Creation Construction sued Charlie Patel and EZN News Nibbles Necessities for breach of contract after they failed to pay for the construction of a convenience store in NorthPark Mall. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Creation for approximately $42,000 in damages and $71,000 in attorney fees. On appeal, Patel argued that he could not be personally liable on the construction contract because he has signed it in his capacity as an agent of EZN. Unfortunately, the contract did not actually say what capacity Patel was signing in, nor had he raised that claim before the trial court. Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding of liability against Patel. However, the court also reversed on Creation’s cross-appeal, which argued that the trial court had erred by failing to award prejudgment interest, and the case was remanded for consideration of the interest to be added on to the judgment.

Patel v. Creative Construction, Inc., No. 05-11-00759-CV

The court affirmed a summary judgment against the Poynors in their negligence suit. When shopping for a new car at a BMW dealership, the salesperson, Homer, took them for a test drive and negligently crashed the vehicle. The Poynors sued the North American BMW distributor and BMW’s U.S. holding company for various claims of negligence, including one claim for vicarious liability, contending that BMW was vicariously liable for the dealership’s negligence due to its agency relationship with the dealership. The trial court granted BMW’s summary judgment and the Poynors appealed.

On appeal, the court first noted that the contract between BMW and the dealership specifically disclaimed an agency relationship. The same contract, however, required the dealership to maintain certain standards that the Poynors argues amounted to “control” sufficient to create an agency relationship. Looking to the activity that caused the injury, the court observed that the contract did not provide BMW control over the test drive and, while BMW required the dealership to train its salespeople, BMW was not directly responsible for Homer’s training or supervision. Thus, BMW was entitled to summary judgment on these claims. Finding that BMW also owed no direct duty to train or supervise Homer, the court affirmed the judgment.

Poyner v. BMW, No. 05-10-00724-CV

In 2003, insurance broker Brett Woods signed an “Employment, Confidentiality, and Non-Compete Agreement” with U.S. Risk Insurance Group, Inc. USRIG is a holding company that owns companies engaged in the insurance business, including U.S. Risk, Inc. But USRIG does not conduct any insurance business on its own behalf, and the non-compete agreement was solely between Woods and USRIG. Woods resigned in 2009 and went to work for a competitor, which prompted USRIG to file suit for breach of the non-compete. Woods prevailed on cross-motions for summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed.

The court first held that the only summary judgment evidence in the record supported Woods’ claim that he had resigned for “good reason,” which only triggered a non-solicitation requirement rather than the full non-compete. The court went on to hold that the non-compete was overbroad in any event, as it prevented Woods from competing with USRIG in any aspect of its business, regardless of whether Woods had worked in that business while employed with the company. Finally, the court of appeals held that Woods could not be liable for soliciting any of USRIG’s customers, since it didn’t actually have any. The court declined to construe the contract to include the subsidiary that was actually engaged in the insurance business, nor would it recognize the subsidiary as a third-party beneficiary (despite a clause providing that the contract inured to the benefit of USRIG’s “subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and assigns”). On the latter point, the court expressly noted that even if the sub were a third-party beneficiary, it still could not receive greater rights than were bargained for between the original parties to the contract, and the contract only prevented Woods from competing  with the holding company, not its subsidiaries.

U.S. Risk Insurance Group, Inc. v. Woods, No. 05-11-00558-CV

Turner Brothers Trucking sued Kristal Baker, S/W Quality Hay and others in 2007 for breach of contract, fraud, and DTPA violations, among other things.  The suit stemmed from the brokerage agreement between Baker and Turner Brothers under which Turner would invoice customers, receive payment and pay Baker a commission.  S/W Quality was one of Baker’s customers who refused to pay Turner a commission.  Turner won on summary judgment and was awarded damages and attorneys fees.  But in March 2010, Turner sought an application for turnover so it could join the former managers and members of S/W Quality because those managers purportedly paid for and received life insurance proceeds with company funds. Turner thought this money should be available for creditors like itself.  The court agreed with Turner and required S/W to turnover two computers, a tractor and a pickup truck, but refused to appoint a receiver to pursue legal claims against S/W’s managers.

On appeal, Turner challenged the court’s refusal to appoint a receiver as well as its conclusion that Turner was not entitled to attorneys’ fees.  The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s refusal to appoint a receiver to go after the manager of S/W because, it held, “Texas courts do not apply the turnover statute to non-judgment debtors.”  The Court, however, reversed the trial court’s holding on attorneys fees, noting that “a judgment creditor who obtains turnover relief is entitled to reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees.”

Turner Bros v Baker

The court of appeals has reversed the grant of a temporary injunction that prohibited the lender from foreclosing on a pair of properties that secured a $10,000,000 promissory note. After multiple previous foreclosures, a bankruptcy filing, and the voluntary dismissal of the bankruptcy case, the borrower sued to enjoin further foreclosures, claiming that the parties had entered into a binding agreement that limited the lender’s ability to foreclose. The court of appeals rejected that argument, concluding that the testimony of the borrower’s witness at the injunction hearing only demonstrated an agreement to engage in further negotiations following dismissal of the bankruptcy, not any concrete and enforceable contractual terms. The court of appeals also rejected the borrower’s contention that the foreclosures would be wrongful because they would result in less than fair market value being received. That argument, the court held, was only applicable to a deficiency claim after foreclosure, not as grounds to prevent foreclosure itself.  The court of appeals therefore dissolved the temporary injunction and remanded the case to the trial court.

Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. TCI Luna Ventures, LLC, No. 05-12-000653-CV

UPDATE: The court has issued a revised opinion in the case, in which it clarifies the standard of review. The outcome remains the same.

Charles Searock sued his former employer, Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc. and Gary Fears, for, among other things, breaching his employment contract.  After the defendants filed an answer and participated in discovery, their attorney withdrew as counsel and they didn’t show up for trial.  The trial court entered a post-answer default, but Fears and TADS moved for a new trial because, they claim, they never got notice of the trial date.  This motion was denied. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court because affidavit evidence proved that neither Fears nor TADS received notice of the trial setting.  Moreover, the notice of trial provided to counsel for Fears and TADS before he withdrew cannot be imputed to them because the record lacked evidence indicating that the withdrawing counsel took efforts to inform his clients of the trial date before he withdrew.

Tactical Air Defense v. Searock

In January 2010, Rodney Meisel found an uncashed paycheck from his former employer, dated May 2009.  After calling the former employer’s bank to confirm that the check hadn’t been previously cashed, Mr. Meisel deposited it in his account at U.S. Bank and informed the ex-employer that he had done so.  But four days later, the employer designated the check for return, based on a computer program that indicated it had been previously paid. The next day, the employer told its bank that the check was still good, but the check was still returned to U.S. Bank. Although U.S. Bank was informed that the check wasn’t counterfeit, it still closed Meisel’s accounts and reported to a credit agency that the closure was due to “transactions involving items or checks belonging to another party.” Meisel sued for defamation based on that communication. The trial court granted summary judgment for U.S. Bank, and the court of appeals affirmed based on the defense of truth.

On appeal, the court noted that a true statement is not actionable as libel. Starting from that premise, the court noted that there were two versions of the check in the summary judgment record. Version 1 was a “LEGAL COPY” of Meisel’s check, apparently a type of substitute check provided for under federal law, that he deposited in 2009. The second copy was the one deposited in 2010, which was the original, non-substitute version of the same check. The court of appeals rejected Meisel’s contention that he still “owned” the original check even though he had deposited the substitute version of the same check eight months earlier. Copies may be admissible the same way as originals, but they are not owned in the same way.

Meisel v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 05-11-01336-CV

The court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff in a car wreck case over complaints of improper jury arguments. Nguyen crashed her car into Myers car, and Myers sued. Nguyen did not contest liability at trial, but disputed the amount Myers’s claimed damages. The parties agreed in limine that Myers be precluded from mentioning Nguyen’s liability insurance. At trial, one of Myers’s chiropractors testified that Nguyen’s expert, Dr. Timberlake, was “hired by insurance companies to make judgment on patients he’s never seen before . . . .” Nguyen objected to this testimony as an interjection of insurance, which was overruled, and moved for a mistrial, which was denied. Later in closing, Myers’s counsel stated that Timberlake was “paid by them” and was “their hired gun.” The jury awarded Myers his requested damages and Nguyen filed a motion for new trial based on the court’s denial of mistrial, which was not granted.

On appeal, the court held that any error caused by the interjection of insurance did not rise to the level of “harmful error,” and the testimony was not an “incurable statement,” because the jury’s verdict could not have turned on the one isolated mention of insurance. Furthermore, Nguyen failed to preserve her arguments that Myers’s counsel’s statements were incurable jury arguments because she failed to object to them, request a limiting instruction, or assert that argument in her motion for new trial.

Nguyen v. Myers, No. 05-11-01510-CV

In this case (Gonerway v. Corrections Corporation of America, et al.), the plaintiff–an inmate at the privately run correctional facility run by defendant CCA–claimed that defendants negligently failed to provide adequate medical care when she developed an severe eye infection as a result of the cosmetic contact lenses she wore while she was incarcerated.  CCA moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding that CCA’s contract with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice did not give rise to a duty to provide medical care to inmates because that duty was outsourced to another entity, the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee. The Court also rejected Gonerway’s additional claim that CCA owed her a duty to insure that she received timely medical care because Gonerway’s own testimony indicated that CCA did, in fact, provide care shortly after it was informed of Gonerway’s complaints.

Gonerway v. CCA, No. 05-11-01524-CV

Today was a good day to be petitioning for review from the Dallas Court of Appeals. The Texas Supreme Court granted six petitions for review today, and the first four on the list all came from the Fifth Court of Appeals. Here are brief summaries of the four cases.

Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Bostic, 320 S.W.3d 588, is a wrongful death/asbestos case in which the court of  which the court of appeals reversed an $11.6 million plaintiff’s verdict. The court held that there was legally insufficient evidence that Georgia Pacific’s product was a “substantial factor” in causing the decedent’s mesothelioma, where the man had been exposed to multiple sources of asbestos and  the plaintiffs’ own expert could not say that he would not have developed the disease without that exposure. The petition for review challenges that rulling, arguing that an asbestos plaintiff need not establish that the exposure to the defendant’s product was the exposure that precipitated the illness.

Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 348 S.W.3d 465, is a products liability case in which the court of appeals affirmed a plaintiff’s judgment based on negligent design of a vehicle. The court rejected Kia’s contention that it should have a presumption of no liability because the car’s design complied with federal crashworthiness standards. The petition for review challenges that holding, as well as the evidence supporting the alleged defect.

Bioderm Skin Care, LLC v. Sok, 345 S.W.3d 189, concluded that laser hair removal for cosmetic purposes was not a healthcare service under Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, and that the plaintiff therefore did not need to produce an expert report within 120 days after the filing of her petition. Naturally, the petition for review asserts that laser hair removal is indeed the type of health care claim that requires an expert report.

Finally, in Martin K. Eby Construction Co. v. LAN/STV, 350 S.W.3d 675, the court of appeals affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages in favor of a general contractor and against its subcontractor, overruling both sides’ complaints about the judgment. The court rejected the general contractor’s claim that its own negligence and the negligence of DART should not have reduced its recovery against the defendant, while also sustaining the sufficiency of the evidence and denying the sub’s attempt to use the economic loss doctrine to bar the general contractor’s recovery. The petition for review focuses on the economic loss issue.

Surprisingly, both Georgia Pacific and Bioderm were granted on motion for rehearing after the petitions were originally denied last October.  Oral argument dates have not been set for any of the four cases.

Almost nine years ago, the 68th District Court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict against plaintiff Basic Capital Management and several related entities, wiping out a jury verdict in their favor for tens of millions of dollars in lost profits. The underlying dispute involved the failure of Dynex to fund an alleged $160 million loan commitment for Basic’s “Single-Asset, Bankruptcy Remote Entities” to make real estate investments. In 2008, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, holding that the SABRE entities were not intended, third-party beneficiaries of the loan agreement, and that the lost profits from the contemplated real estate transactions were not foreseeable. In 2011, the Texas Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for consideration of Dynex’s argument that the damages were not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Now, in 2013, the court of appeals has held that, with one exception, there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s original award of damages. The court went through a detailed analysis of the testimony of Basic’s damages expert, concluding that his testimony was sufficient to sustain the jury’s award of damages for the lost real estate investments Basic had envisioned. However, the court of appeals sustained the trial court’s grant of JNOV as to one item of damages — $252,577 awarded by the jury for “lost opportunity” on an investment that Basic had actually completed.

The saga of Basic v. Dynex is not over yet. In addition to the possibility of further appeal to the Supreme Court, the court of appeals also remanded to the district court for further consideration of Basic’s claim for attorney fees, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest. We’ll keep you posted if the case results in any further opinions on appeal.

Basic Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc., No. 05-04-01358-CV

HCBeck was hired to build a hall for a church. It subcontracted the foundation work to another company, B&R Development. After the building was completed, the hall began to have foundation problems, which cost HCBeck $68,976 to repair. HCBeck sued B&R for negligence and breach of contract, and obtained a no-answer default judgment. The company proved up the amount of its damages with an affidavit and supporting documentation, but the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing. On restricted appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that an evidentiary hearing was necessary because the damages sought by HCBeck were unliquidated. HCBeck’s affidavit was also inadequate to prove the claimed damages because the supporting documents totaled approximately $87,000, not the $68,976 that HCBeck sought for the default judgment. However, the court of appeals denied B&R’s request for a new trial on the merits because the company had never filed a motion for new trial in the district court. Accordingly, the remand was limited to the issue of HCBeck’s damages.

B&R Development , Inc. v. HCBeck, Ltd., No. 05-11-01150-CV

The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a restricted appeal from the entry of a foreign judgment. Bulldog received a judgment against Whitehead in Indiana after failing to answer a request for admissions or to appear at trial. Bulldog filed the Indiana judgment in a Texas district court pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and Whitehead moved to vacate. The court held a hearing at which both parties were represented by counsel and denied Whitehead’s motion on February 7, 2012. Whitehead filed a notice of restricted Appeal on April 4, 2012. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Whitehead fully participated in the hearing on his motion to vacate in the Texas court and because he failed to file his notice of appeal within 30 days after the judgment was signed.

Whitehead v. Bulldog Battery Corporation, No. 05-12-00449-CV

UPDATE: The court has withdrawn this opinion on rehearing.

The court reversed and remanded for a new trial a judgment for the plaintiff on its fraudulent transfer claims. MacArthur Ranch sued the owners of a nail salon for missed rent payments under their commercial lease. Just before summary judgment, the owners conveyed two assets to the two Hos, a parent and brother of the owners. MacArthur Ranch then filed a fraudulent transfer suit against the Hos under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The trial court found that the transfers were fraudulent and awarded damages and ordered execution on the transferred assets.

On appeal, the Hos argued that the evidence was factually and legally insufficient to support the finding of fraudulent transfers. But the court held that there was sufficient evidence that the transfers were intended to “hinder, delay, or defraud” MacArthur Ranch because they were made to insiders, without consideration, and before a substantial judgment, and thus were fraudulent. The court held, however, that the amount of MacArthur Ranch’s damages was not supported by the evidence because the expert testimony of MacArthur Ranch’s property manager was conclusory as to the fair market value of the assets. The manager provided no testimony as to how she reached those values, merely answering “yes” to counsels leading questions regarding those values. Because the record showed that the value of the assets was undetermined, but greater than zero, and liability was contested, the court remanded for a new trial.

Ho v. MacArthur Ranch, LLC, No. 05-11-00967-CV

The court reversed and remanded a forcible-detainer and unpaid rent default judgment. The tenants moved from the landlord’s property prior to the action, which the landlord won in the justice court. The tenants appealed to the county court, but failed to appear for trial and court granted the landlord all of its requested relief. In a motion for new trial and attached affidavits, the tenants asserted that they received no notice of the trial setting. Despite the fact that the tenants had included the new, correct address in their pleading, the court sent their notice to their old address at the landlord’s apartment complex. The tenants failed to set a hearing on the motion, however, which was then overruled by operation of law.

On appeal, the court held that the tenants established lack of notice of the trial setting, and thus that the default judgment on the landlord’s action for unpaid rent and attorney’s fees should be set aside and the case remanded for trial. The court also held that the landlord’s forcible-detainer action was moot because possession was already relinquished.

Batie v. Cimarron, No. 05-11-00024-CV

Back in December, the Dallas Court of Appeals became one of the first courts to issue a ruling on the merits under our new anti-SLAPP statute, the Texas Citizens Participation Act. As we noted previously, the TCPA permits defamation defendants to file a motion to dismiss, which then puts the plaintiff to the burden of producing prima facie evidence in support of their claim. The statute may also permit an interlocutory appeal if the trial court denies the motion to dismiss (although maybe not so much under the Fort Worth Court of Appeals’ reading of the statute). But to invoke the right to an interlocutory appeal, the defendant still has to follow the deadlines established by the TCPA, which requires the notice of appeal to be filed within 60 days after the motion to dismiss is denied, whether by order of the trial court or by operation of law.

Defendant Ravinder Jain timely filed his motion to dismiss, and the trial court heard the motion on February 2, 2012. But the court did not issue a ruling on the motion within 30 days, at which time the TCPA deems the motion to be denied by operation of law. On May 17, the trial court issued an order expressly denying the motion to dismiss, and Jain filed his notice of appeal only a few days after that order. However, the court of appeals held that the notice of appeal needed to be filed within 60 days of the date that the motion was originally denied by operation of law (i.e., early March), making Rain’s late-May notice of appeal untimely. The court therefore dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Jain v. Cambridge Petroleum Group, Inc., No. 05-12-0677-CV

The court vacated and reversed and rendered the trial court’s judgment in a forcible-detainer action awarding the Plaintiff possession of the property, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Daftarys commercial real estate lease with HSM expired in 2008, and they sought to exercise a three-year renewal option. The parties did not execute a written extension, but the Daftarys continued paying rent for over a year beginning in July 2008. In December 2009, HSM requested that the Daftarys either execute a new long-term lease or vacate, and when the Daftarys refused filed this forcible-detainer action. On the morning of trial, the Daftarys relinquished the keys to the property and tendered possession of the space to the court and then argued that the case was moot because it no longer presented an issue about which party was entitled to possession. The trial court proceeded to a bench trial, awarding HSM possession, damages for the rental difference, and attorney’s fees.

On appeal, the court held that the issue of possession was moot, but that HSM’s claims for damages and attorney’s fees incurred defending possession presented live controversies. HSM failed to show sufficient evidence of damages, however, because they only presented evidence that the property’s rental value had increased in July 2008, and presented no evidence of value in December 2009 when their right to possession accrued. And because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the possession issue and erred by awarding HSM’s damages, HSM was no longer the prevailing party and could not collect attorney’s fees.

Daftary v. Prestonwood Market Square, No. 05-11-00673-CV

After defaulting on his home equity loan, the borrower filed suit to stop the servicer from foreclosing on his home. The borrower argued that (1) the note had been cancelled through the addition of a “VOID” on the last page, (2) that the photocopy of the note produced by the servicer was not authentic, and (3) that the servicer had not shown how it acquired the note, and therefore had not proven it was authorized to enforce it. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the servicer, rejecting all three of the homeowner’s claims. The “VOID” stamp did not show any intent to cancel the note, the court held, because it only appeared over an unused endorsement line on the last page, and there was no other indication of cancellation. The servicer also did not need to produce the original of the promissory note because it was seeking a judicial foreclosure, not making demand for payment of the note, and the borrower had admitted he had defaulted under the note. Finally, the servicer was not required to establish a complete record of the transactions by which it had acquired the note, as its ownership was validly established by the allonge that transferred the note from the original lender to the servicer.

Chance v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 05-12-00306-CV

In this forcible detainer action, Jackqueline McDaniel (the mortgagee in default) challenged the trial court’s decision to grant HSBC’s (the purchaser at the foreclosure auction) possession of the premises because, according to McDaniel, HSBC did not present any evidence of its landlord-tenant relationship with her. But HSBC had introduced the deed of trust and the foreclosures sale deed, and together these instruments demonstrated that (1) the landlord-tenant relationship, which arose following McDaniel’s default and (2) evidence that HSBC purchased the property at a public auction. Thus, HSBC established its right to immediate possession of the property and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgement.

McDaniel v HSBC Bank

AdvoCare employed Plaintiffs as distributors to sell its products.  Under this distribution arrangement, these distributors earned commissions based on products sold both to consumers and to other distributors “down line.”   But AdvoCare could choose not to renew these distributorships every year, and it retained the right to terminate its distributors if they breached certain conditions.  When AdvoCare terminated each of the Plaintiffs for failing to comply with these very conditions, Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The jury found for the Plaintiffs on the DTPA claim only.

AdvoCare appealed because, it argued, the Plaintiffs were not “consumers,” and the DTPA expressly limits recovery to situations where (1) consumers acquired goods or services by purchase or lease and (2) the goods or services purchased or leased form the basis of the complaint.  Examining the record, the Court of Appeals found that Plaintiffs’ claim rested almost entirely on the wrongful termination of their distributorships.  Indeed, the Court pointed out that “the sole basis for the claimed damages is the value of each distributorship as of the date AdvoCare terminated their distributorships.”  Because “[n]either the termination nor the lost value is tied to any alleged defective product or service,” the DTPA claim fails.

Advocare International LP v. Ford, et al. No. 05-10-00590-CV

We don’t usually cover family law cases here at 600 Commerce, but this one involves the validity of an award of attorney fees as a sanction against the plaintiff. Steven Shilling and Karrie Gough divorced in 2005. The divorce decree included an agreed permanent injunction prohibiting the Ms. Gough from “disclosing” information about her ex-husband’s medical history. Several years later, Mr. Shilling sued his ex-wife for allegedly violating the injunction. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled that Gough had not violated the injunction by discussing Shilling’s medical history with her friend and new husband because they already knew about Shilling’s medical history — hence, Gough had not “disclosed” it to them. The trial court then awarded Ms. Gough $96,000 in attorney fees under both section 9.014 of the Family Code and as sanctions against Shilling for bringing a frivolous and bad faith lawsuit.

After rejecting section 9.014 as the basis for an award of fees — concluding that section only authorizes attorney fees in a suit for enforcement of the division of property, not enforcement of an injunction against speech — the court of appeals turned to the issue of attorney fees as a sanction. Gough’s answer had requested an award of attorney fees and stated that Shilling’s suit was “frivolous and brought for the purposes of harassment only.” The pleading was otherwise silent on the basis for any award of fees, no motion for sanctions was ever filed, and the trial court never issued any order for Shilling to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Under those circumstances, the court of appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding fees to Gough under Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, which requires either a motion for sanctions or an order to show cause that describes the sanctionable conduct. The court likewise ruled that the attorney fees could not be sustained as a sanction under Rule 13 for filing a case that was “groundless and brought in bad faith,” because it was not self-evident that Ms. Gough’s discussions with her friend and new husband had not “disclosed” new information about Shilling’s medical history. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed and rendered the attorney fees award.

Shilling v. Gough, No. 05-11-00292-CV

Upon dismissing appellant’s groundless DTPA claim, the trial court awarded appellee $42,500 in attorney’s fees.  On top of that, the trial court ruled that appellant had to deposit $36,000 to supersede the judgment.  This ruling was based on the trial courts finding that the attorney’s fees it awarded to appellee were compensatory damages requiring a supersedeas bond. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that attorney’s fees are not compensatory damages and thus do not necessitate the identified security.

Lopez v. RS Clark, No. 05-12-00868-CV

Kaufman County obtained a temporary injunction against the operators of a local firing range, preventing them from continuing to operate the gun range because it was too close to nearby businesses and residences.  The range owners filed an interlocutory appeal, and the parties thereafter agreed to stay the trial court proceedings while the appeal was pending. But an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction is not supposed to delay the trial on the merits, as the issue on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion in ordering temporary relief before the case can proceed to full trial, not to obtain a ruling on the merits from the appellate courts. Invoking the rule that the fastest way to cure the hardship of a temporary injunction is to try the case on the merits, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal, admonishing the parties and the trial court to proceed “expeditiously” to trial.

Morgan Security Consultants, LLC v. Kaufman County, No. 05-12-00721-CV

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment for the appellant on count one and for apellee on counts two and four, but said nothing about counts three and five other than invoking a Mother Hubbard clause in the order, which reads: “All relief requested and not expressly granted herein is hereby denied.”   With its order, the trial court granted appellee permanent injunctive relief, exonerated appellee’s bond, and taxed costs against appellant.

On appeal, the Court avoided the substantive issues and only addressed its own jurisdiction.  Following Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001), the Court held that the trial court’s order was not “final” because it neglected to address claims three and five, and because the Mother Hubbard clause and the permanent injunction did not suffice to render those claims final.

Auroura Loan Services v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC

The court of appeals has affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the owner of Las Colinas Country Club, in a case arising out of the death of a man who was diving for golf balls in the water hazard at the 18th green. The worker’s widow claimed that the country club was liable under the theory that it was engaged in a joint enterprise with the company it had contracted to recover lost golf balls, which had also employed the decedent. The country club obtained summary judgment on the basis that there was no evidence of a “community of pecuniary interest,” as required by the joint enterprise doctrine. The court of appeals agreed, holding that it was insufficient for the plaintiff to show that the country club paid the ball retrieval company 12 cents for each ball recovered. Joint enterprise theory does not rest on the fact that the defendants each had a common business interest in the enterprise.  Instead, it requires a common interest that is “shared without special or distinguishing characteristics” in the relevant common purpose. Although each party to the ball retrieval contract benefited from it, that fact alone was not capable of establishing that the defendants had a community of pecuniary interest.

Logan v. Irving Club Acquisition Corp., No. 05-11-01314-CV