In 2005, Dibon Solutions acquired 100% of RTS’s common stock. In 2006, the Texas Secretary of State ordered the forfeiture of RTS’s charter or certificate of authority for failure to comply with the tax code. In 2007, Martinair contracted with RTS for use of RTS’s profit optimization products and related services. Martinair later terminated its agreement with RTS, and RTS sued Martinair for breach of contract, identifying the plaintiff as RTS, “a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas.”

Martinair filed a motion for summary judgment against RTS, arguing RTS’s forfeiture of its corporate existence in 2006 deprived it of legal authority and capacity under Texas law to enter into the Agreement upon which it sued Martinair, which the trial court granted in part. The trial court also struck RTS’s amended petition, which had purported to substitute RTS’s parent corporation, Dibon, as the plaintiff. On appeal, Dibon argued the trial court erred in striking its amended petition. The Court of Appeals disagreed, and affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Rule 28 permits a partnership doing business under an assumed name to file suit in that name. However, Dibon failed to make a showing that it actually conducted business under the name RTS, thus its amended petition was improper.

Dibon Solutions, Inc. v. Martinair Holland N.V., No. 05-11-01586-CV

In November 2012, a Union Pacific train collided with a flatbed trailer carrying veterans and their spouses during a Veteran’s Day parade in Midland, Texas.  The plaintiffs filed their personal injury/wrongful death suit in Dallas County.  Union Pacific moved to transfer venue back to Midland County because its principal place of business in Texas is not in Dallas, but rather Harris County and, thus, the only proper venue is in Midland where the accident occurred.  The trial court denied Union Pacific’s motion to transfer.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, however, holding that Union Pacific’s “principal office” in Texas was not in Dallas because, although some management occurred in that office, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Union Pacific employees in the Dallas office had “comparable authority” to the executives in Harris County.

Union Pac. RR Co. v. Stouffer

The Lavon Water Supply Corp. sued TierOne Converged Networks to evict TierOne and its equipment from Lavon’s water towers. TierOne superseded the eviction by depositing $10,800 — one year of rent — into the registry of the court. Lavon then moved to increase the bond to $40,500, basing the increase on the offer of a competing company to lease the space for $3,375 per month. The trial court granted the request to increase the bond, but the Court of Appeals set aside that order on motion for review.

In setting the supersedeas bond in an eviction suit, the court must consider the reasonable value of the rents likely to accrue during appeal. Although the testimony of Lavon’s witnesses established the amount of rent that TierOne’s competitor proposed to pay, there was no evidence that $3,375 was a reasonable rental rate for space on Lavon’s water towers. In addition, TierOne had offered to waive the exclusivity provision in its lease, and the testimony established that TierOne’s competitor was willing to lease space from Lavon with TierOne’s equipment still in place. Thus, there was no evidence that Lavon was being deprived of any increased rents, and the order increasing the supersedeas bond was vacated.

TierOne Converged Networks, Inc. v. Lavon Water Supply Corp., No. 05-13-00370-CV

Kelly Hawkins obtained a default judgment in his home state of Kansas against Texas attorney Lloyd Ward and his firms. Hawkins then brought suit in Dallas to enforce the Kansas judgment. Ward contended that the Kansas judgment was ineffective because that state lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The Kansas court had found jurisdiction based in part on the allegation that the defendants had operated as a joint venture in entering into their representation of Hawkins, and Ward failed to negate that conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. Ward also failed to negate Hawkins’ allegations of the defendants’ contacts with Hawkins in Kansas during the course of the representation. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the trial court’s denial of Ward’s motion to vacate the Kansas judgment.

Ward v. Hawkins, No. 05-12-00712-CV

In this memorandum opinion, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to effect service on the defendant because the proof of service on the Secretary of State’s return stated that “no such number” existed.  This, according to the Court, was prima facie evidence that the defendant was not served.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Bonney

A roofer died after falling from the rooftop on one of his jobs.  His estate sued the general contractor for negligence, claiming that the general contractor maintained a duty to ensure the roofer operated with all proper safety equipment.  The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in the general contractor’s favor because it found that the general contractor did not owe the roofer, a sub-contractor, a duty to ensure he performed his job safely.  According to the Court, “a general contractor’s duty of reasonable care is commensurate with the control it retains over the subcontractor.” Because the general contractor here did not maintain either contractual or actual control over how the roofer performed his job, it did not owe him any duty to ensure his safe work habits.

Gonzalez v. VATR Construction

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that appellees lacked sufficient contacts with Texas in their individual capacities to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them. Appellants argued that appellees were subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas because the tortious interference and related conspiracy claims against appellees directly relate to and arise from appellees’ purposeful contacts with Texas. According to the Court, any alleged jurisdictional contacts in furtherance of tortious interference made by appellees in their capacity as corporate officers are subject to the fiduciary shield doctrine and do not constitute contacts with Texas in their individual capacities because there was no proof such contacts were motivated solely by appelees’ personal interest.  Accordingly, the Court found appellees’ evidence that none of their contacts with Texas were in their individual capacities, combined with the fact that appellees could not be liable in their individual capacities for their conduct on behalf of out of state entities, negated appellant’s jurisdictional allegations.

Kaye-Bassman Int’l v. Dankuka

The Court of Appeals has once again denied a permissive interlocutory appeal. Respondents sued petitioners for injuries they sustained after a bus accident in Mexico. The bus ticket stated that the passenger accepted “the validity and application of the authority and jurisdiction of the applicable Mexican Law and Regulations…” The trial court denied petitioner’s motion to apply the laws of Mexico, ruling instead that Texas law applied. Petitioners appealed. The Court found that although petitioners claim they will have to do additional discovery without a decision from the Court of Appeals on the choice of law issue, petitioners failed to show the appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

Autobuses Ejecutivos v. Cuevos

The Court of Appeals has granted mandamus in another discovery dispute. This time, it regards a trial court’s order for an expert witness to turn over all documents reflecting discussions with the plaintiff and its counsel, as well as all documents relating to the plaintiff’s claims and defenses. But the expert had also performed services for the plaintiff in a capacity that brought him within the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and the Court held that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to compel the production of privileged materials and items outside the scope of the rules providing for expert disclosures.

In re Segner, No 05-13-01414-CV

Tecore, Inc. purchased equipment from AirWalk Communications and integrated the equipment into its own cellular network products. Tecore originally bought the equipment under an agreement that did not include any arbitration clause, but AirWalk elected to terminate that contract and proposed a new one instead. The proposed contract included an arbitration clause, but the parties were never able to finalize a new agreement. Nevertheless, Tecore sought to purchase additional equipment from AirWalk, and AirWalk’s quotation for that equipment attached and incorporated its own terms and conditions, including an arbitration provision. Tecore sent back a purchase order that made no reference to AirWalk’s terms, and AirWalk responded with a “Purchase Order Acceptance” form that again stated the sale was subject to the same terms attached to its previous quote. When the sale subsequently fell apart, AirWalk filed a demand for arbitration. Tecore objected to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, but the case proceeded and an award was ultimately entered in favor of AirWalk. The district court confirmed the arbitration award, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Tecore argued that AirWalk’s arbitration provision had never become part of their agreement, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. Reviewing the issue de novo, the Court first disposed of Tecore’s claim that the sale had been made subject to the continuing terms of the original sales contract. Tecore also argued that it had not accepted the terms attached to AirWalk’s quote because its purchase order had not complied with the quote’s instruction to reference both the quotation number and the terms and conditions attached to the quote. However, the Court of Appeals did not read that instruction as mandating a particular form of acceptance for the formation of a contract, and even if it had been a requirement, AirWalk’s subsequent assent to Tecore’s defective acceptance confirmed that a contract had still been formed, including AirWalk’s arbitration clause.

Tecore, Inc. v. AirWalk Communications., Inc., No. 05-12-00130-CV

Miller Global Properties worked with Marriott International to build a resort and golf club in the Hill Country outside San Antonio. They entered into a series of agreements for planning and budgeting the resort, but the final contract by which Miller purchased the report included an “as-is” sale provision. In that clause, Miller acknowledged and agreed that Marriott had not made any representations, and went on to “specifically negate and disclaim any representations.” A related contract regarding the construction of the property also contained a merger clause. The cost to build the resort proved to be $90 million higher than the budget, and Miller sued Marriott on con-tort claims, alleging that Marriott had misrepresented that the plans and specifications for the resort were essentially complete and that the budget would be adequate to complete construction.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Marriott, which argued that the contracts negated the element of reliance necessary to support Miller’s tort claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the as-is provision negated and disclaimed the extrinsic representations Marriott was alleged to have made to Miller. That met the standard set by Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011), which had permitted a misrepresentation case to proceed where the parties’ contract only disclaimed the existence of representations about the subject matter of the contract, without also disclaiming reliance on any representations made outside the contract. Because the contracts negotiated between Miller and Marriott disclaimed both the existence of additional representations and any reliance on them, Miller’s claims were barred.

Miller Global Props., LLC v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., No. 05-12-0822-CV

The plaintiff in a personal injury suit sought to compel the deposition of the defendants’ outside counsel, who had also served as the parent company’s secretary. The trial court granted the motion in part, ordering the attorney to testify on certain business-related matters and his investigation of the collision that had injured the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that communications and materials provided to the attorney in his capacity as secretary were not privileged, but that information provided to or collected by him as the defendants’ attorney was necessarily privileged and therefore outside the proper scope of discovery. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus to exclude privileged information from the scope of the business-related topics, and to deny entirely the plaintiff’s attempt to obtain discovery regarding the attorney’s investigation of the accident.

In re Southpak Container Corp., No. 05-13-01457-CV

The Court of Appeals has granted mandamus relief in a discovery dispute over the scope of a corporate representative’s deposition. The underlying lawsuit was for damage to the plaintiffs’ property incurred in the course of moving from Texas to the United Arab Emirates. The plaintiffs sought deposition testimony on two topics that the Court of Appeals held were beyond the proper scope of discovery. First, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to discovery of the defendant’s gross revenues for 2009-13, as the relevant issue for purposes of exemplary damages is the defendant’s current net worth, not its past and present revenues. Second, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for the witness to identify the defendants’ production documents and explain why they had been produced. On that issue, the Court cited In re Exxon Corp., 208 S.W.3d 70, 76 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2006, orig. proceeding), for the proposition that “discovery regarding the methods of document collection and production invades the work-product privilege.” The opinion does not explain just how far that principle reaches, but attorneys and clients should keep it in mind the next time they are writing or responding to a corporate rep notice.

In re Arpin Am. Moving Sys., LLC, No. 05-13-01446-CV

In 2007, LG Auto Laundry sold a .8-acre tract to Shammy Man Auto Wash, with Shammy Man purchasing the land by means of a mortgage from Millennium State Bank.  At the same time, LG and Shammy signed a ground lease permitting LG to possess .06 acres of the property containing a cell phone tower.  LG and Millennium signed a Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement (SNDA) providing that, in the event of foreclosure, LG’s possession of the leased property would not be disturbed.  Shammy defaulted, but before Millennium could foreclose, the FDIC took over Millennium and transferred the assets to the State Bank of Texas.  The plaintiff purchased the property  from the State Bank of Texas and filed this lawsuit to establish that the foreclosure extinguished LG’s ground lease.

Although a valid foreclosure on a lien terminates leases, here the ground lease specifically stated that it was subordinate to Millennium’s deed, but the SNDA provided that LG’s possession would survive the foreclosure.  However, because the FDIC took over Millennium, federal law prohibited LG from enforcing the SNDA.  As a result, the Court found that the plaintiff acquired the land free and clear of LG’s lease.

Kimzey Wash v. LG Auto Laundry

In this slip-and-fall litigation, the defendant moved for an order declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant, which the trial court granted.  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the plaintiff vexatious because, while he had, indeed, brought a number of prior lawsuits (thus satisfying one prong standard), the plaintiff could establish a reasonable probability of success in the pending litigation.  Thus, the defendants could not satisfy the second prong of the two-prong test.

Amir-Sharif v Quick Trip Corp