In 2000, the union representing DART’s employees sued DART, alleging that it was improperly denying its employees’ grievances and requests for appeals.  As a result, the parties entered into a settlement agreement providing that DART was required to modify the employee grievance procedures in its employment manual.

Years later, in 2010, a dispute arose between DART and a former employee (who had been terminated) over DART’s grievance procedures.  The union ultimately sued DART, alleging that it had breached the prior settlement agreement.  DART filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity, which the trial court denied.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, noting that when “a governmental entity agrees to settle a lawsuit in which it has waived governmental immunity, it cannot claim immunity from suit for breach of the settlement agreement.”  Because DART had waived immunity in the 2000 lawsuit and the union was claiming it had breached that agreement, DART could not claim immunity from the suit.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1338

In this malicious prosecution case, the Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s award of actual and punitive damages because the evidence introduced at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.  Among other things, the Court found that the defendant did not “initiate the prosecution” by bringing a formal charge to initiate the prosecution.  Instead, the defendant simply provided a “Voluntary Statement” that the law enforcement officer used to formally charge the plaintiff.  Thus, the Court found that the plaintiff could not establish the legal requirement that the defendant “initiated or procured” the underlying criminal prosecution.

Lermon v. Minyard Food Stores, Inc.

The Court of Appeals has granted mandamus relief to direct a Collin County trial court to vacate its order granting a new trial for the plaintiff in a product liability suit. The district court granted the motion based on both factual sufficiency and juror misconduct grounds. The Court of Appeals held that the new trial order could not be sustained on the basis of juror misconduct because the lower court had not conducted an evidentiary hearing — affidavits attached to the motion alone were not sufficient under Rule 327. The Court also concluded that the jury’s verdict for the defense was not contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, as conflicting testimony from the parties’ design experts adequately supported the jury’s decision that the medical implant at issue was not defective.

In re Zimmer, Inc., No. 05-14-00940-CV

In a prior action, the plaintiff (through counsel) negotiated a settlement through the defendant’s attorney and the attorney then sent the plaintiff a final settlement agreement, which the plaintiff signed.  The defendant, however, refused to sign the agreement and later filed bankruptcy.  The plaintiff then sued the defendant’s attorney for fraud, arguing that the attorney had misrepresented that her client would settle based on the agreed upon terms.

The trial court granted the attorney’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff could not establish the justifiable reliance element of his fraud claim.  The Court of Appeals affirmed because the attorney made no express representation that her client had approved or would sign the settlement agreement, and reliance on representations made in business transactions are  not justified when the representation takes place in an adversarial context such as litigation.

Weilbacher v. Craft

In this breach of contract case decided under New York law, the Court of Appeals found (among many other things) that the fact that the contract required the parties to close the underlying distressed debt trade “as soon as practicable” did not mean that “time was of the essence.”  Thus, the Court held that the defendants failure to close the trade within 60 days did not constitute a breach.

Highland Credit Opportunities CDO, L.P. v. UBS AG

In this complex fraud case arising out of the misappropriation of millions of dollars in loan proceeds, one issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s request for a spoliation instruction.  The plaintiff had moved to compel certain communications from one of the defendants, but that defendant had replaced its servers and did not back up the data.  Because there was no evidence that the defendant had acted with intent to conceal the discoverable evidence or acted negligently to irreparably deprive the plaintiff of “any meaningful ability to present its claims,” the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision not to give a spoliation instruction to the jury.

Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Walker

Although medical malpractice usually isn’t this blog’s cup of tea, it is sometimes interesting to see just how broadly the courts will apply the expert report requirement for health care liability claims contained in Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. In this case, we learn that a case against a hospital will not be dismissed for failure to file an expert report when the claim is for a slip-and-fall injury. The Court of Appeals distinguished between claims that have an indirect relationship with health care (which require an expert report) and those that are “completely untethered” from health care. Slipping and falling on a wet floor in a hallway, the Court holds, has nothing to do with health care, and so the trial court correctly denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss.

Methodist Hosps. of Dallas v. Searcy, No. 05-14-00375-CV

In this restricted appeal of a default judgment, the Court found (among other things) insufficient evidence to support damages on a suit for breach of contract and on a sworn account.  The Court based its holding on the fact that there was contradictory information among the petition, the documents attached to the petition, and the business records filed.  In particular, the Court noted that there was no evidence of any amount owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Diaz v. Multi Service Tech. Solutions Corp.

Under the Texas Tax Code, property taxes are a personal obligation of the person who owns the property on January 1 of each tax year. In this case, the owner purchased her home on February 25 and paid that year’s taxes after closing. She then sought to make the former owner’s lender responsible for the payment of the property taxes because the former owner had been delinquent under the loan. The Court of Appeals rejected that attempt holding that a lienholder is not an owner subject to the property tax obligation. The Court also rejected the buyer’s attempt to make the bank liable to her under a contract theory, noting that her sale agreement was with the seller, and that she had no contract with the bank. Accordingly, the trial court’s summary judgment order was affirmed.

Blume v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 05-13-01429-CV

An investor sought to have its shares in a hedge fund redeemed, but the hedge fund made a complex maneuver under Bermuda laws that resulted in the investor receiving less than it anticipated from the redemption.  The investor sued the hedge fund, asserting numerous claims, including a negligence claim.  The trial court granted summary judgment, and the investor appealed.  Addressing the investor’s negligence claim, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the hedge fund manager did not owe a duty to the investor.

Mary E. Bivins Found. v. Highland Capital Mgmt., LP

A special appearance in a probate case has led to the exceedingly rare grant of a motion for sanctions for the filing of a frivolous appeal. In this instance, the appellant managed to make a general appearance in the case before filing the special appearance — a fact that the appellant had failed to even address in response to the appellee’s briefing in the probate court. On top of that, the appellant had failed to preserve his argument on appeal that the special appearance was somehow severable from the motion to show cause in which he entered his general appearance, nor had the appellant objected (and thereby preserved error) when the probate judge overruled the special appearance without holding a separate hearing on it. Although the appellee had not submitted any evidence of her damages to support the award of sanctions, the Court of Appeals granted her leave to file such evidence within ten days of the opinion.

Estate of Ardyce Deuel-Nash, Deceased, No. 05-14-00128-CV

In this breach of contract action, the Court of Appeals held that Texas’ four-year statute of limitations barred the defendant’s counterclaim.  The breach of contract counterclaim was based on the plaintiff’s failure to provide account documents within 10 days of the date of the agreement, which was June 28, 2007.  Because the defendant made no legal argument to toll the date of the agreement, the Court held that all of the defendant’s claims under the agreement at issue were barred as a matter of law.

Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Palisades Collection, LLC