An published opinion about recoverable attorneys’ fees in a declaratory judgment action reviewed the controlling authorities, from the Texas Supreme Court and the Fifth Court, and reminded of these principles-

• “[Counsel]’s argument that her fees were ‘intertwined” was an insufficient basis for the trial court’s award. But neither should the trial court have disallowed all fees ‘simply because the services also further[ed] non-recoverable claims.'”
• “[Counsel] offered some evidence of her recoverable fees through her attorneys’ testimony and supporting documentation . . . . ‘Unsegregated attorney’s fees for the entire case are some evidence of what the segregated amount should be.'”
• Remand is an appropriate appeal remedy “for reconsideration with sufficiently detailed information for a meaningful review of the fees sought.”
• There is dispute among the Texas courts of appeal as to when a timely objection about segregation must be made. Footnote 4 of the opinion summarizes the authority on this point.

Anderton v. Green, No. 05-17-00024-CV (July 23, 2018).

Miskevitch, a store manager, alleged that 7-Eleven terminated her in violation of the Texas Labor Code in retaliation for opposing a discriminatory practice. Specifically, she alleged that in accordance with company policy, she had reported an employee’s complaint of harassment by another manager, and then shook her head in disgust at a meeting about the complaint. The Fifth Court, following precedent from San Antonio, found that because the report was made pursuant to company policy, it was done in support of the company rather than in opposition to it, and was not actionable under this statute. And the evidence showed that her head shake was in reaction to the report of harassment – not actions by the company. The Court denied 7-Eleven’s request for fees, however, observing: “Although [Miskevitch] lacked Texas authority for her position on protected activity, she  attempted to distinguish 7-Eleven’s cases and argued for an extension of federal law.” Miskevitch v. 7-Eleven, No. 05-17-00099-CV (July 25, 2018) (mem. op.)

In a win for our LPCH client, the Fifth Court denied mandamus relief from two discovery orders, relying primarily on the doctrine of laches. Reminding that “[a]lthough mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles,” the Court reviewed several opinions from Dallas (and other intermediate Texas courts), and held that laches barred mandamus relief when “relators waited more than five months to seek mandamus relief” from the relevant discovery order, and offer[ed] no explanation for the delay.”  In re: Southwest Laboratories, No. 05-18-00832-CV (July 24, 2018) (mem. op.)

While applying federal and not Texas law, a useful tidbit about whether a notice of appeal is “jurisdictional” appeared during the last SCOTUS term in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services: “Several Courts of Appeals, including the Court of Appeals in Hamer’s case, have tripped over our statement in Bowles [v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 210–213 (2007)], that “the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’ The ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ formulation is a characterization left over from days when we were ‘less than meticulous’ in our use of the term ‘jurisdictional.’ The statement was correct as applied in Bowles because, as the Court there explained, the time prescription at issue in Bowles was imposed by Congress. But ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ is erroneous and confounding terminology where, as here, the relevant time prescription is absent from the U.S. Code. Because Rule 4(a)(5)(C), not § 2107, limits the length of the extension granted here, the time prescription is not jurisdictional.” No. 16-658 (Nov. 18, 2017) (citations and footnote omitted).

My LPCH colleague John Adams and I recently published “Goldilocks and the Three Outcomes: Civil En Banc Review in the Dallas Court of Appeals, 2001-18” in the Appellate Advocate, the journal of the State Bar Appellate Section. It concludes:

The “not consciously indifferent” element of the three-part Craddock test was satisfied when the defaulted party “provided an uncontroverted explanation for its failure to answer in its motion for new trial and attached supporting declaration. In the supporting declaration, Intras’s representative . . . testified that after learning of the instant lawsuit, he contacted the representative at Core 3, Christopher Bergen, to try to resolve the matter,” as follows:

During those discussions, Christopher Bergen represented to me that Core 3 would continue to work only on trying to resolve our dispute until it appeared that further negotiations were no longer productive, and at that point would give Intras reasonable notice before proceeding with any actions in the lawsuit.

Core 3 did not provide any notice to me or anyone else at Intras that Core 3 intended to proceed with the lawsuit or file any motion for default judgment.

 

The Fifth Court held that this declaration “shows neither intent nor conscious indifference. At worst, it evinces mere negligence; there is nothing to indicate that Intras intentionally chose not to answer the suit.” Intras LLC v. Core 3 Technologies LLC, No. 05-17-00832-CV (July 12, 2018) (mem. op.)

The Stantons obtained a temporary injunction against the removal of a “large elm tree” from along their property line. The Fifth Court reversed, finding that Tex. R. Civ. P. 683 was not satisfied as the order “does not state or explain the probable, imminent, and irreparable harm the Stantons will suffer absent an injunction. The trial court’s temporary injunction order simply recites the conclusory statement that the Stantons have shown that they will suffer an irreparable injury for which they have no other adequate legal remedy.” (citation omitted) The Court also questioned the Stantons’ right to sue about the tree at all, citing century-old Texas law establishing that “ownership is not shared with an adjacent property owner just because a tree grows across a boundary line. Instead, . . . this becomes an ‘invasion’ of the adjacent property owner’s right of possession.” Collins v. Mnuchin, No. 05-17-01363-CV (July 12, 2018) (mem. op.)

A detailed road map for a sustainable award of death-penalty sanctions appears in Hill v. Spracklen – “In their motion to impose death-penalty sanctions, the Spracklens catalogued Hill’s history of misconduct, including his deliberate and continuing violation of multiple court orders and his abusive and defiant behavior at his deposition. In granting the Spracklens’ request for death-penalty sanctions, the trial court [also] considered . . .  the admission of Hill’s counsel that Hill chose not to appear at the hearing. In addition, in the final judgment, the trial court found Hill’s conduct during trial provided additional support and grounds for striking Hill’s pleadings . . . At trial, Hill introduced documents he should have produced during the course of the case, but failed to do so despite having been repeatedly ordered to do so, and presented what appeared to be inconsistent forms of the contract Janet Spracklen supposedly signed.” No. 05-17-00829-CV (July 12, 2018) (mem. op.)

The Taylors argued that their medical malpractice case against UT-Southwestern was timely filed, even though they erroneously filed it against the University of Texas System, relying on the doctrine of “misidentification.” While suing the wrong party does not ordinarily toll limitations, it can “if there are two separate, but related, entities that use a similar trade name and the correct entity had notice of the suit and was not misled of disadvantaged by the mistake.” The Fifth Court concluded that “University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center” and “University of Texas System” were not sufficiently similar to invoke this doctrine; additionally, the Taylors did not establish UTSW’s knowledge of the suit or a lack of prejudice to it. The opinion also addresses, and rejects, the related doctrine of “misnomer.” UT-Southwestern v. Taylor, No. 05-17-01221-CV (July 6, 2018).

In a win for our law firm, the Fifth Court rejected a personal jurisdiction theory based on alleged misrepresentations to a Texas business by a resident of Greece.”‘Even assuming that the phone calls, [e-mails, and video conference] were sufficiently connected to the claim, a proper minimum contacts analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.’ In addition, we have held, alleged ‘fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations made through electronic media do not establish specific jurisdiction.’   And as the supreme court concluded with respect to a Canadian entity in Searcy and based on the special appearance record, Theofanopoulos ‘had no control over’ where the executives of MoneyGram ‘happened to be located[,]’ ‘did not desire to create an ongoing relationship with Texas, enjoy the benefits of our laws, or profit from our thriving economy.'” MoneyGram v. Theofanopoulos, No. 05-17-00798-CV (July 6, 2018) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).

The Fifth Court found a sufficient fact issue to reverse a summary judgment in 6200 GP LLC v. Multi Service Corp., in which an affiant’s testimony was found not to be conclusory when:

• his testimony about the relevant assignment was not conclusory, when his affidavit explained his roles in the businesses, his relationship to the transaction, and the business structure relevant to the transaction;
• an objection that the testimony “cite[d] no, let alone contemporaneous facts or document evidencing the alleged transactions or Prime’s intent” was not well-taken, since “[a] person may testify to a sale and assignment without providing any documentary evidence,” and the testimony as in fact supported by the witness’s understanding of “journal entries and [a] tax work sheet.”

No. 05-16-01491-CV (June 28, 2018) (mem.op.)

Courtesy of the Huffington Post, here are seven good trivia questions about the Declaration of Independence to enjoy on your July 4 holiday.