The plaintiff in Benit v. Primalend Capital Partners filed a nonsuit of his claims on the evening before a summary-judgment hearing. The trial court struck the nonsuit and entered summary judgment against the plaintiff. The Fifth Court reversed, noting that the defendant had not made a claim for affirmative relief against the plaintiff, and holding that the defendant’s argument on appeal–that its motion to strike was in fact a Tex. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to show authority–was not supported by the defendant’s trial-court filing:

“Although Primalend’s motion to strike used the phrase ‘lacks authority,’ the motion did not mention rule 12; it was not sworn; it was not set for hearing; nor did it provide 10 days’ notice of a hearing. … Primalend’s motion did not provide fair notice regarding the basis for the serious relief that Primalend now insists—on appeal—it requested of the trial court pursuant to rule 12.”

No. 05-21-00024-CV (May 6, 2022) (mem. op.) (citation omitted).

One thing every lawyer in Texas learns early on is that if you want to challenge personal jurisdiction, you have to file a special appearance before you answer the petition. Critter Control, Inc. sought to avoid that waiver point by filing a motion to withdraw its original answer in favor of a subsequently filed special appearance, which the trial court denied. Critter Control filed for interlocutory appeal, and Galt Strategies, LLC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because it did not challenge the denial of the special appearance, but the Court notably did not foreclose the stratagem of moving to withdraw the answer in order to assert the untimely special appearance.

Critter Control, Inc. v. Galt Strategies, LLC, No. 05-15-01011-CV

Starting off our review of Friday night’s wave of opinions is a hedge fund securities case arising out of the 2008 financial crash. Plaintiffs contended that the defendants had falsely misrepresented that other investors’ redemption requests “were not significant,” leaving them in the lurch when the fund imploded. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Plaintiffs sought to avoid a “scheme of arrangement” issued by the Bermuda Supreme Court that established how the fund was to be liquidated, but the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs were bound by that instrument as a foreign judgment. The Court also held that there was no evidence of reliance by the plaintiffs on the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations, concluding that their testimony was speculative on what they would have done if they had been informed of the true rate of redemption.

LV Highland Credit Feeder Fund LLC v. Highland Credit Strategies Fund, LP, No. 05-13-01118-CV

A short opinion helps to illustrate the limited reach of an appellate court’s authority over the cases before it. On interlocutory appeal, both litigants agreed that the trial court should have vacated an order appointing a receiver in Texas to serve ancillary to a primary receivership in Minnesota. But in addition to vacting the order appointing the receiver, the appellant also wanted the Court of Appeals to undo all the receiver’s actions. That was beyond the appellate court’s powers however. Pointing to TRAP 43.2, the Court held that it could affirm, modify, reverse and render, reverse and remand, vacate, or dismiss — none of which permitted the Court to grant the additional relief sought by the appellant.

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. LP v. Verde Minerals, LLC, No. 05-15-00014-CV

The Dallas Court of Appeals has granted mandamus to correct a trial court’s failure to grant special exceptions and dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against the settlor of a royalty trust. The Court held that a beneficiary of the trust had no authority to interfere with the trustee’s exercise of discretionary powers, concluding that the trustee acted within its discretion by refusing to sue the settlor on claims that were precluded by the terms of the trust instruments. Citing the “practical and prudential” mandamus standard of In re Prudential, the Court of Appeals held that mandamus relief was appropriate because allowing the plaintiff to proceed to trial on behalf of the trust would defeat the trustee’s right to control such litigation. But while the settlor of the trust was dismissed from the lawsuit, and the plaintiff could not sue the trustee on behalf of the trust, the Court held that the plaintiff should have the opportunity to amend her petition to sue the trustee solely on her own behalf.

In re XTO Energy, Inc., No. 05-14-01446-CV

The U.S. Supreme Court may be poised to decide the validity of same-sex marriage bans nationwide, but the Texas Supreme Court has managed to have its voice heard to declare that it doesn’t have anything to say. Because the State of Texas was too late in seeking to intervene in a same-sex divorce, the Supreme Court held (5-3) that it could not appeal that decree. Justice Willett authored the lead dissent, which would have had the Court address the matter on the merits, while Justice Devine dissented on the merits of same-sex marriage under Texas law. So with that out of the way, everyone can turn their eyes back to 1 First St., NE.

State v. Naylor

Boyd concurrence

Willett dissent

Devine dissent

Three of four defendants filed motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, all of which were granted by the district court. The plaintiffs sought interlocutory review of those rulings, but the Dallas Court of Appeals concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to review the rulings. Because the claims against the fourth defendant were still pending, there was no final, appealable judgment in the case. Under the 2013 version of CPRC § 51.014(a)(12), only orders denying a TCPA motion to dismiss are subject to interlocutory appeal, and the current version of the TCPA itself only authorizes interlocutory appeals when the motion has been overruled by operation of law due to the trial court’s failure to rule within 30 days. The plaintiffs will therefore have to wait until final judgment before appealing the TCPA dismissals.

Horton v. Martin, No. 05-15-00015-CV

One of the questions appellate lawyers get from time to time is “What’s our deadline to file for mandamus?” The answer is that there is no formal deadline under the rules, but if you wait too long you may end up waiving your right to mandamus. A short opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals exemplifies the latter principle. On June 6, 2014, the county court at law granted a motion for new trial. On May 27, 2015, a mandamus petition was filed, seeking to require the trial judge to explain its reasons for setting aside the jury verdict and granting a new trial. With the new trial now scheduled for July 8, the Court of Appeals held that the unexplained delay of almost one year to challenge the new trial ruling was too long to justify mandamus relief.

In re Stembridge, No. 05-15-00672-CV

One of the messiest cases in recent memory has resulted in a 79-page opinion and judgment that disposes of the case in almost every way imaginable: “Our decision in this case is to vacate, in part, affirm, in part, dismiss, in part, and reverse and remand to the trial court, in part.” The case arose out of a lease executed by Fitness Evolution, its subsequent acquisition by Headhunter Fitness, a series of personal guarantys, assignments, representations, and just about everything else one might find in a bar exam essay question. Since this one pretty much defies summary, we will instead report that while summary judgment was affirmed on some claims, the end result is that most everybody involved will be remanded to the Collin County trial court for additional proceedings.

Fitness Evolution, LP v. Headhunter Fitness, LLC, No. 05-13-00506-CV

A trio of worked-up horse breeders managed to Facebook-rant their way into a colorful defamation lawsuit, which the Dallas Court of Appeals has now permitted to proceed as to one of the two counterclaim defendants. Appellants Jane McCurley Backes and Tracy Johns sued Appellee Karen Misko for tortious interference.  Misko counterclaimed against Johns for libel and against Backes for conspiracy to libel. The opinion quotes extensively from the women’s online postings, the pettiness of which will be no surprise to anyone familiar with the Internet. Misko eventually unfriended Backes and Johns, the latter of whom then posted a thinly-disguised query whether anyone had ever known someone with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Misko’s daughter had long been a victim of health issues, and other posters saw Johns’ post as an attack on Misko. That post served as the basis for Misko’s libel claim. The trial court denied Johns and Backes’ motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

The Court of Appeals held that Johns and Backes both met their initial burden of demonstrating that the claims against them were based on their rights to free speech and association, respectively. That shifted the burden to Misko to come forward with clear and specific evidence establishing a prima facie case of each element of her claims. The Court of Appeals held that Misko had indeed met that burden with respect to her libel claim against Johns, but not as to the conspiracy claim against Backes. Because Misko had not come forward with clear and specific evidence of a meeting of the minds between Backes and Johns, the Court rendered judgment dismissing the civil conspiracy claim and remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of an award of attorney fees and costs.

Backes v. Misko, No 05-14-0566-CV

After having lost on summary judgment, the plaintiff filed an amended petition, omitting all but one defendant, and then appealed the decision.  The Court of Appeal found that, because the plaintiff had omitted these parties from his amended petition, his claims against these defendants were not preserved and dismissed the appeal.

Pipes v. Hemingway

Deadlines in the Texas appellate courts can often be forgiving, with extensions of time routinely and even retroactively granted. A new memorandum opinion illustrates one of the limits to those generally flexible deadlines. James Polk’s notice of appeal was due on November 4, but it was not actually filed until November 18. That was within the 15-day permitted for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal, so the Court of Appeals directed the appellant to file a motion under Rule 26.3 that set forth a reasonable explanation of the need for the extension. When that motion was filed, however, it explained that the original deadline had been missed due to Polk’s need to determine whether to appeal at all, including whether it made economic sense to do so. Because that response showed that Polk had consciously ignored the November 4 deadline, rather than missing it inadvertently, the Court of Appeals denied the extension and dismissed the appeal.

Polk v. Dallas County, No. 05-13-01731-CV

The Texas Whistleblower Act prohibits a governmental entity from taking an adverse personnel action against an employee who in good faith reports a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(a). Those elements are jurisdictional, and a plaintiff who fails to adequately plead facts supporting the claim can have his claim dismissed. The Court of Appeals did just that in an appeal from a $400,000 judgment against the Dallas Independent School District. The plaintiff alleged that he had been terminated for reporting that his supervisor had directed him to perform three gas tests in a single day, which he claimed was unsafe. But the plaintiff’s petition did not allege that any actual violation of law had taken place, just that he had been pressured to do something that might be unsafe. As a result, the employee failed to state a claim in his petition, and the trial court therefore had no jurisdiction over his claim.

Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Watson, No. 05-12-00254-CV

The Court of Appeals has once again ruled that it is without jurisdiction to consider a permissive interlocutory appeal. In this instance, the developers of White Bluff Resort at Lake Whitney are in a dispute with their property owners over the assessment of fees for the property owners’ association. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, and the trial court ruled in favor of the property owners. The parties then agreed to an interlocutory appeal of the ruling, which the trial court also authorized. The developers argued that the appeal presented “controlling questions” of law, but the Court of Appeals disagreed because the summary judgment ruling did not specify the basis for the trial court’s decision. Without a substantive ruling from the trial court, the Court of Appeals could not conclude that the appeal presented any controlling questions, and the Court was therefore without jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal.

Double Diamond Delaware, Inc. v. Walkinshaw, No. 05-13-00893-CV

The Dallas Court of Appeals continues to be a difficult place to get a permissive interlocutory appeal. In this instance, a defendant in a breach of contract case attempted to appeal the denial of its motion for partial summary judgment, which had sought to establish that it could terminate its lease because of the cancellation of two government contracts. The Court of Appeals noted that while the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is question of law, it was not a controlling question of law in this case. The Court also pointed to the existence of several other issues in the lawsuit, concluding that the resolution of the contract issue would not advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The Court therefore denied the petition for permission to appeal.

Trailblazer Health Enterprises, LLC v. Boxer F2, L.P., No. 05-13-01158-CV

Suzann Ruff asked the probate court to stay arbitration of her dispute with Michael Ruff and Frost Bank. The probate court agreed and issued an order staying the arbitration, denying Michael’s motion to stay the judicial proceedings, and stating that the court would conduct a hearing to determine whether to grant of deny Michael and the bank’s motions to compel arbitration. Michael and the bank filed a notice of interlocutory appeal, and Suzann moved to dismiss. The court of appeals agreed with Suzann. An interlocutory order staying arbitration is appealable under CPRC § 171.098, and an order denying the stay of judicial proceedings in favor of arbitration is appealable under CPRC § 51.016 and 9 U.S.C. 171.098(a)(2), but those statutes first require a final decision as to whether the case is subject to arbitration. No such decision had been made in this case, because the court’s order also stated that it would proceed to a hearing on the merits of the motions to compel arbitration. Since the probate court had not determined whether the dispute was subject to arbitration, the court of appeals had no jurisdiction to hear the attempted appeal.

Ruff v. Ruff, No. 05-13-00317-CV

The court of appeals has dismissed Glenda Rhone’s appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment order. Ordinarily, this would be a bad thing for the appellant. In this instance, however, the dismissal is as good as a win. As it turns out, the lawsuit was originally dismissed for want of prosecution in January 2012, and the trial court did not enter any order reinstating the case until after the motion to reinstate had already been overruled  by operation of law under Rule 165a(3). The parties apparently proceeded to litigate the case anyway, and the trial court entered the summary judgment order in March 2013. Rhone appealed, but the court of appeals determined it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Because the case had not been timely reinstated, the final judgment was actually the January 2012 dismissal order, which would have to have been appealed within 90 days (thanks to the motion to reinstate extending the appellate deadlines). Thus, Rhone could not appeal the case, but the summary judgment order turns out to have been void in any event because it was issued after expiration of the trial court’s plenary power.

Rhone v. Geer, No. 05-13-00492-cv

The Dallas City Code contains certain provisions governing the activities of “Alternative Financial Establishments.”  Under this section of the code, these establishments are defined to include “car title loan business[es], check cashing business[es], or money transfer business[es]” but not businesses that “provide financial  services that are accessory to another main use.”  Last year, the City informed Texas EZPAWN that its loan service business qualified as an alternative financial establishment under the code.  EZPAWN disagreed and filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that its loan services business did not fall within the code’s definition.  The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that governmental immunity barred EZPAWN’s suit and that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act did not apply because the governmental immunity waiver in that ordinance only applies to suits challenging the validity of a ordinance whereas EZPAWN’s suit merely seeks a construction or interpretation of the ordinance.   The Court of Appeals agreed with the City, finding that the UDJA does not waive the City’s governmental immunity because EZPAWN did not seek to invalidate the provision.  It therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

City of Dallas v Texas EZPawn

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

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 continues to explore the limits of permissive interlocutory appeals. In this instance, the court was faced with an agreed-upon appeal from an order granting a motion to quash the deposition of the appellant’s former attorney, who allegedly had information showing that a mediated settlement agreement should be vacated. The trial court granted the opposing party’s motion to quash, and the parties agreed to present that ruling to the court of appeals under section 51.014(d) of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. But the court of appeals rejected that effort, holding that the appeal did not present a “controlling issue of law,” as required by the statute. The trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash did not determine whether other sources of evidence regarding the mediation would be admissible at trial, and the parties could not use an agreed appeal to resolve that evidentiary issue before it was presented at the time of trial. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.

Gunter v. Empire Pipeline Corp., No. 05-12-00249-CV

In this Memorandum Opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed whether it may exercise jurisdiction over an order granting an interlocutory summary judgment order for permanent injunctive relief, but which did not dispose of the defendant’s counterclaims. The Court refused to exercise jurisdiction, holding that “[a] summary judgment that fails to dispose of all claims, even if it grants a permanent injunction, is interlocutory and unappealable.”  Notably, however, the court pointed out that the appellant could have tried to challenge the injunction as actually being an appealable temporary injunction, but the appellant had not attempted to use that procedure.

Young v. Golfing Green Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., No. 05-12-00651

The court dismissed an appeal from post-judgment orders following foreclosure proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. After trial, the trial court entered one order denying Knoles’s efforts to avoid a writ of execution and prohibiting him from challenging the writ going forward and a second order sanctioning Knoles’s counsel for actions related to the writ. In a letter brief to the court of appeals, Knoles argued that the orders were appealable final judgments because they adjudicated a new set of facts and followed a conventional trial on the merits. The court rejected this argument, holding that the orders were issued to aid in the enforcement of the underlying unappealed judgment and that Knoles has no standing to appeal the order imposing sanctions against his counsel. Thus, the court had no jurisdiction over the appeal.

Knoles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 05-12-00473-CV

The court dismissed an agreed interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of competing motions for summary judgment related to a home foreclosure for want of jurisdiction. The Guzmans obtained a home mortgage on which the Bank eventually foreclosed. The Guzmans sued for wrongful foreclosure and breach of contract and argued that the Bank lacked standing to foreclose on the property or enforce the original note. Both sides moved for summary judgment, and the trial court denied the competing motions on the basis that the parties failed to satisfy their burdens for summary judgment. In agreement on the facts and the relevant legal issues, the parties filed a joint motion to appeal from interlocutory order under section 51.014(d) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code contending that the “issues raised in [the] dispositive motions involve controlling questions of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and obtaining a ruling on those issues of law from the appeals court will materially advance the outcome of this case.”

In its jurisdictional analysis, however, the court of appeals emphasized the fact that the trial court did not substantively rule on the controlling legal issues presented in the agreed interlocutory appeal. Instead, it submitted the issues to the appellate court for an advisory opinion – contrary to the purpose of section 51.014(d) – and thus the court had no jurisdiction over the appeal under that section.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Guzman, 05-12-00417-CV