack on Rule 29.3.” 578 S.W.3d at 89–90. We further noted in Geomet that a state of affairs in which no court can protect parties’ rights during an interlocutory appeal would raise constitutional questions about the automatic stay of trial court proceedings afforded by section 51.014(b) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Id. at 90. Likewise, the limitation on appellate courts’ Rule 29.3 authority suggested by the State would raise constitutional questions about the State’s statutory right to automatically supersede injunctions on appeal. We do not purport to resolve any of these questions in this expedited mandamus posture.”

No. 22-0229 (May 13, 2022).

Emphasizing “our common-sense approach to error preservation,” in Browder v. Moree the Texas Supreme Court held:

If a trial court indicates that it will proceed with a bench trial in a case where a jury demand was timely perfected, a demanding party that still wishes to have a jury trial must ensure that the court is aware of the demand. But neither our procedural rules nor this Court’s decisions require a party that has obtained an adverse ruling from the trial court to take the further step of objecting to that ruling to preserve it for appellate review. Once the trial court denied Browder’s request for a jury trial, Browder had no choice but to go forward with the bench trial. … ‘If simply adhering to an adverse order while continuing to litigate waived review of that order on appeal from a final judgment, there would be few orders left to review.'”

No. 21-0691 (June 24, 2022) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

Wilson v. Capital Partners Financial Group, No. 05-20-00704-CV (July 5, 2022) (mem. op.), addressed the UCC’s requirements for a secured creditor giving notice about the disposition of collateral, in the context of an email among the parties (all citations omitted):

1. “The first element is to describe the debtor and the secured party. We conclude that the e-mail satisfies this element. The e-mail mentions Capital Partners and gives information from which Capital Partners’ status as a secured party could be inferred.”
2. So far so good. But then things changed. “The second element requires the secured party to describe the collateral that is the subject of the intended disposition. In general, a description of personal property is sufficient, whether or not it is specific, if it reasonably identifies what is described. … In the e-mail, Austin states a plan to liquidate what he variously referred to as ‘what is at the facility’ and ‘the items.’ These descriptions are insufficient.”
3. “BTH and Capital Partners fare no better on the third element, which requires the secured party to state the method of intended disposition. To satisfy this element, we have required the notification of disposition to state, at a minimum, whether the disposition will be through a public or private sale.”
4. “The fourth element requires the notification to state ‘that the debtor is entitled to an accounting of the unpaid indebtedness and state[] the charge, if any, for an accounting.’ The e-mail makes no mention of appellants’ right to an accounting, and it does not satisfy this element.”
5. “The fifth element requires the notification to state ‘the time and place of a public disposition or the time after which any other disposition is to be made.’ …  While the e-mail gives dates for the repossession, it offers no information concerning when the sale might occur. Therefore, it fails to satisfy the fifth and final element.”

The Fifth Court provided a valuable reminder about the enforcement of post-litigation agreements in Patel v. Gonzalez Hotels:

“Written settlement agreements may be enforced as contracts even if one party withdraws consent before judgment is entered on the agreement. When consent is withdrawn, however, the agreed judgment that was part of the settlement may not be entered. The party seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement must pursue a separate claim for breach of contract, which is subject to the normal rules of pleading and proof.” (citation omitted).

However, this principle does not apply to all agreements covered by Tex. R. Civ. P. 11, such as stipulations about evidentiary matters, as discussed in this article I co-authored a couple of years ago on the subject. (A big 600Commerce thanks to the able Ben Taylor for drawing this case to my attention!)

An out-of-state guarantor was subject to suit in Texas when

Whited personally guaranteed the performance and payment of “any and all financial, credit or business obligations” that one Texas company owed to another Texas company. [1] These obligations were those of a managing general agent as defined by the Texas Administrative Code and the Texas Insurance Code. [2] He agreed that his guaranty would be “interpreted by, construed in accordance with, and governed by the laws of the State of Texas.” Moreover, the agreement he guaranteed included another such Texas choice-of-law clause as well as a Texas forum-selection clause. Both his guaranty and the MGA obligations he guaranteed were performable in Dallas County, Texas. [3] Old American agreed to appoint Windhaven as its managing general agent after Whited agreed to execute this guaranty. According to the guaranty agreement, Whited agreed to it because he “desire[d] to continue the appointment of [Windhaven] a [sic] Texas Managing General Agency to act as [Old American’s] Managing General Agent”; he “wish[ed] to facilitate such continuing appointment”; and he wished to increase Old American’s financial security. 

Whited v. Old American County Mut, Fire Ins. Co., 05-21-00536-CV (June 16, 2022) (mem. op.) (references added).

Yedlapalli v. Jaldu, in rejecting sufficiency challenges to a judgment in an auto-collision case, summarizes the infrequently appealed but practically important case law about negligent driving. In particular (and contrary to what my Driver’s Ed teacher said in high school), the Fifth Court reminds:

With rear-end collisions, ‘standards of ordinary care cannot be fixed with any degree of certainty but must be left in large measure to the trier of the facts.’ … [T]he mere occurrence of a rear-end accident does not establish negligence as a matter of law. ‘And it is neither impossible nor automatically invalid for a jury to determine that neither driver in a rear-end accident committed negligence.’ … ‘A rear-end collision may be some evidence of negligence of the rear-ending driver, but it does not constitute conclusive proof.'” 

No. 05-20-00531-CV (June 28, 2022) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).

The Fifth Court affirmed summary judgment for the defense in a sexual abuse case involving long-ago events, summarizing:

“We do not question the sincerity of Doe’s motive for bringing the lawsuit or the reality of the terrible ordeal he underwent at the hands of a person who should have protected him and while in the care of organizations dedicated to protecting children like himself. … . The purpose of the statute of limitations is to ‘protect defendants and the courts from having to deal with cases in which the search for truth may be seriously impaired by the loss of evidence, whether by death or disappearance of witnesses, fading memories, disappearance of documents or otherwise.’ The forty years between the assault and Doe’s bringing suit has taken a toll on the evidence available in this case as every person involved aside from Doe and G.L. appears to be deceased. The courts have created narrow exceptions to the application of the statute of limitations, including the discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, and equitable estoppel, but the evidence conclusively established those exceptions do not apply in this case and that Doe did not present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether those exceptions apply.”

Doe v. Catholic Society, No. 05-21-00616-CV (June 30, 2022) (mem. op.).

The Fifth Court granted mandamus relief in a failure-to-rule case when: “The ninth and current trial setting is for June 27, 2022, which is less than a week away. The motions were filed more than three months to over twenty-two months ago; the summary judgment motions were heard more than ten months ago; and the remaining motions were heard almost two months ago. The record reflects that relators have requested rulings multiple times. Further, respondent has a history of failing to rule in this case, which has already required this Court to conditionally grant mandamus relief.” In re Reiss, No. 05-22-00575-CV (June 21, 2022) (mem. op.).

In the context of a mandamus petition about a responsible third-party designation, the Fifth Court rejected a ripeness argument based on the pendency of a related motion:

“We conclude that the trial court’s denial of relator’s motion to designate Michael as a responsible third party was a concrete injury. This injury is not rendered “contingent or remote’ by relator’s pending motion to join Michael as a contribution defendant, because even the granting of that motion would not provide the relief that relator seeks in this proceeding.”

In re Modern Senior Living, No. 05-22-00283-CV (June 17, 2022) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).

The Fifth Court recently granted mandamus relief as to an excessive e-discovery order in In re Meadowbrook Baptist Church, No. 05-22-00271-CV (June 15, 2022) (mem. op.), even though the real party in interest had written a letter saying it did not intend to enforce the relevant order. The Court found that the proceeding was not mooted by that letter, since the order itself remained in effect.

In re Weekley Homes was not satisfied as to an electronic-discovery order, and mandamus relief was granted, when the record showed:

• No discovery default by nonmovant. “Meadowbrook responded to Blalock’s discovery requests and produced responsive documents in its possession. Where Meadowbrook found no responsive documents to a request, Meadowbrook confirmed that it diligently searched for responsive documents and found none. Indeed, the record shows that Meadowbrook withheld only five responsive documents, which were baptismal certificates of minors. Moreover, in its response and objections to the RFI, Meadowbrook presented a suggested protocol and parameters for searching the computer and stated that it would allow a search of the computer if an agreement could be reached with Blalock as to search terms and search protocols.”
• No likely benefit. “[Blalock] relied solely on her suspicions that a forensic expert would be able to recover additional relevant materials that may have been deleted from the computer prior to the incident in question. Mere skepticism or bare allegations that the responding party has failed to comply with its discovery duties are not sufficient to warrant an order requiring direct access to an opposing party’s electronic device.”

In re Meadowbrook Baptist Church, No. 05-22-00271-CV (June 15, 2022) (mem. op.)

2 recent opinions state basic principles about stare decisis in Texas:

• The Texas Supreme Court expressly adopted the “rule of orderliness” concept in Mitschke v. Faiva, No. 21-0326 (May 13, 2022), observing: “If one appellate panel decides a case, and another panel of the same court differently resolves a materially indistinguishable question in contravention of a holding in the prior decision, the second panel has violated the foundational rule of stare decisis. Affording stare decisis authority to the second case would be tantamount to eliminating stare decisis altogether, as nothing would stop a third panel from returning to the initial outcome, or going yet another way.”
• A recent concurrence by Justice Schenck reminded: “I will … simply note that under the doctrine of stare decisis courts are bound only by the holding and discussion necessary to the resolution of the case. Newman v. Minyard Food Stores, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.).”

In a state-court maritime case, this clause: ” . . all parties agree that any legal action seeking relief for a covered dispute must be filed in either (1) the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, or (2) the McCracken County Circuit Court in Paducah, Kentucky” was held to be an enforceable forum-selection clause rather than an impermissible venue-selection clause. Risher v. Marquette Transp., No. 05-21-00289-CV (June 8, 2022).

Our firm again achieved Chambers & Partners Band One status this year for commercial litigation in the D/FW area; my partner Mike Lynn and I wrote the lead article introducing this year’s rankings and talking about our area’s strong economy and legal market.

After a powerful summary of Texas’s constitutional protection for court access and jury trial, the en banc court in Maypole v. Acadian Ambulance Service reversed the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim for alleged shortcomings in the required medical authorization form. A concurrence agreed with the result but not the scope of the majority opinion. No. 05-18-00539-CV (June 10, 2022) (Hat tip to 600Commerce friend Ben Taylor for pointing this case out to me).

Allegheny Millwork v. Honeycutt highlights a tension in some requests for sanctions–a request for a large amounts of attorneys’ fees can be inconsistent with the underlying claim that a position is not well-founded:

“While Allegheny’s counsel’s failure  o reconcile or even address that the case is disappointing, and thereby raises an issue of candor with the Court, we do not see it as sufficiently egregious to support a shifting of fees, and certainly not in the amount requested by NQS. Given this Court’s familiarity with its own opinion in Ninety Nine Physicians, a brief reference to the case in response to the attorney’s fee issue would have sufficed.”

No. 05-21-00113-CV (June 8, 2022) (mem. op.) (footnote omitted).

The plaintiff’s summary-judgment testimony about reliance went as follows (with a key phrase emphasized):

Had I known that Defendants were planning to leave my company and go out on their own I would not have entered into the second agreement on January 5, 2018. By doing so I allowed Defendants to pull more loads, earn greater revenue, and gain greater access to my clients and my business information. In fact, I would have taken actions to hire other drive[r]s and secure additional trucks as necessary. I would also have reduced and ultimately eliminated the work I was providing to Defendants.

Unfortunately, this testimony “failed to link [plaintiff’s] purported reliance to the only misrepresentation it identified—Mr. Woods’s failure to reveal he had changed the name of his entity from Woods Transportation to 1st Class Fuels.” L.D. McLoud Transp., LLC v. 1st Class Fuels, LLC, No. 05-20-00796-CV (June 3, 2022) (mem. op.) (emphasis added).

The well-intentioned mandamus petitioners in In re Diaz sought relief from the trial court not having a hearing on their TCPA motion to dismiss. Unfortunately, the record showed that “the statutory deadline by which the trial court must hold the TCPA hearing had expired prior to relators filing their petition and the trial court may no longer hold the hearing,” thereby mooting the mandamus petition. No. 05-21-01115 (June 3, 2022) (mem. op.).

“When a TCPA movant’s step-one burden and a nonmovant’s TCPA exemption are both disputed, we conclude that a court may consider a nonmovant’s exemption first, if it chooses to do so.” Temple v. Cortez Law Firm, No. 05-21-00367-CV (June 3, 2022).

You may enjoy my latest (and short!) podcast episode, Originalism and its Discontents, which compares:

•  the Fifth Circuit’s May 2022 opinion in Jarkesy v. SEC, which held that the Seventh Amendment’s right to civil jury trial extends to an SEC enforcement action (although the SEC did not exist in 1791), and
• the draft Supreme Court majority opinion in Dobbs (which held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect an abortion right in 1868, although the vast majority of women could neither vote nor own property at that time).

The episode concludes that historical analogies, made in the name of “originalism,” may not be a faithful application of that technique for constitutional reasoning, when the historical context differs substantially from our own.

In Diana Convenience LLC v. Dollar ATM, LLC, the Fifth Court affirmed a death-penalty sanctions award. Among the relevant facts considered, this particular move was unwise for the sanctioned party: “[T]he decision by appellants Shark Phones and AMK Convenience to file a no-evidence motion for summary judgment based on the very evidence that appellee was seeking—who signed the agreement and were they authorized to do so—supports the trial court’s finding that appellants had a callous disregard for the rules of discovery.” No. 05-20-00936-CV (May 25, 2022).

Lua v. Capital Plus Financial addressed, and rejected, a number of challenges to a judgment of eviction in a forcible entry and detainer action. In particular, as to the appellants’ claim that “because Capital Plus failed to submit an affidavit verifying its observance of certain requirements prior to the sale of the property, there are defects in the sale,” the Fifth Court distinguished the main case relied upon by appellants:

The Luas rely on A Plus Investments Inc v Rushton, No. 02-03-00174-CV, 2004 WL 868866 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 22, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.), for the proposition that the alleged defect in the statutorily-required presuit notice required the trial court to abate or dismiss this case. However, A Plus held that the county court lacked jurisdiction over a forcible detainer suit “[b]ecause an unresolved question of title was so intertwined with the right of possession that the action could not have been adjudicated without first determining title.” … Accordingly, the defect alleged by the Luas does not present the same fundamental issue that was present in A Plus.”

No. 05-19-01227-CV (May 26, 2022).

This blog does not ordinarily cover family-law appeals, but the grant of mandamus relief in In re Barnes involves a novel issue about the scope of a fundamental statute in that area: “We are not persuaded that [Tex. Fam. Code] section 153.002 reaches so far as to allow the family court to require a parent who does not have the right to determine a child’s primary residence and who has little or no possession time to live in a specific school district so that his child can maintain eligibility to attend schools within that district.” No. 05-21-00807-CV (May 27, 2022) (mem. op.).

Important arbitration-waiver case earlier this week from SCOTUS:

“Most Courts of Appeals have answered that question by applying a rule of waiver specific to the arbitration context. Usually, a federal court deciding whether a litigant has waived a right does not ask if its actions caused harm. But when the right concerns arbitration, courts have held, a finding of harm is essential: A party can waive its arbitration right by litigating only when its conduct has prejudiced the other side. That special rule, the courts say, derives from the FAA’s ‘policy favoring arbitration.’  We granted certiorari to decide whether the FAA authorizes federal courts to create such an arbitration-specific procedural rule. We hold it does not.”

Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21-328 (May 23, 2022).

Overstreet v. Allstate, an insurance-coverage case about hail damage, presented an unsettled issue under Texas’ “concurrent causation” doctrine. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit hailed the Texas Supreme Court for assistance, certifying the issue to it for review (a topic where the Fifth Circuit had previously certified the same topic, only for the parties to settle). No. 21-10462 (May 19, 2022). (As is customary for such requests, the Court disclaimed any intention to hale the Texas Supreme Court toward any particular result.)

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting from an early Sherman Act case, famously observed: “Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance… but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.” Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904).

Yet in the context of temporary injunctions and TROs, there are only “hard cases,” because of the demanding requirements about proof of irreparable injury, etc. For example, the most recent statement from the Texas Supreme Court about the specificity required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 683 is In re: Luther, 620 S.W.3d 715, 722-23 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding)–an extremely charged case politically, arising in one of the most challenging periods of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In that vein is the panel majority in In re Childrens Medical Center of Dallas, a dispute about care for transgender youth, which found this order sufficiently specific as to Rule 683’s requirements about harm. A dissent saw otherwise. No. 05-22-00459-CV (May 18, 2022) (mem. op.).

The Court’s oft-used summary of the required elements for mandamus relief has been updated, see In re Grantham, 05-22-00077-CV (May 20, 2022):

The trial court in In re Alford appointed a special master to resolve discovery issues. Tex. R. Civ. P. 171 gives a trial court the power to “in exceptional cases, for good cause appoint a master in chancery.” Case law clarifies that “a special master may not be appointed merely because ‘a case is complicated or time-consuming, or [because] the court is busy.'” Here, the Fifth Court granted mandamus relief, noting “no indication that the case is unusually complicated or requires specialized knowledge,” and citing this exchange from the hearing on relators’ objection to the master’s appointment:

[Counsel]: Can you explain on the record what the good cause is and what the reasons for the appointment of this order is?

THE COURT: No, but thank you for asking.

No. 05-22-00240-CV (May 16, 2022).

The Fifth Court granted a mandamus petition about a corporate-representative deposition, when “proportionality” was not shown, given the corporation’s other information disclosures: “Safeco supported its proportionality objection with evidence. Safeco provided the trial court with a business record affidavit and two hearing exhibits, one containing a chain of e-mails between counsel and the other containing its supplemental responses to Taiwo’s request for disclosure. Further, the declaration of Barbara Spearman, Senior Complex Resolution Specialist IV for Safeco, stated that Safeco had produced and disclosed ‘1,208 pages of responsive documents and things in this matter, including its entire, unprivileged claim file, which included Plaintiff’s Policy, correspondence between the parties, the police report stemming from the accident and witness statements regarding the Accident.’” In re Safeco, No. 05-21-00873-CV (May 10, 2022) (mem. op.).

The plaintiff in Benit v. Primalend Capital Partners filed a nonsuit of his claims on the evening before a summary-judgment hearing. The trial court struck the nonsuit and entered summary judgment against the plaintiff. The Fifth Court reversed, noting that the defendant had not made a claim for affirmative relief against the plaintiff, and holding that the defendant’s argument on appeal–that its motion to strike was in fact a Tex. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to show authority–was not supported by the defendant’s trial-court filing:

“Although Primalend’s motion to strike used the phrase ‘lacks authority,’ the motion did not mention rule 12; it was not sworn; it was not set for hearing; nor did it provide 10 days’ notice of a hearing. … Primalend’s motion did not provide fair notice regarding the basis for the serious relief that Primalend now insists—on appeal—it requested of the trial court pursuant to rule 12.”

No. 05-21-00024-CV (May 6, 2022) (mem. op.) (citation omitted).

Here is the PowerPoint from my presentation for the Dallas Bar Association today. And if you prefer it as a .pdf, here it is in that format.

The issue in Bluestone Resources, Inc. v. First Nat’l Capital, LLC was a judgment that included post-judgment interest, by the court that confirmed an arbitration award, when the award itself was silent about post-judgment interest. The Fifth Court held:

“We acknowledge there is a line of cases … that appears to conclude the award of any post-judgment interest is unauthorized unless such interest was awarded by the arbitrator.  We respectfully disagree. Interest on a money judgment accrues automatically and is recoverable even if it is not specifically awarded. We see no reason why a judgment confirming an arbitration award, which is a ‘money judgment of a court of this state,’ would be exempt from this rule.”

No. 05-20-00776-CV (April 29, 2022) (citations and footnote omitted).

In Romeo and Juliet, the doomed heroine observes: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

In Bell v. XTC Cabaret (Dallas), Inc., the Fifth Court observes (citations omitted):

“A misnomer differs from a misidentification. Misidentification—the consequences of which are generally harsh—arises when two separate legal entities exist and a plaintiff mistakenly sues an entity with a name similar to that of the correct entity. If a plaintiff is mistaken as to which of two defendants is the correct one and there is actually existing a corporation with the name of the erroneously named defendant (misidentification), then the plaintiff has sued the wrong party and limitations is not tolled.”

Those principles did not save a lawsuit filed against the wrong “XTC” entity: “Appellants argue the doctrine of misnomer applies because they served the correct defendant, XTC Cabaret (Dallas), Inc., but misnamed it as XTC Cabaret, Inc. … The fact that businesses have the same registered agent and the same attorneys is not evidence that they were aware of whom appellants intended to sue. We conclude appellants have not shown that the doctrine of misnomer applies.” No. 05-21-00294-CV (May 5, 2022) (mem. op.).

I’ll be speaking at the Dallas Bar Association’s downtown headquarters next Tuesday, May 10, at noon, to give an update on notable cases in the past year from both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Dallas Court of Appeals

In bringing to an end a long-running international oil-and-gas dispute, the Texas Supreme Court examined a seeming tension between two earlier opinions about the specificity required for an effective release: “‘[W]hile the misrepresentation in Schlumberger “pertained to the very matter negotiated, settled, and released,”‘ the misrepresentation in Forest Oil ‘did not concern known disputed matters (which were settled and released) but potential future disputes (which were set aside and reserved).'” The Court concluded:

“Here, the evidence does not suggest that the parties actually considered or discussed allegations that Astra representatives bribed Petrobras officials to approve the 2006 stock-purchase agreement or offered to bribe them to approve the 2012 settlement agreement. But the evidence—including the terms of the settlement agreement itself does establish that the parties entered into the settlement agreement only after an extended series of complex and hotly contested negotiations that included discussions about the need to resolve all prior, pending, and possible claims between the parties, including those that were ‘unknown’ at the time.”

Transcor Astra Group S.A. v. Petrobras America Inc., No. 20-0932 (Tex. April 29, 2022).

I recently wrote a short piece for the UK’s Solicitor’s Journal about two recent personal-jurisdiction cases of note–one from the Fifth Circuit and one from the Dallas Court of Appeals–which it published as an “international insight” and titled “How to Deal with Texas Businesses Without getting Sued.”

The Dallas Morning News reported that the Fifth Court stayed the Rule 202 depositions of two UT-Southwestern executives in connection with its program for transgender use; the mandamus proceeding continues to be briefed in the meantime.

In a defamation / business disparagement claim, when the charge told the jury to:it was reversible error for the jury to consider evidence about the effects of “a widespread ‘whisper campaign'” distinct from the referenced statement. Memorial Hermann Health System v. Gomez, No. 19-0872 (Tex. April 22, 2022).

After reviewing the several cases that find laches based on an unexplained four-month delay, In re Bottled Blonde Dallas LLC holds: “Here, relator waited more than seven months from the challenged order, and with only a month remaining before trial, to file this petition. Relator has offered no explanation for this lengthy delay. Accordingly, because we conclude that relator’s unexplained delay bars its right to mandamus relief, we deny mandamus relief.” No. 05-22-00353-CV (April 22, 2022) (mem. op.).

Delaware corporate law has a robust line of authority about the advancement of attorneys’ fees during litigation; Texas, not so much, which is why In re Demattia is important to know. The case involved a typical advancement provision in an LLC’s organizational documents:

“(a) the Company shall indemnify each Member who was, is, or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending, or completed action, suit, or proceeding (‘Proceeding’), any appeal thereof, or any inquiry or investigation preliminary thereto, by reason of the fact that he or she is or was a Member ….”

in the context of the LLC’s suit against a former member for the alleged theft of trade secrets. Even in that setting where the member was adverse to the company, the Fifth Court held that the provision was enforceable, drawing on the principles established in Delaware law:

The board may well have a firm basis to believe that the official intentionally injured the corporation and is therefore reluctant to advance funds for his defense, fearing that the funds will never be paid back and resisting the idea of seeing further depletion of corporate resources at the instance of someone perceived to be a faithless fiduciary. But the Delaware courts have determined that to ‘give effect to this natural human reaction as public policy would be unwise’ because the possibility exists that the company’s allegations are untrue or cannot be proven.

Based on that conclusion, the Court granted mandamus relief as against a summary-judgment ruling adverse to the member on the issue of his entitlement to fee advancement. Notably, because of the limited scope of the order under review, the opinion addressed only the entitlement to fees, and not the specific procedural mechanism under Texas law for obtaining payment. No. 05-21-00460-CV (April 12, 2022).

In Wofford v. Pinnacle:

• A summary judgment, granted on July 20, 2021, disposed of some but not all claims in the litigation;
• On July 29, the claims addressed by that summary judgment were severed into a new cause (thus creating a final judgment as to those matters);
• On August 30, 2021, the trial court’s plenary power expired in the new cause; and
• In October 2021, the trial court signed a final judgment in the new cause which was later appealed.

The Fifth Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: “[B]ecause the July summary judgment was made final by the severance and the trial court’s plenary power expired August 30, the October final judgment is void.” No. 05-22-00071-CV (April 18, 2022) (mem. op.).

In a (literal) footnote to Collins Asset Group v. Ayers, the Fifth Court noted a technical point about a line of attack on the relevant instrument: “Ayres also objected to the Note based on the absence of assignments, and on cross-examination, appeared to challenge the signatures on the Note. Ayres did not contest the authenticity of signatures in his verified denial, so the Note was admissible in that regard as fully proved. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 93(7); Boyd v. Diversified Fin. Sys., 1 S.W.3d 888, 891 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, no pet.).” No. 05-21-00295-CV (March 30, 2022) (mem. op.).

An eccleastical-immunity dispute led to the denial of mandamus relief in In re Munger Avenue Baptist Church, in which the Court reminded: “[W]here the petition for writ of mandamus challenges the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying proceeding, relators need not establish the lack of an adequate appellate remedy.” No. 05-21-00539-CV (April 13, 2022).

A cautionary note on motions to extend the notice-of-appeal deadline: “[W]e have repeatedly held that delay caused by waiting for the trial court to rule on a post judgment motion or for the trial court’s plenary power to expire is unreasonable as it reflects an awareness of the deadline for filing a notice of appeal but a conscious decision to ignore it.” Ali v. Spectra Bank, No. 05-21-01113-CV (April 6, 2022) (mem. op.).

In Sunchase IV Homeowners Assoc. v. Atkinson, the Texas Supreme Court returned to the topic of a defendant who wins a take-nothing judgment on a key claim, in the context of a Property Code fee-shifting provision, and reached substantially the same result as in the Court’s recent Rohrmoos opinion. No. 20-0682 (Tex. April 8, 2022).

Last Friday I spoke to the Dallas Area Paralegal Association about preparing a case for appeal in Texas state court. We covered, among other topics, the mechanics of preparing a notice of appeal (including the deadline!), ordering the clerk’s record, and ordering a reporter’s record that’s complete in all respects. Here is my PowerPoint.

In Southwest Airlines Pilots Union v. The Boeing Co., a dispute related to the 737 Max, the Fifth Court held: “[W]e conclude that SWAPA has standing to assert claims on its own behalf, but at the time the suit was filed, lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of its members. Although SWAPA’s subsequently acquired assignments of member interests do not cure the jurisdictional defects in the present case, the assignments might confer standing on SWAPA to file suit in the future. Thus, while the trial court properly dismissed the suit without providing SWAPA an opportunity to amend its pleadings, the dismissal should have been without prejudice. We further conclude that the RLA does not preempt SWAPA’s state law claims.” No. 05-20-01067-CV (March 30, 2022) (mem. op.). (LPHS represented the appellant in this case.)

Of general interest to court-watchers, building on a recent interview that I did with the Lincoln Project, the current episode of the “Coale Mind” podcast examines why today’s Supreme Court is like a bowl of soup, heated by two separate burners.

The first is the ongoing scrutiny over Justice Thomas’s recusal decisions in matters related to his wife’s political activity. The second, cool now but with the potential to become blazing hot, is the pending Dobbs case in which the Court could significantly limit or even overrule Roe v. Wade. 

The combined heat potentially generated by these two issues–an ethical dispute about a Justice coupled with the possibility of a uniquely controversial ruling–could present a legitimacy problem for the Court of a magnitude not seen in recent memory.