Amended Petition Trumps Previously-Filed MSJ

Architectural designer Jonathan Bailey and several of his companies sued Boka Powell, LLC, a competing design firm that had hired Bailey’s long-time employee and officer, Thomas Dwyer. Bailey claimed that Dwyer diverted projects for his own benefit, that he and Boka Powell subsequently began soliciting Bailey’s clients, and that they attempting to purchase some portion of Bailey’s business through fraudulent misrepresentations. The trial court granted summary judgment for Boka Powell, but the Court of Appeals largely reversed that decision. Although the tortious interference claims were barred by the 2-year statute of limitations, Boka Powell’s summary judgment motion had not raised limitations as a defense to the remaining claims, and the Court therefore declined to consider its application to those claims on appeal. The Court also held that summary judgment on fraud- and conspiracy-related claims was improper because the motion did not address the allegations contained in Bailey’s third amended petition, which had apparently been filed after the summary judgment motion. Because the new allegations were materially different than the allegations addressed in Boka Powell’s motion, the summary judgment had failed to negate those causes of action for purposes of summary judgment.

Bailey v. Boka Powell, LLC, NO. 05-12-01012-CV

Recent Related Posts