A clean illustration of the concept of “less than a scintilla of evidence” appears in Gaytan v. DART. Gaytan won a jury verdict for $45,000 in future medical expenses resulting from an incident on a DART bus. He argued that “the jury’s award of $45,000 in future medical expenses could be supported by multiplying an annual cost of $7,000 for two emergency room visits for six and one half years” Unfortunately for Gaytan: “There was no evidence, however, to show a reasonable probability Gaytan would visit the emergency room in the future, let alone twice yearly, in connection with the injuries he sustained in 2012. The only emergency room visits he made after 2012 were as a result of other accidents.” No. 05-17-00116-CV (June 1, 2018) (mem. op.)

In a time of much furor about “leaks” to the media, the Fifth Court addressed a more traditional form of “leak” in Allen v. State Farm Lloyds, reversing a directed verdict for the insurer in a coverage dispute about a homeowners’ “Water Damage Endorsement.” In a detailed opinion, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ experts made legitimate, non-conclusory points about whether home damage was caused by plumbing leaks, and thus whether “deterioration” occurred within the meaning of the Endorsement. In a footnote, the Court also reminds of the importance of moving to strike allegedly improper expert testimony, and continuing to assert the original objection as the testimony unfolds at trial. No. 05-16-0018-CV (Aug. 1, 2017) (mem. op.)

Alpha Omega alleged that a law firm breached its responsibilities as an escrow agent. In ts findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court said: “11. Alpha Omega, Inc. did not prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that a fiduciary relationship existed between it and the Defendants.” The Fifth Court disagreed, and then found harm because the trial court “did not evaluate the remaining elements of fiduciary breach under the proper legal standards” and “there was some evidence of the remaining elements of fiduciary breach, such that the trial court could have reached the opposite result had it not erred in finding 11.” Accordingly, it reversed and remanded. Alpha Omega CHL, Inc. v. Min, No. 05-15-00124-CV (June 16, 2016) (mem. op.)

A high-profile fee dispute led to holdings that (1) an attorney can recover in quantum meruit in connection with an oral contingent fee agreement, notwithstanding the other legal problems with such agreements; (2) legally sufficient evidence of the attorney’s “valuable compensable global settlement services” supported the verdict on his quantum meruit theory; (3) claimed error on the narrow scope of a fiduciary duty instruction was not preserved without a specific objection to the scope issue; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a spoliation instruction, when evidence showed that the destruction of the relevant emails resulted from a routine upgrade process.  Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. Hill, No. 05-13-01634-CV (Jan. 26, 2016).  The Court rendered judgment on quantum meruit.

Defendant won summary judgment, with a combination of no-evidence and traditional grounds, on fraudulent transfer claims.  Renate Nixdorf v. Midland Investors LLC, No. 05-14-01258-CV (Dec. 8, 2015) (mem. op.)  The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, finding problems with what defensive matters were appropriately addressed by a no evidence summary judgment motion and what specific transactions were at issue, as well as proof of “reasonably equivalent value” that was conclusory.

Deutsche Bank has won a restricted appeal to set aside a no-answer default judgment. The petition named the defendant as “DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, herein sued in its capacity as the Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc., Trust 2006-NC5, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-NC5.” But the clerk’s office issued a citation addressed to “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee Company,” and that name was also used on the affidavit of service. Because the citation was addressed to the wrong party, the attempted service of process was invalid and the default judgment had to be set aside.

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Kingman Holdings, LLC, 05-14-00855-CV

Sylvester Davis sued TexPro Construction Group after the contractor failed to complete a backyard construction project. When TexPro failed to file an answer, Davis sought and obtained a partial default judgment on liability. TexPro then answered, but Davis moved forward with a hearing to establish damages. TexPro did not appear at the hearing, and the trial court awarded judgment for $117,230 in compensatory damages, treble damages under the DTPA and $350,000 in exemplary damages. After blowing through the deadlines for an ordinary appeal, TexPro hired new counsel and filed a restricted appeal. The Court of Appeals held that there was no error on the face of the record just because TexPro’s registered agent had been served at a location different from the address listed on the citation. The Court also held that there was no error in the trial court’s decision to move forward with the damages hearing, since the filing of TexPro’s answer did not negate the previously-signed default judgment on liability. However, Davis’ testimony on damages was the full amount of the money paid to TexPro, without accounting for the value of the work that TexPro had actually performed. Because his affidavit testimony was conclusory in alleging that the work done was valueless, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages.

TexPro Constr. Group, LLC v. Davis, No. 05-14-00050-CV

JPMorgan, as Trustee of the Red Crest Trust, signed a letter of intent for Orca Assets to lease oil and gas properties in the Eagle Ford Shale. Unfortunately, JPMorgan had leased those same properties to GeoSouthern Energy six months earlier. GeoSouthern recorded its lease three days after Orca signed the letter of intent with JPMorgan, but Orca did not conduct any forward-looking title searches after the letter of intent. Orca proceeded to sign the leases a month later and promptly recorded them. GeoSouthern then contacted JPMorgan about the duplicate leases, and the bank promptly offered to refund Orca’s $3.2 million lease payment. Instead, Orca sued for $400 million in lost profits. At a Rule 166 pretrial conference, the trial court dismissed all of Orca’s claims, ruling that the leases unambiguously disclaimed any warranties, and that Orca could not establish justifiable reliance as a matter of law. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the disclaimers in the leases foreclosed Orca’s breach of contract claim, but not fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Under the express language of the contractual disclaimer, Orca was to be “without recourse” under the lease if title to the oil and gas interests failed. That was sufficient to negate contract liability for JPMorgan’s failure to convey good title, but not fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Noting that the leases did not also include any provisions disclaiming reliance on any extra-contractual representations, the Court held that Orca could proceed with claims based on an oral representation that the properties in question were “open” for lease. In the course of that holding, the Court analyzes a number of other recent fraudulent inducement cases, leaving the distinct impression that courts are going to continue drawing some pretty narrow distinctions in the wake of the Texas Supreme Court’s Italian Cowboy opinion.

Orca Assets, G.P., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 05-13-01700-CV

The appeal of an oil and gas dispute has led to a multi-million dollar swing in favor of the appellants. The district court had granted a $14 million summary judgment in favor of the seller of oil and gas interests located in New Mexico. The fact scenario is somewhat complex, but the essence seems to be that Three Rivers Operating Co. offered to sell its interests in five properties to MRC Permian Co. pursuant to a preferential purchase right provision in their joint operating agreement. MRC accepted that proposal, for a purchase price of just under $7 million, and further wrote that it was exercising a preferential right to purchase “one hundred percent (100%) of Three Rivers’ interest in the land comprising the Contract Area . . . .” Three Rivers responded to say that there were actually 10 properties for sale for approximately $14 million. MRC then wrote back that it was ready to move forward on Three Rivers’ original offer, but Three Rivers nevertheless concluded that MRC had agreed to buy all ten properties. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment for Three Rivers, requiring MRC to specifically perform the $14 million deal. The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for MRC that there was only a $7 million contract for the original five properties.

Three Rivers argued that the initial $7 million offer had been made under a mistaken interpretation of the preferential purchase right clause, and that MRC did not accept that offer in any event because its acceptance letter was actually a counteroffer to buy all of Three Rivers’ interests covered by the JOA. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that MRC did not condition its acceptance of the $7 million offer on Three Rivers’ assent to sell any additional properties. So long as it is clear that the acceptance is positive and unequivocal, a contract is formed regardless of whether the offeree makes additional requests at the same time. And when Three Rivers offered to sell all 10 of its properties, that was not an acceptance of an offer by MRC to purchase “100%” of Three Rivers’ interests. MRC had not stated the essential terms of a contract, including purchase price, nor did MRC’s letter indicate any acceptance of a prior offer by MRC. Instead, Three Rivers’ $14 million offer letter was an independent offer of its own, and MRC did not accept it in the manner specified by Three Rivers. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment, rendered judgment for MRC on the $7 million contract, and remanded for consideration of MRC’s costs and attorney fees.

MRC Permian Co. v. Three Rivers Operating Co., No. 05-14-00353-CV

The Court of Appeals has reversed a summary judgment in favor of the attorney defendants in a civil barratry case. The plaintiffs were victims of a pipeline explosion. Their case against the pipeline company eventualy settled, and the lawyers collected their 40% contingency fee. But the plaintiffs learned that they had actually been solicited by a private investigator working for their attorneys, so they sued to rescind the fee agreement and recover their contingency fees. The Court of Appeals agreed that rescission was an available remedy for barratry, and that the attorney defendants had not established their former clients would be unable to make counter-restitution for the benefits they had received from the lawyers.

Neese v. Lyon, No. 05-13-01597-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

600 Commerce always has its eye out for trends in litigation, and a new one may now be emerging: a plague of boards falling off of government walls onto innocent members of the public. A year ago, it was a whiteboard falling off the wall of Dallas Metrocare Services (held: no sovereign immunity because plaintiff pleaded a dangerous “condition” of property with allegation of an improperly secured whiteboard). This time, the Court of Appeals sustained the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s sovereign immunity claim after a notice board fell on plaintiff Joseph McRae. The Court agreed with the Commission that McRae’s claim was one for premises defect, not for “negligent use or condition” of the notice board. Because it was in substance a premises defect claim, McRae was required to plead, and ultimately prove, that the Commission had actual knowledge of the condition that caused his injuries. But it was not clear that McRae would be unable to cure that defect in his pleading, so the Court remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Texas Health & Human Servs. Comm’n v. McRae, No. 05-14-00894

A year ago, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of an equitable bill of review in which the defendants claimed that the plaintiff had not exercised reasonable diligence in its attempts to effect service through registered mail and personal delivery. The Texas Supreme Court has now set aside that ruling, holding that the defendants had presented some evidence that their failure to receive notice of the default judgment resulted solely from the plaintiff’s failure to certify the defendants’ last known mailing address, and not from any negligence or fault on the defendants’ own part. The record contained evidence that the plaintiff’s owner had met with the defendants’ registered agent at their current address, rather than the outdated address on file with the Secretary of State, that raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the plaintiff’s “last known mailing address” certification.

Katy Venture, Ltd. v. Cremona Bistro, LLC, No. 14-0629

The parties in a workplace injury lawsuit entered into a Rule 11 agreement to abate the suit while they conducted limited discovery and mediation. A second Rule 11 agreement continued the abatement until one of the parties would file a motion to re-open the case. Notwithstanding those Rule 11 agreements, the parties were also subject to a binding arbitration clause contained in the employer’s injury benefit plan. The parties disputed whether they had each complied with their discovery obligations under the Rule 11 agreements, which led the employer to move to re-open and to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion and ordered that the case remain abated until the Rule 11 discovery was completed.

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed. The Court first held that the case was subject to interlocutory appeal because the trial court’s order “affirmatively denies Baylor’s motion to compel arbitration over at least a portion of the proceeding . . . .” (The opinion noted that this holding conflicts with a pair of decisions out of the El Paso Court of Appeals, possibly setting up the case for further review by the Texas Supreme Court.) As to the discovery, the Court agreed with the defendant that the Rule 11 had expired by its own terms when the employer moved to re-open the lawsuit, mooting the completion of the agreed-upon discovery as an ongoing issue. But because the trial court had not actually ruled on the employer’s motion to compel arbitration, the Court of Appeals remanded for formal consideration of the case’s arbitrability.

Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Greeson, No. 05-14-01342-CV

A nasty Zillow review of a real estate agent prompted a defamation lawsuit, which these days pretty much inevitably leads to a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act. In this instance, the agent had listed the seller’s house as “temporarily off market” instead of “active.” The Collin County trial court denied the seller’s motion to dismiss, but the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed. The seller’s claim that the agent had listed the house as being off market for “over 100 days” was incorrect, but the Court held that the falsity of that statement was immaterial because the agent had actually listed the property that was for 64 days instead. The plaintiffs also failed to establish that listing the house as off market was in accordance with the seller’s instructions, as her complaint that she “did not want her property shown” was not the equivalent of asking it to be listed as “temporarily off market.” Finally, the plaintiffs could not base their defamation case on the seller’s statement that the agent was “incompetent, mentally unstable, or raging from rejection” because those were non-actionable statements of opinion. The Court therefore rendered judgment for the defendant and remanded for a determination of her costs and recoverable attorney fees.

Ruder v. Jordan, No. 05-14-01265-CV

A premises liability case between tenant and landlord highlights a potential problem in obtaining a proper waiver of trial by jury. Concerned that the jury would be unable to understand the pro se defendant’s broken English, the trial court first requested a translator. After being informed that no translator would be available for another week, the court continued the trial, then asked the defendant whether he would agree to waive a jury. The defendant agreed, but was not asked to confirm his waiver a week later when the case proceeded to a bench trial with the aid of an interpreter. The trial court awarded $70,000 in damages to the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant (now also represented by counsel) argued that the jury waiver was invalid because it was made before he had obtained the services of the court-appointed interpreter. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding once the trial court has exercised its discretion to appoint an interpreter, the defendant was entitled to have that interpreter for all purposes, including the decision whether to waive his constitutional right to a jury trial. Without the interpreter, the Court of Appeals could not conclude that the defendant had knowingly waived that right.

Trejo v. Huy, No. 05-14-00310-CV

Former GOP Senate candidate Chris Mapp sued the Dallas Morning News for defamation after it published an editorial stating Mapp had told the editorial board “that ranchers should be allowed to shoot on sight anyone illegally crossing the border on their land, referring to such people as ‘wetbacks,’ and called the president a ‘socialist son of a bitch.'” Mapp claimed that the “shoot on sight” comment had been taken out of context because he had actually said ranchers should be permitted to shoot when they were in “fear for their life” or in defense of property, the same as anybody else. The News filed a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, but the 30-day statutory period after the hearing passed without a ruling by the trial court. That caused the motion to be overruled by operation of law, and the newspaper perfected an interlocutory appeal. The trial court then issued an order granting the motion to dismiss, albeit outside the prescribed time period.

This raised two questions for the Dallas Court of Appeals: What was the effect of the late-issued dismissal order, and should the case have been dismissed on the merits in any event? As to the first question, the Court held that the untimely dismissal order was a nullity. On the merits, the Court held that Mapp (who was a public figure) had not met his prima facie burden of showing that the newspaper had published the allegedly defamatory statements with constitutional malice. Paraphrasing or deliberately altering another person’s words does not establish actual malice unless there is evidence the defendant misinterpreted the remarks on purpose or in circumstances so improbable that the mistake could only have been recklessly. The Court concluded that the newspaper’s paraphrase of the statements Mapp had made in his tape-recorded interview was a rational interpretation of what he had said, and Mapp had not submitted any evidence to contradict the reporter’s affidavit explaining his subjective intent. The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that the trial court had erred by allowing the motion to dismiss to be overruled by operation of law, rendered judgment that Mapp’s case be dismised, and remanded to the trial court for a determination of the DMN’s costs, fees, and other recoverable expenses.

The Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Mapp, No. 05-14-00848-CV

A long-running suit over a 1999 contract for the sale of a house resulted in a mistrial, followed by cross-motions for death penalty sanctions. The seller sought sanctions for discovery abuse and fraud, while the buyer claimed the seller had testified falsely at trial. The trial court granted both motions, striking everyone’s pleadings. Both sides appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. As to the buyer, the trial court had not considered the availability of lesser sanctions, and the fabrication of one construction estimate did not give rise to a presumption that other claims not based on that document were meritless. As to the seller, the death penalty sanction was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense. The seller had testified that she paid a property tax bill with a credit card when records showed it was actually paid with cash and a check. Although the trial court found that misstatement was intentional, the Court of Appeals did not consider the discrepancy to be material enough to warrant the striking of her entire case.

Kim v. Hendrickson, No. 05-13-01024-CV

A memorandum opinion setting aside a default judgment highlights one of the more forgiving standards for obtaining a new trial. FelCor/CSS Holdings sued Culinaire of Florida for failing to indemnify it in two personal injury suits. Culinaire received a courtesy copy of the lawsuit and put its insurer on notice. The insurer in turn hired defense counsel. But when the actual citation arrived, Culinaire’s CFO somehow forgot to forward it to the company’s insurance agent. Culinaire moved for a new trial under the familiar Craddock factors, but the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that losing paperwork is precisely the kind of “accident or mistake” that negates “conscious indifference” to the lawsuit.

Culinaire of Florida, Inc. v. FelCor/CSS Holdings, LP, No. 05-14-00832-CV

For 15 years, Steven Anderson was a route driver for Greenville Automatic Gas Co. Anderson quit and went to work for Automatic Propane Gas & Supply, leading Greenville to invoke an employment agreement that it claimed included both a a covenant not to compete and a nonsolicit provision. Anderson and Automatic Propane sued for a declaratory judgment, alleging (after a series of amendments to the pleadings) that Anderson had only signed a shorter contract that contained neither of the terms claimed by Greenville. The jury found that Anderson has not agreed to the terms claimed by Greenville and awarded him approximately $75,000 in attorney fees. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Anderson and Automatic Gas could not dispute the validity of Greenville’s contract because they had failed to timely file a verified pleading denying its validity, as required by TRCP 93. The Court of Appeals also affirmed summary judgment against Greenville on its tort-based counterclaims and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Greenville Automatic Gas Co. v. Automatic Propane Gas & Supply, LLC, No. 05-13-01405-CV

Among other issues in this case, the Court reversed the trial court’s award of $15,000 in attorney’s fees on summary judgment.  The moving party submitted an affidavit that $53,714 was the reasonable amount of fees for the legal services rendered, but the opponent submitted an affidavit in which their expert stated that a reasonable fee would be no more than $15,000.  Because neither party offered uncontroverted evidence of an amount certain, the trial court improperly made a factual finding in awarding $15,000 in fees.

Myers v. HCB Real Holdings, LLC

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

In this products liability case, a distributor of latex gloves sought statutory indemnity from the manufacturer of those gloves.  The Court of Appeals found that the manufacturer was liable under Section 82.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to the distributor for litigation costs expended in defending two products liability lawsuits related to the gloves brought by healthcare workers because those expenses were “related to” the manufacturer’s gloves, even though other manufacturer’s gloves were at issue in the lawsuit.

United Med. Supply Co. v. Ansell Healthcare Prods., Inc.

Last summer, the Dallas Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of television reporter Brett Shipp on a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The plaintiff in that case, Dr. Richard Malouf, is back in the Court of Appeals with another pair of defamation cases involving the TCPA. This time, Malouf and his wife sued AOL, Inc. and its reporter for publishing an allegedly defamatory story concerning a backyard water park being built while Malouf was “charged” with millions of dollars in Medicaid fraud. Malouf claimed that was defamatory because he had never been “charged” with fraud in any criminal proceeding.

Because the statements related to matters of public concern — namely, allegations of defrauding taxpayers and the provision of dental services to the public — the TCPA shifted the burden to the Maloufs to establish a prima facie case for each element of the defamation claim by clear and specific evidence. The Court of Appeals held that they had failed to do so. Because the defendants were acting as members of the media, the Maloufs had to prove that the statements were actually false. The Court of Appeals held that the words “charged” and “stolen’ did not improperly suggest criminal charges or activity when Malouf had been sued under civil law for the alleged conduct several times. Therefore, a person of ordinary intelligence would not perceive the article’s claims to be more damaging to Malouf’s reputation merely because the article omitted to distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered in favor of AOL, affirmed dismissal as to the reporter, and remanded to the trial court for determination of AOL’s attorney fees and expenses.

AOL, Inc. v. Malouf, No. 05-13-01637-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

The defendant in this private jet interior decoration case pleaded a series of affirmative defenses.  After the defendant’s counsel objected to requests for production asking for documents related to these affirmative defenses and then instructed its corporate representative not to answer depositions questions about them, the trial court struck the affirmative defenses in their entirety as a sanction.  The defendant later lost at trial and appealed the trial court’s sanction.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that striking the defendant’s affirmative defenses amounted to a “death penalty” sanction that went too far.  Because the trial court had not adequately considered other remedies (such as assessing deposition costs or awarding attorneys’ fees), the sanction was unwarranted.  The Court explained that “case determinative sanctions may be imposed in the first instance only in exceptional cases when they are clearly justified and it is fully apparent that no lesser sanctions would promote compliance with the rules.”

Associated Air Ctr. LP v. Tary Network Ltd.

The Dallas Court of Appeals has reversed an order appointing a receiver to wind up the affairs of a business equally owned by two siblings who could not agree on selling the cattle ranch they operated. The opinion serves as a useful primer on the statutory criteria for appointment of a receiver. In this instance, the Court of Appeals held that a receiver could not be justified because there was no evidence that the company was under threat of an irreparable injury if the property was not sold.

Spiritas v. Davidoff, No. 05-14-00068-CV

In this fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty case, the court addressed  the defendant’s no evidence motion for summary judgment.  The court held that the plaintiff had not properly responded to the no evidence motion because it merely stated the elements of the aiding and abetting claim in its response brief, without specifically “pointing out” any evidence to support the contention that the defendant “knowingly assisted” in the breach of fiduciary duty.  Although the plaintiff attached a “large amount of evidence” to its response, the court noted that the plaintiff’s response required specific references to the evidence that would support each element of the claim.

MaximusAlliance Partners, LLC v. Faber

Homeowners Nader and Fariba Daryapayma purchased a $1.5 million house and financed $735,000 of the purchase price with two loans secured by liens on the home.  Shortly thereafter, the Daryapaymas applied for and obtained a home equity loan from Countrywide for $937,500, the purpose of which was to pay off their current mortgage (i.e. the existing $735k loans).   Countrywide funded the home equity loan and the Daryapaymas used the proceeds  to pay off the first two loans.

A few years later, the Daryapaymas defaulted on the home equity loan.  Bank of New York Mellon (BONY), as the assignee of the loan, foreclosed on the Daryapaymas property and then filed a petition for forcible detainer.  The Daryapaymas counterclaimed, contending that the home equity loan violated the Texas Constitution, which limits the amount of home equity loans, when combined with existing mortgages, to 80% of a home’s fair market value.  The Daryapaymas argued that because the $937k home equity loan combined with their outstanding $735k mortgages exceeded 80% of the home’s value, the foreclosure was unenforceable.  The trial court agreed and granted the Daryapaymas summary judgment.

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the loan documents reflected that the $937k home equity loan was made, in large part, to pay off the existing mortgages, the trial court erred in including the balance of those loans in its calculation of the total amount of indebtedness.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Daryapayama

In one of the last opinions of 2014, the Dallas Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to VERP Investment LLC, which was seeking to overturn a trial court order requiring it to turn over a computer hard drive to a third-party forensic examiner. The Court denied mandamus because VERP had not included transcripts of the trial court’s hearings or a statement that no evidence was taken at them. That left the Court of Appeals unable to determine whether the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the motion to compel. But VERP persisted, filing a second petition that cured the original’s omissions, and that mandamus petition has now been conditionally granted.

On the merits, the Court of Appeals first noted that an order requiring direct access to an electronic device is burdensome because it is intrusive. Due to that intrusiveness, the party seeking direct access must establish via evidence that the opponent is in default of its discovery obligations. In this instance, however, the movant failed to come forward with any evidence, and “[m]ere skepticism or bare allegations” are not enough to warrant direct access to electronic devices. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion, and the Court of Appeals directed it to vacate the order granting the motion to compel.

In re VERP Investment LLC (VERP II), No. 05-15-00023-CV

The buyer of a used Inifiniti M45 brought the car to Crest Infiniti and approved nearly $6,000 in maintenance and repair work. But after the repairs were completed, the owner failed to pay for the work or pick up the car. Unsurprisingly, he had also failed to keep up on his payments to the used vehicle company that had financed his purchase, and the seller sent a repo company over to Crest’s lot to recover the car. Crest sued for tortious interference and conversion but lost a bench trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the undisputed evidence established Crest had a possessory mechanic’s lien on the vehicle, that the mechanic’s lien took priority over the seller’s security interest as a matter of law, and that the seller had converted the car when the repo driver removed it from Crest’s lot without permission. The Court therefore remanded the case to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Crest and to consider an award of attorney fees to it as the prevailing party under section 70.008 of the Property Code.

Crest Infiniti II, LP v. Texas RV Outlet, No. 05-13-01285-CV

Dr. Erwin Cruz sued his former business partners, claiming, among other things, that he was a limited partner in an entity called Plano AMI, L.P.  Before trial, the trial court granted Dr. Cruz’s motion for partial summary judgment establishing his ownership interest as a limited partner, based in large part upon the fact that Plano AMI’s tax returns listed Dr. Cruz as a limited partner.

On appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed that decision, finding that the partnership agreement was ambiguous and that because Plano AMI had later amended its tax returns to list Dr. Cruz as a general partner, Cruz had failed to establish as a matter of law that he was a limited partner.

Plano AMI, L.P. v. Cruz

In this breach of contract claim, the defendant answered the petition with a general denial, but then failed to show up at trial.  During the subsequent “prove-up” hearing, the plaintiff offered as its only evidence the contract between the parties.  Based on this evidence alone, the trial court entered judgment and awarded the plaintiff $55,000 in damages.  On appeal, the Court held that the award of damages was improper because the plaintiff did not offer proof of each element of her claim, including damages.

Correa v. Salas

The Court of Appeals has dissolved a temporary injunction that would have prevented a court in Bastrop County from continuing to oversee a homeowner’s insurance appraisal process. James and Patricia Barrentines’ home in Bastrop was damaged by one the wildfires that plagued that area in 2011. Their insurer, Safeco, demanded an appraisal of the loss, and both parties appointed their own appraisers pursuant to the policy. When the two party-appointed appraisers were unable to agree on an umpire, Safeco went to court in Bastrop County to have one appointed. The court-appointed umpire issued an appraisal favorable to the homeowners, but the Bastrop County court then appointed a different umpire. The Barrentines then refiled in Dallas and obtained a temporary injunction forbidding any reappraisal. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, holding that it disturbed — rather than preserved — the status quo by interfering with the Bastrop County court’s authority to conduct the appraisal under the insurance contract.

Safeco Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Barrentine, No. 05-13-01011

After Ricky Holland suffered injuries from taking medication, he convinced a law firm to bring a lawsuit on his behalf against the drug manufacturer.  That lawsuit went nowhere, and actually led to the law firm suing the Hollands for fraudulently inducing them to take his case. The Hollands countersued, bringing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the lawsuit the law firm filed against them.

The trial court dismissed the Hollands’ IIED claim because it was inapplicable in light of the other claims they had pleaded.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court because plaintiffs are permitted to plead claims in the alternative.  The Court also refused to consider the law firm’s additional argument that the claim fails because it was based on statements made in its lawsuit and thus protected by an absolute privilege.

An overly-complicated series of transactions led to a dispute over who had valid title to a residential property at 2701 Wickham Court in Plano. The case turned on which of two competing deeds — one filed by the corporation of Quang Dangtran and the second filed by another company that took its deed from his ex-wife, Tuyet Anh Le — was effective. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court agreed with the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that Dangtran’s deed was not properly acknowledged because it failed to identify the state where the corporate entity was incorporated (see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 121.008(b)(4)). However, the Court also held that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether the second claimant took the deed from Le with notice of her ex-husband’s claim, which would negate her transferee’s status as a bona fide purchaser. Because Dangtran was in unequivocal possession of the property at the time of the second transaction, and because Dangtran was not a member of Le’s family at that time, summary judgment could not be sustained on the second claimant’s bona fide purchaser defense.

Whoa USA, Inc. v. Regan Props., LLC, No.05-13-01412-CV

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 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

In what appears to be only the third opinion in the state reviewing a motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, the Dallas Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s order that granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss on the pleadings. Similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Rule 91a allows a party to move to dismiss a cause of action “on the grounds that it has no basis in law or fact,” based solely on the claimant’s pleadings. In this case, the plaintiffs sued the City of Dallas after emergency services failed to respond to a 911 call reporting their son’s drug overdose. The plaintiffs attempted to plead their way around governmental immunity by claiming the City had negligently used or misused the 911 system’s telephone and computer systems. The Court affirmed dismissal of negligence claims that the City had failed to properly respond to the 911 call, but also affirmed the denial of the motion as to claims that the equipment itself had failed or malfunctioned.

City of Dallas v. Sanchez, No. 05-13-01651-CV

An investor in an office building sued the building’s architect and engineering consulting firm for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy. The investor did not file a certificate of merit with the original petition, so the defendants moved to dismiss. The claims against the engineering firm were dismissed without prejudice, and the plaintiff refiled with a new complaint that included a certificate of merit. After consolidating the old and new cases, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss as to all claims against the engineering firm, but only as to the negligent misrepresentation claim for the architects. An interlocutory appeal ensured, and the Court of Appeals ended up siding with the plaintiff. As to the plaintiff’s claim against the engineering firm, the Court held that dismissal without prejudice did not prevent the plaintiff from refiling a new lawsuit — the one under appeal — that included a certificate of merit. As to the claims against the architecture firm, no certificate of merit was required because the plaintiff’s case was based on the allegation that the firm knew of defects in the building due to its occupancy in the building, not in connection with any professional services that the firm had provided. Accordingly, no certificate of merit was necessary, and all of the plaintiff’s claims against the architecture firm were also remanded for further proceedings.

TIC N. Central Dallas 3, LLC v. Envirobusiness, Inc., No. 05-13-01021-CV

In this breach of contract case, the majority opinion found that the appelle’s no-evidence summary judgment motion was legally insufficient to support the trial court’s summary judgment because it “fails to challenge or even mention a single element of any of [the] claims as to which there is no evidence.”

The dissent, however, disagreed, noting that “a party may challenge a specific element in a breach-of-contract case by filing a no-evidence motion asserting there is no evidence of breach of contract.”  In the dissent’s view, appelle’s motion makes this assertion.

Coleman v. Prospere

Coleman v. Prospere (dissent)

In this memorandum opinion, the Court directed the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying defense counsel.  Although the plaintiff argued that the counsel for defendant should be disqualified because he was a potential witness, the Court of Appeals found no evidence establishing what was “essential” about his testimony or how the plaintiff would be prejudice if he were not permitted to testify.

In re VSDH Vaquero Venture, Ltd.

In this memorandum opinion, the court found insufficient the sheriff’s affidavit of service, because the affidavit merely stated that the recipient “was served.”  According to the Court, “[b]ecause the return does not state the manner of service, it does not strictly comply with [TRCP] 107, which requires the officer’s return state ‘the manner of delivery of service.'”

U.S. Bank v. Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations

In this wrongful foreclosure action, plaintiffs sued the law firm handling the foreclosure, alleging, among other things, fraud.  The trial court granted the law firm’s motion for summary judgment based on the attorney immunity doctrine, which generally provides that “an attorney’s conduct, even if frivolous or without merit, is not actionable as long as the conduct was part of the discharge of the lawyer’s duties in representing his or her client.”

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, however, because the attorney immunity doctrine does not extend to allegations of fraud.

Santiago v. Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann PC

Hurricane Ike damaged property owned by Optimum Deerbrook LLC. Optimum’s lender, ViewPoint Bank, was a loss payee on Optimum’s property insurance policy with Allied Property & Casualty. Allied paid the claim, issuing checks jointly to Optimum and ViewPoint, but Optimum endorsed and deposited the checks in its own account. As a result, ViewPoint never received any of the insurance funds. ViewPoint sued Allied for breach of the insurance contract and a claim under article 3 of the UCC. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Citing the Texas Supreme Court’s recent decision in McAllen Hospitals, LP v. State Farm, the Court held that the insurer had not fulfilled its payment obligation by delivering the checks only to the insured, and that delivery to both payees is required because neither of them, acting alone, could enforce or negotiate the instrument. The Court also held that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the bank on its UCC claim because the drawer of a check is not discharged from its obligation when the check is issued to nonalternative copayees and is paid without one of their necessary endorsements. However, the Court held that the bank’s attorney fees affidavit was not sufficiently detailed to support summary judgment and remanded the case for further consideration of an award of attorney fees.

ViewPoint Bank v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 05-12-01370-CV

A pathologist and his former employer sued each other over a covenant not to compete provision in the pathologist’s employment contract.  Among numerous issues before the Court of Appeals was whether the geographic scope of the non-compete provision was unreasonable.  The agreement provided that the pathologist was restricted from being employed by a practice that operates within 50 miles of Dallas County.

The pathologist argued that the scope of his non-compete was overly broad because he only worked in Dallas and Collin counties and because it was actually unlimited in scope since he was restricted from working for any practice that operates in Dallas, even if he worked far from the Dallas area.

The Court rejected those arguments and held that the geographic scope of his non-compete was not unreasonable, noting that the pathologist was also part of his former employer’s management team, causing him to be responsible for pathology practices across the Dallas area.  Consequently, the Court reasoned that “even if [the pathologist] were working in New York, for example, his management knowledge of and experience with appellants’ Dallas-area operations would be valuable to his new employer.”

Ameripath v. Hebert

In this products liability case, the plaintiffs alleged that Goodyear was grossly negligent with respect to its tire manufacturing practices at its North Carolina plant and that the design of the tire was defective because it failed to include a nylon cap ply.  Ostensibly to help prove their case, the plaintiffs sought to tour and videotape parts of Goodyear’s plant in North Carolina.  The trial court obliged, ordering Goodyear to allow plaintiffs’ counsel, expert witness, and a videographer to enter the facility and document the manufacturing process.

Goodyear resisted by filing a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order permitting the tour.  The Court of Appeals sided with Goodyear, reasoning that the main reason the plaintiffs wanted to tour the facility was to create demonstrative evidence (namely, a video to show the jury), not to discover new information.  Because that is not a valid purpose to seek entry onto another party’s property, the Court granted Goodyear’s mandamus petition.

In re the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

In this landlord-tenant dispute, the tenants sued the landlord for wrongfully withholding their security deposit in violation of Section 92 of the Texas Property Code.  The trial court granted the tenants’ motion for summary judgment, and the landlord appealed.  The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the tenants provided the landlord with a valid forwarding address where the landlord could provide the written notice required by the statute.

Franzin v. Sauty

In this lawsuit related to an asset purchase agreement, the Court addressed which party is entitled to the $5.7 million in escrow money when the sale failed to close.  Examining the complex terms of the APA, the Court found that the contract terms at issue were ambiguous and thus summary judgment was inappropriate.

KSWO Television Co. v. KFDA Operating Co. LLC

Providence Bank sued for a deficiency judgment after the bank foreclosed on one of the borrower’s properties. The parties agreed to settle that claim, and so the bank filed a notice of nonsuit by mail. But on the same day the bank mailed in the nonsuit, the borrower filed brand new counterclaims against the bank on other properties. So the question became whether the bank’s nonsuit terminated the entire case before the filing of the counterclaims. The Court of Appeals answered that question in the negative.  Although TCRP 5 deems a document to be filed on the date it is mailed, that rule only applies to documents that have to be filed by a particular deadline. By contrast, a nonsuit under Rule 162 can be filed at any time before the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. Accordingly, the nonsuit was not deemed filed at the time of mailing, and by the time it arrived at the courthouse for filing, the borrower’s counterclaims were already part of the lawsuit and could move forward as part of the case.

FP Asset Group, LP v. Providence Bank, No. 05-12-01728-CV

This breach of contract case addressed a loan guarantor’s contractual duty to defend the lender in a fraud lawsuit.  The Court was asked to interpret a duty to defend provision that conditioned the duty on the “occurrence” of fraud, when the pending lawsuit at issue had to this point only raised “allegations” of fraud.  According to the Court, the duty to defend is a contractual duty depending on the precise terms of the contract.  Thus, the Court refused to rewrite the section at issue to replace the word “occurrence” with “allegation.”  Because the pending fraud claim only involved fraud “allegations” at this point, the defendant owed no duty to defend.

Myers v. Hall Columbus Lender LLC

In this age discrimination employment claim, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant.  According to the Court, there was conflicting evidence about the defendant’s reason for firing the plaintiff.  Although the defendant claimed that the downturn in the economy forced them to fire the plaintiff, the plaintiff argued that, at the time of his termination, he was working on projects that would have required another year to complete.  This conflict created a sufficient fact issue for the plaintiff to survive summary judgment.

Stillwell v. Halff Assocs., Inc.

In this restricted appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in entering a default judgment against it in the absence of evidence establishing mental anguish damages.  Because the trial court received testimony of the plaintiffs physical injuries form a slip and fall, and no testimony on mental anguish, and because there was no way to distinguish between the award of mental anguish damages and those awarded for past physical pain, the judge’s award of $20,000 constitutes error on the face of the record.

Center Operating Co. v. Duncan

In this breach of settlement action, the plaintiff won almost $10,000 in damages, but the trial court awarded him zero dollars in attorneys’ fees.  On appeal, the Court found that attorneys’ fees were proper under section 38.001(8), so the trial court had no discretion to deny them.  The Court noted that one of the factors in determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees is the amount of damages awarded, and remanded the determination to the trial court.

Garcia v. Solorio

After a dispute arose between the owner of an apartment complex and the contractor hired to renovate it, the owner sent the contractor checks totaling more than $8,000 with a letter stating that it was “full and final payment” for all amounts owed. The contractor cashed the check, but subsequently filed a lien and sought to recover an additional $14,000 in unpaid invoices. The trial court granted judgment for the defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Although the contractor’s owner testified that he had not “knowingly and affirmatively” agree to an accord and satisfaction, the trial judge was entitled to disregard that evidence as not believable. Luckily, however, the apartment owner conceded that the $14,000 awarded on its own counterclaim was erroneous, and so the Court of Appeals vacated and rendered that portion of the judgment, with a remand for further consideration of the attendant attorney fees.

Contemporary Contractors v. Centerpoint Apt. Ltd., No. 05-13-00614-CV

Aamer Razi hired attorney Edwin Sigel to represent him in connection with criminal charges brought against him.  Sigel, concerned that Razi would not be able to pay his bills, worked out a deal in which Razi signed a power of attorney appointing Sigel as his agent generally, including over all matters regarding his residence condominium.  Sigel then transferred the condo to himself as trustee.  Apparently, the parties had different understandings of this arrangement: Sigel believed it was to provide security for Razi’s legal fees, while Razi thought Sigel was just going to take care of the condo.  After Razi fired Sigel and refused to pay his bills, Sigel sold the condo.

Razi then sued Sigel for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, and moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Sigel appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because fact issues existed regarding whether Sigel explained that Razi was in effect signing over his condo as collateral.

Sigel v. Razi

Steadfast Insurance Company entered into an agreed judgment with appellants and later filed an application for turnover and appointment of a receiver in aid of judgment.  Steadfast set its application for hearing but did not provide notice to appellants.  At the ex parte hearing, Steadfast represented to the trial court that it had given appellants notice, and the trial court granted its application.  Not surprisingly, the Court of Appeals set aside the turnover order and appointment of receiver for failure to provide notice.

Mac23, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co.

In an attempt to collect on a $3.6 million promissory note, Graham Mortgage Corporation filed suit against several parties, including appellant Barbara Mills, who had executed a personal guaranty for up to $1.8 million (half of the total amount).  Graham Mortgage successfully moved for summary judgment against Ms. Mills, and the trial court entered a judgment against her for $2.8 million plus interest and attorneys’ fees.  Ms. Mills appealed, arguing that the guaranty limited her liability to $1.8 million, plus fees and expenses.

Graham Mortgage did not contest that there was an error in the amount of the judgment, but instead argued that the Court of Appeals could simply modify the amount of the judgment pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 46.5, which allows for voluntary remittitur.  The Court disagreed, noting that Rule 46.5 “only allows voluntary remittitur after a court of appeals has reversed the trial court’s judgment because of a legal error affecting only part of the damages awarded.”

Mills v. Graham Mortgage Corp.

Dentist, Stephen Chu, ordered dental supplies form the plaintiff, accepted the shipment, but refused to pay the balance.  The plaintiff sued Dr. Chu individually and his dental practice, Stephen Chu, DDS, MSD, PA d/b/a Smile Again Orthodontics” for breach of contract and account stated.  Dr. Chu, however, declared bankruptcy and was subsequently nonsuited.  The Court found that a series of invoices addressed to “Stephen Chu DDS” could not establish, on summary judgment, that ” Stephen Chu, DDS, MSD, PA d/b/a Smile Again Orthodontics” was a party to the contract.

Chu v. Schein

Altus Brands II LC filed for a writ of garnishment against two officers of Swordfish Financial, Inc., seeking to enforce a $289,886 judgment from Minnesota against Swordfish. The trial court permitted Altus to execute on specific stock transferred to the officers by Swordfish in 2010, but refused to enter a money judgment against them. Altus appealed. The opinion is lengthy and exceedingly fact-specific — it’s the kind of case where dozens of findings of fact and conclusions of law get dropped into a single footnote.

Because the value of the stock had declined since the date of its transfer, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court had erred in only permitting Altus to execute on the stock, and that a money judgment was necessary to ensure that Altus’s position was not prejudiced by the fraudulent transfer. However, the amount of that money judgment was not to exceed the the value of the stock at the time of transfer, so as not to create a windfall in favor of Altus. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s findings regarding the cancellation of a $3.5 million promissory note from Swordfish to the officers, which Altus was apparently trying to use as further proof of its fraudulent transfer claim for the full amount of the Minnesota judgment.

Altus Brands II LLC v. Alexander, No. 05-13-06660-CV

In 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the lender in a collateral-disposition case, holding that the borrowers had raised a fact question as to the commercial reasonableness of the property. DMC Valley Ranch, L.L.C. v. HPSC, Inc., 315 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2010, no pet.). On remand, the lender took the position that the defendants’ valuation expert report was correct, and again moved for summary judgment on that basis (apparently seeking to recover a smaller deficiency rather than fighting for a larger one). The trial court granted summary judgment for the lender, and also awarded attorney fees via summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the deficiency ruling, but reversed on attorney fees. The Court held that there was a fact issue on the reasonableness and necessity of the attorney fees because the defendants’ attorney had submitted an affidavit opining that it was unreasonable to seek fees for unsuccessful appeals and motions, and that it was not appropriate to have seven lawyers on the file. The case was therefore remanded for further proceedings on attorney fees.

DMC Valley Ranch LLC v. HPSC, Inc., No. 05-11-01730-CV

The Texas Citizens Participation Act continues to be a fruitful source of appellate activity. In this instance, the Court of Appeals has reversed the trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss in a case arising out of a bad review on Angie’s List. Barbara Young hired Perennial Properties to construct an outdoor living space at her home, but Young claimed that Perennial failed to perform its work as required. McKinney Lumber Company then filed a lien against Young’s property for $9,779 in lumber that Perennial had failed to pay for. After the lumber company sued everyone involved, Young wrote up her experience in an online review, giving Perennial an overall grade of “F” and describing Perennial’s owners as incompetent crooks. Those owners then intervened in the lawsuit in order to sue Young and her attorney for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Court of Appeals first held that Young had met her initial burden of showing that the online review was an exercise of her right to free speech because it was a communication made to the public in connection with a good, product, or service. That brought it within the scope of the TCPA and shifted the burden to Perennial’s owners to establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each element of their claims. That they failed to do, according to the Court of Appeals. The defamation claim failed because the owners had not provided any evidence that the allegedly false statements were defamatory (as opposed to non-actionable opinions) or that Young had been negligent in making them. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed because that cause of action is only a “gap-filler” tort, and there were no different or distinguishing facts from the defamation claim to permit it to proceed separately. The Court of Appeals therefore dismissed both claims and remanded the case for further proceedings under the TCPA, presumably to consider an award of attorney fees to Young.

Young v. Krantz, No. 05-13-00853-CV

In this breach of contract case, the defendant corporation filed an answer pro se. Because corporations must be represented by an attorney, the trial court entered an order giving the defendant notice that its pleading would be struck if it did not file a proper answer within 30 days. After it failed to do so, the plaintiffs moved to strike the pro se pleading and also filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted both motions, entering a default judgment in plaintiffs’ favor that included $78,000 in actual damages and over $10,000 in attorneys’ fees.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in striking its answer and entering a default judgment. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court’s action was overly harsh, but it agreed with the defendant that there was insufficient evidence in the record to enter the default judgment. The Court noted that, even if the facts in the plaintiffs’ petition were accepted as true, they had “failed to establish a breach of contract claim” against the defendant. Because the plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient facts to establish their claim, the Court set aside the default judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court.

GQ Enters. Corp. v. Rajani, No. 05-12-01353-CV

In this insurance dispute, the United States Youth Soccer Association (“USYSA”) sought coverage form its liability insurer for claims filed against it by the National Association of Competitive Soccer Clubs (“NACSC”).  The NACSC alleged that USYSA had violated the bylaws of the governing board for soccer in the United States, the USSF, by discriminating against certain youth soccer players who want to play for both organizations.  The Court upheld the insurers denial of coverage based on the policy exclusion that precludes coverage for claims based on a breach of contract.  Employing the “eight corners” rule, the Court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit relate to breaches of the USSF bylaws, policies rules and regulations, which, in the Court’s view, constituted a breach of contract.

Arch Ins. Co. v. U.S. Youth Soccer Ass’n

In this attorney malpractice case, a client sued his lawyer for malpractice and a number of other related causes of action.  The parties settled the case at mediation and signed a settlement agreement requiring the lawyer to sign an agreed judgment to secure payment of the settlement amount.  The client’s attorney prepared the agreed judgment and sent it to the lawyer’s attorney, but, after several attempts, never received a response.  As a result, the trial court re-opened the case (which had been dismissed due to the settlement), set it for a bench trial, and sent notice of the trial setting to both parties.

At the bench trial, neither the lawyer nor his attorney showed up, and the trial court awarded the client damages in an amount that was more than three times the amount of the settlement.  The lawyer then filed a motion for a new trial.  His attorney acknowledged, however, that he had received notice of the trial but ignored it because he thought that it was an “erroneous” notice since the case had settled.  The trial court found this excuse insufficient and denied the motion.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed, and, although it reversed some of the damages awarded to the client, held that it was within the trial court’s discretion to conclude that the lawyer and his attorney “failed to appear for trial as the result of intentional conduct or conscious indifference.”

McLeod v. Gyr, No. CC-11-02708-B

Soon after the Plaintiff was sued for an alleged debt, she received a letter from a lawyer soliciting her to speak with him about representing her in the lawsuit.  The attorney’s letter violated a Texas law that made it a crime for lawyers to solicit clients within 31 days of a lawsuit being filed against them.  The Plaintiff brought a civil action against the lawyer pursuant to the 2012 version of the Texas Civil Barratry Statute, which allowed plaintiffs to bring civil barratry claims against attorneys who violated “the laws of this state.”

The trial court granted the lawyer’s motion for summary judgment, based on its findings that the Civil Barratry Statute was unconstitutional and that liability under the statute is predicated upon a criminal prosecution or conviction.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 2012 statute does not require a criminal conviction.  Additionally, the Court overturned the trial court’s holding that the statute was unconstitutional, because deciding the constitutionality of a criminal statute requires the participation of a party “with authority to enforce” the law, which in this case was the Dallas County District Attorney.

Shearer v. Reister, No. 05-12-01475-CV

Speed Boats of Texas brought suit against Fountain Powerboats and obtained a default judgment.  Fountain then filed a restricted appeal in which it sought to set aside the default judgment by arguing that the record did not establish that the secretary of state served Fountain with process.   The Court of Appeals agreed.  Because the record did not “affirmatively show that the secretary of state forwarded a copy of the process to the defendant,” the Court set aside the default judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Fountain Powerboats v. Speed Boats of Texas, No. 05-13-006570-CV

The Court of Appeals has issued its first-ever (so far as 600 Commerce is aware) decision in a case with its own Wikipedia page. The City of Carrolton annexed a portion of a privately owned airfield, then issued a new ordinance to regulate it. The city then ordered the airport to be closed based on violations of the ordinance, which led the nearby homeowners to sue the city in an attempt to invalidate the ordinance and the closure order, plus an additional lawsuit against the owners of the airport for failing to bring it into compliance with the ordinance. The homeowners prevailed on both summary judgment and in a jury trial, and the Court of Appeals largely affirmed, albeit on a modified basis.

Among other things, the Court’s 48-page opinion held that the ordinance was not a valid exercise of the city’s police power because it did not require notice to the homeowners whose easements burdened the airport property, thereby depriving them of due process. The ordinance was also determined to be unconstitutionally vague, as its use of the term “owner” was ambiguous and its reference to TXDOT’s Model Rules and Regulations did not provide sufficient guidance to tell the “owner” of the airport how it should be operated. The owners of the airport also could not escape judgment on the jury’s verdict merely because the judge retired after the trial and his successor issued the final judgment, nor were they successful in their attempt to inject the Noer-Pennington antitrust doctrine into breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. The Court remanded the case to the district court for consideration of additional issues based on the Court’s modifications of the trial court’s rulings.

Noell v. City of Carrolton, No. 05-11-01377-CV

In this negligent misrepresentation case, Guarantee Company of North America sued Weaver and Tidwell LLP for issuing negligent audit reports on which Guarantee relied when issuing performance bonds.  The central issue on appeal was whether the two-year statute of limitations for negligent misrepresentation actions barred Guarantee’s claim.  The Court held that “a person suffers legal injury from faulty professional advice when the advice is taken.”  Thus, the claim in this suit accrued as soon as Weaver’s alleged misrepresentation induced Guarantee to act; that is, when Guarantee issued its first bond in reliance on the faulty audit, which was more than two years before it filed suit.  While Guarantee argued that the discovery rule applied to toll the statute of limitations, the Court refused to apply the discovery rule here because Guarantee did not obtain findings on when it knew or should have known of the facts that gave rise to its cause of action.

Weaver and Tidlwell v. Guaranty Co. of N. Am.

Southwestern Christian College fired its track coach after he allowed two ineligible athletes to run in a meet.  Later, when the college’s track program got audited, the athletic director chose not to respond and accepted a ban from that year’s national championship, because the penalty for running ineligible athletes would have been worse than the penalty for failing to respond to an audit request.  The athletic director then told the track team that the reason they could not compete in the national championship meet was because the coach ran ineligible athletes.  The coach disputed that explanation.  He claimed that the audit and resulting ban were due to the athletic director’s failure to submit certain forms.

The coach sued the college, the athletic director, and the college’s president, alleging, among other things, that the athletic director and college president had made slanderous statements that tarnished his reputation in the track and field community and prevented him from getting another job.  The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the coach’s claims.  The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the coach’s slander claims against the college and the athletic director, finding that the coach had raised a material fact issue as to the truth of the athletic director’s statements to the track team.

Porter v. Southwestern Christian College, No. 05-12-01737-CV

The DFW Airport Board sought to incentivize taxicabs powered by natural gas by giving them “head of the line” privileges at DFW.  In 2009, the Airport Board passed a resolution to that effect, and the Association of Taxicab Operators (the “Association”) brought suit, seeking a declaration that the resolution was void.  The trial court ultimately sided with the Association and declared the resolution as passed void.  The Airport Board did not appeal that ruling.

Instead, in 2012, the Airport Board passed a second, similar resolution, which gave “head of the line” privileges to “taxicab operators who invest in a CNG operated taxicab.”   Once again, the Association challenged the resolution, and again the trial court declared the resolution void.  This time, the Airport Board appealed.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding that the Airport Board has the exclusive power to operate DFW Airport, which includes the power to manage the flow of ground transportation.  The Court also rejected the Association’s argument that the trial court’s ruling on the first resolution was binding in this case under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Because the court’s ruling on the first resolution only applied to that resolution as passed, it did not determine whether the second resolution was valid.

DFW Airport Bd. v. Ass’n of Taxicap Ops., No. 05-12-00777-CV

Former NBA point guard Allen Iverson (aka “the answer“) was sued for breach of contract because he failed to show up to an all-star game party in Dallas at which he had allegedly agreed to make an appearance.  Iverson filed a pro se answer asserting a general denial and various affirmative defenses, but failed to show up for trial. The trial court rendered a default judgment.  On appeal, the Court made clear that, because Iverson had answered, the plaintiff had to prove each element of its claim.  The Court then found that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a contract because it did not produce an actual written contract or provide any substantive testimony about the contract’s formation.

Iverson v. Dolce Mktg. Group

The Court of Appeals has issued a lengthy opinion affirming the confirmation of a take-nothing arbitration award, but reversing the trial court’s grant of a $10,000 sanction award against the attorney who challenged the award. The case arose out of the sale and subsequent foreclosure on a mineral lease in California. The lender alleged that it had been defrauded because it had not known about a $500,000 finder’s fee paid to the principal of the company that bought the mine for $2 million. The arbitrator rejected that position, finding that the lender’s chief witness was not credible in his allegations that he had not known about the finder’s fee. The opinion disposes of multiple grounds for vacating the award, including arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and manifestly disregarded the law or committed a gross mistake in his award. The Court also denied the lender’s argument that the trial judge should have been disqualified due to her and her husband’s authorship (before she became a judge) of a paper praising arbitration and her husband’s continuing service as an arbitrator. But while the Court of Appeals found no merit to the lender’s challenges, it concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in sanctioning the lender’s attorney. The largely generic facts alleged in the attorney’s pleading were supported by the record, and his legal contentions, even if not ultimately meritorious, could not serve as a basis for sanctions under Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for further consideration of alternative grounds for sanctions that the trial court had not ruled upon.

Humitech Dev. Corp. v. Perlman, No. 05-12-00857-CV

In a contentious trade secret case, a district judge sat through the deposition of Pendragon Transportation’s corporate representative in order to rule on the objections and instructions offered by Pendragon’s attorney. That same day, the trial court sua sponte appointed a special master to attend future depositions and make rulings on the attorneys’ objections. Two months later, Pendragon filed an objection to the special master order, and the trial court overruled that objection a month later. Three months after that ruling, and only 11 days before trial, Pendragon filed its mandamus petition with the Court of Appeals. Given Pendragon’s six-month delay in seeking mandamus to challenge the appointment of the special master, and its failure to disclose that trial was only two weeks away at the time of its filing, the Court concluded that Pendragon had slept on any right it may have had to complain about the special master. However, the Court did grant Pendragon limited relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the company to pay the special master’s expenses in advance. That ruling was contrary to Rule 143, which only permits the court to require security to be posted for costs, not their actual payment prior to entry of a final judgment.

In re Pendragon Transp. LLC, No. 05-13-01749-CV

The Court of Appeals has reiterated that mandamus relief is available when the trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s motion for leave to designate a responsible third party. In this instance, the trial court had denied Greyhound’s attempt to join the owner of a crane truck that had been involved in a collision with a bus. The plaintiff was a passenger in the crane truck, and Greyhound alleged that the truck’s poor condition had proximately caused the accident. Following its own precedent of In re Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., 355 S.W.3d 304, 306 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.), the Court held that Greyhound had met its pleading requirements for naming the responsible third party, and that the improper denial of leave could not be adequately addressed by appeal. Permitting the case to be tried without the third party “would skew the proceedings, potentially affect the outcome of the litigation, and compromise the presentation of Relators’ defense in ways unlikely to be apparent in the appellate record.” The Court therefore conditionally granted mandamus.

In re Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 05-13-01646-CV

A Collin County divorce case turned into a temporary injunction proceeding involving claims of assault and terroristic threats by an attorney in the middle of a deposition. The plaintiff, Barry Wells, alleged that his wife’s attorney became angry when Wells told him to calm down and commented that May’s daughter had probably committed suicide due to the attorney’s supposed anger issues. The lawyer allegedly made multiple death threats in the course of throwing Wells out of the building. Five days later, Wells filed a petition seeking injunctive relief to prevent the attorney from coming within 300 feet of him. The trial court granted an ex parte TRO, but the attorney quickly moved to dissolve the order and to impose sanctions for filing a groundless, bad faith pleading. After a hearing, the trial court dissolved the TRO and entered sanctions against Wells by striking his petition and dismissing the case with prejudice.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dissolution of the TRO, but reversed the sanctions order. The ruling on the TRO was moot, and therefore non-appealable, because the order would have expired after 14 days in any event. As to the sanctions order, the deposition transcript revealed that Wells had been the instigator of the confrontation with the defendant, and that his comment about the attorney’s daughter was outrageous, the transcript also showed that the attorney had indeed threatened to kill Wells if he did not leave or if he ever returned. Thus, even though though Wells’ pleading presented an inaccurate account of what had transpired, the threat of imminent bodily injury meant that the claims of assault and terroristic threat were not groundless. The order striking the petition was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Wells v. May, No. 05-12-01100-CV

The Court of Appeals has conditionally granted mandamus relief to the wife of a judgment debtor after she became entangled in the creditor’s efforts to collect on the judgment against her husband. Wells Fargo alleged that Catherine Karlseng did not do any actual work for her husband’s law firm, that she only received wages by virtue of her husband’s work at the firm, and that the money was not exempt from execution as wages because her husband was really an independent contractor of the firm. The trial court entered a turnover order. The Court of Appeals held that as a third party to the underlying judgment, Mrs. Karlseng had no adequate remedy at law because she could not supersede the judgment to prevent execution and because the turnover order prevented her from paying her living expenses. The trial court had also abused its discretion, the Court held, because the turnover statute cannot be used to adjudicate third-party ownership claims. As a non-party to the underlying judgment, Mrs. Karlseng would have to be made a party to the proceeding before she could be required to turn over property in which she claimed an ownership interest.

In re Karlseng, No. 05-14-00049-CV

Gary Cooper thought he was dealing with an authorized representative of Lawyers Title Company when he deposited $1.8 million in escrow for the purchase of property in Fort Worth. In reality, Jason Chumley was an independent contractor working for an attorney for Lawyers Title. But the Fort Worth project never developed, and Chumley and two of Cooper’s business associates instead applied the money to pay off four liens on a McKinney Avenue property in Dallas. That transaction led to federal indictments for wire fraud, as well as a lawsuit by Cooper against numerous parties in an effort to recover the $1.8 million. The trial court granted summary judgment for Cooper on his claims for bailment, conversion, and money had and received, while denying Lawyers Title’s cross-motion. Those claims were then severed from the rest of the case, thereby enabling an immediate appeal. The case turned largely on whether Lawyers Title had ever received Cooper’s funds, as they had been wired to an account maintained by the title company’s attorney. There was conflicting evidence on whether Lawyers Title actually controlled that account, which was a genuine issue of material fact and required reversal of summary judgment on all three quasi-contract claims.

Lawyers Title Co. v. J.G. Cooper Dev,, Inc., No. 05-11-01537-CV

The Court of Appeals has affirmed in part and reversed in part a summary judgment in favor of a law firm in a suit to recover attorney fees from its former clients. The opinion is quite lengthy and covers a number of topics. The first issue is evidentiary, as the Court decided that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the affidavit of one of the defendants, in which he averred that the defendants did not owe the fees because they were not “reasonable and necessary” to the engagement. The engagement letter provided that the law firm was to perform “[r]easonable and necessary legal services . . . which [the firm] and [the clients] decide are reasonable and necessary to perform the Engagement.” Nevertheless, the affiant was not an attorney and was therefore not qualified to offer an opinion on the reasonableness or necessity of the fees. The Court also affirmed the summary judgment ruling in favor of the law firm’s cause of action for sworn account, as the defendants had failed to answer it with a verified affidavit that disputes the specific facts on which such a claim is based. The Court further affirmed that the defendants had not produced any evidence of recoverable damages on their counterclaims, since the only harm they had shown was having to incur attorney fees to defend themselves in this lawsuit. However, the Court reversed that portion of the judgment that held the president of one defendant jointly and severally liable for payment of the debt owed by one of the corporate defendants, and remanded the case to the trial court for further consideration of the attorney fees that had been assessed against that individual.

Woodhaven Partners, Ltd. v. Shamoun & Norman, L.L.P., No 05-11-01718-CV

A memorandum opinion demonstrates the downside of failing to respond to a discovery request. Alfredo Cornejo sued Anthony Jones for causing a multi-vehicle accident. Jones filed a general denial and alleged that someone else’s negligence proximately caused the collision. Cornejo served Jones with basic contention interrogatories, but Jones never answered them. Cornejo did not move to compel, but instead sought to exclude Jones’ testimony at trial. The trial court allowed Jones to testify, and the jury returned a verdict for the defense, apparently crediting Jones’ testimony — contrary to the police report of the incident — that he had been the victim of a rear impact that spun him into the other lanes of traffic. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the testimony should have been excluded under Rule 193.6(a) because Jones had failed to answer the contention interrogatories and could not show either good cause for that failure or lack of unfair surprise or prejudice to Cornejo. Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, a motion to compel is not a prerequisite to the exclusion of evidence under Rule 193.6(a), which provides for automatic exclusion if the proponent of the evidence did not answer the discovery and cannot establish those two exceptions to the exclusionary rule.

Cornejo v. Jones, No. 05-12-01256-CV

The Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded a summary judgment ruling obtained by Minyard Food Stores. The trial court ruled that Minyard was entitled to a setoff against North Central Distributors’ receivable. The receivable was originally owned by NCD Acquisition, an entity formed by members of the Minyard family to acquire the assets of North Central. After NCD Acquisition defaulted on its note, North Central foreclosed on NCD’s assets, including the Minyard Food Stores receivable. But in the meanwhile, NCD Acquisition also breached a sublease agreement with Minyard. NCD and Minyard settled that dispute with the lessor, but reserved its right of offset against NCD. Minyard contended that it was a buyer in the ordinary course of business for the goods underlying the NCD Acquisition receivable, but the evidence on that point was disputed. There was also conflicting evidence as to the proper date for the offset, as some of the unpaid rent may have accrued after Minyard received notice of North Central’s foreclosure on NCD’s receivable, and much of the claimed offset appeared to be for future rent payments. In light of these disputed fact issues, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court.

N. Central Distribs., Inc. v. Minyard Food Stores, Inc., No. 05-12-00418-CV

In 1986, Summers Electric Company extended credit to Stuart Electric, Inc., which backed its credit application with the personal guaranty of its owners, Barry and Zac Stuart. The guaranty was in favor of Summers or its assigns, for all money that may come to be due to Summers by Stuart Electric. Although Summers’ ownership and name changed over the years, Stuart continued to do business with the company.  In 2008, Barry and Zac sold Stuart Electric. The new ownership group continued to purchase materials from Summers, but failed to pay up. Summers turned to the Stuarts to make good on their 22-year-old written guaranty, which they refused. Summers then filed suit, obtaining a default judgment against Stuart Electric and a summary judgment against Barry and Zac.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals first sustained the trial court’s decision not to strike the Stuarts’ affidavits, in which they testified that Summers’ employees had told them they were no longer on the company’s account and were not responsible for any purchases made by Stuart Electric. Although the Stuarts were interested witnesses, their affidavits were still admissible because they were sufficiently “clear, positive, and direct, free from contradictions or inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted.”  Tex R. Civ. P. 166(a)(c). That affidavit testimony also supported each of the elements of the Stuarts’ promissory estoppel defense, which precluded the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against them. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Stuart v. Summers Group, Inc., No. 05-12-00489-CV

In this derivative suit, the plaintiff sought a temporary injunction stopping officers of the defendant company who had each been granted a promissory note in lieu of salary (which note was then in default) giving them the right to foreclose.  Although the trial court granted the temporary injunction, the Court of Appeals held that the mere existence of unexercised contractual rights does not give rise to the “imminent harm” required to sustain a temporary injunction, reversing the trial court’s decision.

Schmidt v. Richardson

The Court of Appeals has granted mandamus to prevent three depositions sought by a homebuyer seeking to avoid an arbitration agreement. The trial court granted the builder’s motion to compel arbitration, but had not yet ruled whether the buyer’s claims against two individual employees of the builder were also arbitrable. While their motion was pending, the trial court granted a motion to compel the depositions of the employees and the company to explore whether they had engaged in any fraudulent or criminal conduct. The Court of Appeals held that order was an abuse of discretion. Under In re Kaplan Higher Education Corp., 235 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. 2007), agents who are nonsignatories to their principal’s arbitration agreement may still invoke equity to compel arbitration unless the claimant can demonstrate the agents had unclean hands in the formation of the arbitration provision. In this instance, the buyer alleged only that the individuals had unclean hands in the performance of the contract, not the formation of the arbitration clause. Accordingly, the issue of their unclean hands was an issue for the merits of the case that had to be determined in arbitration, making discovery of those facts inappropriate for a judicial proceeding. The Court therefore directed the trial court to stay the case so that all of the parties could proceed to arbitration. The Court also wrote separately to summarily deny the buyer’s mandamus petition challenging the arbitration order for her claims against the company.

In re Susan Newell Custom Home Builders, Inc., No. 05-13-01474-CV

In this whistleblower suit against Dallas County, the County filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity.  The plaintiff, a former deputy constable, complained of illegal activity and retaliation in his employment division to the Dallas County Commissions Court.  The County contended, however, that this entity does not fall within the confines of the Whistleblower Act and, therefore, the plaintiff did not have an objective good faith belief that he was reporting the misdeeds to an appropriate law enforcement body.  While the Court found that “an appropriate law enforcement authority must be actually responsible for regulating under or enforcing the law allegedly violated,” it nevertheless remanded the proceedings to the trial court because the record did not show that evidence was presented about the plaintiff’s good faith belief that the Commissioners Court was the appropriate body.  This was particularly true given that some of the County’s jurisdictional arguments were newly raised on appeal.

Dallas County v. Logan

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

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

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

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

In a rare en banc opinion, the Court of Appeals has clarified the standards for asserting a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The owners of Gloria’s restaurants sued one of their long-time managers and his business partner after the manager left to start a new restaurant, Mario Sabino’s. The new restaurant served similar food, and Gloria’s claimed that the defendants had misappropriated trade secret recipes and tortiously interfered by recruiting Gloria’s employees. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment that asserted Gloria’s had no evidence of “one or more” of the elements of Gloria’s claims. The motion listed all the elements of each of the claims, but failed to specifically identify which of those elements were being challenged. Gloria’s therefore attempted to respond with evidence of each element of its entire case, but the trial court granted the defendants’ motion on all claims.

The majority opinion rejected that shotgun approach to summary judgment practice. Rule 166a(i) and its supporting comments require the movant to specifically state which elements of a claim are being challenged, and the defendants’ invocation of “one or more” of the elements of Gloria’s case failed to meet that threshold. The Court declined to interpret “one or more” as meaning “each and every,” as the defendants argued on appeal. The Court also stressed that a no-evidence motion is intended to assess the proof of an element that the movant believes in good faith to be unsupported by evidence. In seeking to challenge every aspect of Gloria’s claims, the defendants sidestepped the specificity requirement of Rule 166a(i) and improperly forced Gloria’s to prove up its entire case.

The majority also rejected the defendants’ argument that Gloria’s had waived its complaint by responding to the motion in its entirety, following a line of cases that permit a party to challenge the legal sufficiency of a summary judgment motion for the first time on appeal. Justice Evans O’Neill dissented based on that waiver point, arguing that the motion met the “fair notice” pleading standard, that Gloria’s attempt to meet all the elements of its case demonstrated it understood what was being challenged, and that Gloria’s should have objected or specially excepted to the motion in order to raise the issue and preserve it for appeal.

Jose Fuentes Co., Inc. v. Alfaro, No. 05-11-00228-CV (majority)

Justice O’Neill’s dissenting opinion

The Shops at Legacy filed suit against Fine Autographs & Memorabilia for breach of their lease agreement. On the day of trial, TSAL filed a motion for continuance, which was denied. Fine Autographs then filed a motion for sanctions based on alleged discovery abuse by TSAL, apparently relating to its failure to produce copies of checks and a document related to the lease. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed TSAL’s claim with prejudice as a “death penalty” sanction. Although the court’s order recited that it had considered, and rejected, the possibility of lesser sanctions, nothing in the record of the sanctions hearing actually demonstrated the consideration of lesser sanctions. Because a court must consider the availability of lesser sanctions before dismissing a party’s case, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Shops at Legacy (Inland) L.P. v. Fine Autographs & Memorabilia Retail Stores, Inc., No. 05-12-00864-CV

The Court of Appeals has issued a lengthy opinion in a breach of contract case. Defendant Richard Berryman and his company, Berryman South Fork, claimed that J. Baxter Brinkmann International Corp. had constructively terminated the contract and owed them $160,000 in unreimbursed expenses. JBBI got to the courthouse first, however, and claimed that Berryman had breached the contract by failing to continue his performance. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of JBBI and awarded it more than $500,000 in damages, attorney fees, and interest.

Among many other issues, the Court of Appeals held that JBBI could not recover approximately $290,000 in breach of contract damages for payments it made to Berryman during the months following his attempted repudiation of the contract. That holding flows from the 88-year-old case of Osage Oil & Ref. Co. v. Lee Farm Oil Co., 230 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.–Amarillo 1921, writ ref’d). In that case, the court held that when a party is served with notice that the other party is repudiating their contract, the first party cannot continue to perform it and thereby increase the damages to which it would otherwise be entitled. However, that principle apparently does not extend beyond the breach of contract claim, as the Court’s opinion affirmed JBBI’s award of even greater damages for money had and received. The opinion also includes multiple discussions regarding the preservation of issues for appeal, including through pleadings, evidentiary objections, and briefing on appeal.

Berryman’s South Fork, Inc. v. J. Baxter Brinkmann Int’l Corp., No. 05-12-00492-CV

Innovate Technologies LP entered into a contract with another information technology firm, Youngsoft, Inc., to provide IT services on a project for one of Innovate’s clients. The job did not go well.  Youngsoft sued Innovate for nonpayment, and Innovate counterclaimed for breach of warranty and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment and directed verdict against Innovate’s counterclaims, based on a limitation of liability clause that  provided Youngsoft “shall not be liable for any incidental, ancillary, direct, indirect, special or consequential damages, including but not limited to lost profits, whether in tort or contract, and based on any theory of liability.”  Elsewhere in the contract, however, Youngsoft expressly agreed to indemnify Innovate from “all claims, damages and judgments . . . arising out of or relating to any breach of this Agreement.”  The Court of Appeals reconciled those apparently conflicting provisions — which threatened to render the entire agreement illusory and unenforceable — by agreeing with Innovate that the limitation of liability clause applied to claims brought against Youngsoft by third parties, not to claims brought by its counter-party, Innovate. The Court therefore reversed the trial court’s rulings and remanded the case for a new trial.

Innovate Tech. Solutions, L.P. v. Youngsoft, Inc., No. 05-12-00658-CV

As the Court held in a similar case two weeks ago, the recitals in a trustee’s deed fall into an exception to the hearsay rule and should be admitted into evidence because the recitals are “relevant to the purpose of the document.”

CitiMortgage v Sczepanik

A short mandamus opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals highlights a limit on the ability of courts to interfere with arbitration. In this case, the trial court stayed the arbitration and ordered the relator to dismiss it because the parties did not have an agreement to arbitrate. But the Texas Arbitration Act only authorizes a court to stay arbitration, not to order that it be dismissed. The Court of Appeals therefore directed the trial court to vacate the dismissal order, but leaving the stay in place while the litigation apparently moves forward in the trial court.

In re Seven Hills Commercial, LLC, No. 05-13-01340-CV

Plaintiff Shabaz Din was born in Pakistan, where he became a doctor and specialized in ophthalmology. After emigrating to the United States in the 1990s, Din took a job training medical assistants with ATI Career Training Center. When the position of Medical Assistants Program Director came open, Din applied for it. ATI chose to go with a doctor of osteopathy instead. That doctor was soon replaced by a different candidate with only a vocational degree, followed by yet another new hire who had not graudated from college. Din filed a complaint with the EEOC, and ATI fired him shortly thereafter. Din sued for national origin discrimination and retaliation, and the jury awarded him damages for back pay, emotional pain and suffering, and punitives.

The Court of Appeals took up several issues in its determination of the case. First, it dismissed Din’s cause of action for retaliation because he had not raised that issue in the underlying administrative proceeding as required by Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code (formerly, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act). As to the damages, the Court held that there was no evidence that Din had suffered any compensible emotional pain and suffering due to the failure to promote, and it therefore vacated that portion of the judgment. The Court did find that there was evidence of back-pay damages, but nowhere near enough to sustain the jury’s award of $83,000, leading to a remand for additional proceedings on both liability and damages for the back-pay issue. Finally, the Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of malice or reckless indifference and found it was legally insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Although there was evidence that the ATI manager had intended to cause Dim “some harm” in denying his promotion, that evidence did not show an intent to cause “substantial injury or harm” because the promotion would have resulted in only a small raise in Dim’s hourly salary.

ATI Enters., Inc. v. Din, No. 05-11-01522-CV

According to the operators of Hank’s Texas Grill, the City of McKinney and its police officers have been wrongfully harassing the restaurant, its employees, and its customers for the last ten years. In response, the city alleges that Hank’s violates numerous city ordinances. The city filed a plea to the jurisdiction to invoke its governmental immunity. The trial court denied the plea, and the city appealed. Summarizing the recent (and conflicting) string of cases challenging local ordinances, the Court of Appeals concluded that “the Declaratory Judgments Act waives governmental immunity against claims that a statute or ordinance is invalid,” but “does not waive a governmental entity’s immunity against a claim that government actors have violated the law.” Construing Hank’s pleadings, the Court concluded that they did not demonstrate that Hank’s claim was outside the scope of the city’s governmental immunity. However, the pleading also did not demonstrate that the claim was barred by governmental immunity, meaning that Hank’s had to be given the opportunity to amend. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Hank’s claim for damages was not barred by immunity to the extent that it was an offset against the city’s own damage claims. Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected the city’s claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin its enforcement of state laws and local ordinances, ruling that the pleadings and arguments at this stage of the case were still too unclear to affirmatively demonstrate that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction.

City of McKinney v. Hank’s Restaurant Group, L.P., No. 05-123-01359-CV

PDBI and Varel entered into an agreement in which PDBI agreed to act as Varel’s authorized sales representative by providing “sales and technical service” to certain customers.  Pursuant to this contract, PDBI met with MMS several times to pitch Varel’s products and provide product price sheets, product requirements, and technical services.  Varel then cancelled its agreement with PDBI, and informed PDBI that any sales to MMS would be made directly by Varel.  MMS subsequently began buying products directly from Varel.  PDBI sued Varel, alleging that PDBI procured MMS as a buyer of Varel products, provided “sales and technical services” to MMS, and was “entitled to commission on sales” to MMS.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Varel.  The Court reasoned that PDBI’s evidence raises a fact issue whether it rendered sales and technical service to MMS under the terms of its contract with Varel.

PetroDrillBits Int’l v. Varel Int’l Indus., No. 05-12-00406

The Weavers hired attorney Holliday to pursue claims relating to a car accident.  The Weavers later sued Holliday for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, fraud, and violation of the DTPA, alleging that Holliday settled an insurance claim without the Weavers’ consent and converted the money for personal use.  The trial court found in favor of the Weavers on all four claims, and the Weavers elected to recover on the DTPA claim.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment on the DTPA claim, and rendered judgment for the Weavers on the breach of fiduciary duty claim.  The Court of Appeals noted that there was “no evidence that [Holliday’s] acceptance of the settlement payments…or his attorney’s fees, constituted a pecuniary loss to the Weavers that was caused by Holliday’s DTPA violations as opposed to the other claimed wrongful conduct.”  Thus, the evidence was legally insufficient to support the award of damages under the DTPA because there was no evidence that the DTPA violations were a producing cause of the Weavers’ claimed pecuniary loss.

Holliday v. Weaver, No. 05-10-01614-CV

A landlord-tenant dispute illustrates the limits of a jury’s ability to select an amount to award as damages. After the tenant abandoned the leasehold, the landlord sued for breach of the lease agreement. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $200,000 in damages. On appeal, the tenant challenged the evidence of causation between the breach of the lease and the damages awarded by the jury. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that while there was some evidence of damages caused by the breach, the evidence overall failed to establish that the specific expenses claimed by the landlord were actually made necessary by the tenant’s termination of the lease. While a jury may award damages anywhere within the range permitted by the evidence, it cannot “arbitrarily assess an amount not authorized or supported by evidence at trial.” The Court therefore remanded the case for a new trial on both liability and damages.

Curtis v. AGF Spring Creek/Coit II, Ltd., No. 05-12-00429-CV

In this memorandum opinion, the Court found that the trial court’s temporary injunction preventing the defendants from disclosing, among other things, “techniques,”  “materials,” “confidential information” and “proprietary information,” was not specific enough to meet the  requirements of TRCP 683, which requires that an injunction shall “describe in reasonable detail . . . the acts sought to be restrained.”

Ramirez v. Ignite Holdings

Majestic Cast, Inc. entered into a contract with ProCon Paving to serve as a subcontractor on the construction of a Montessori school. Citing numerous complaints, Majestic Cast terminated the contract and filed suit against “Majed Khalef d/b/a ProCon Paving and Construction, Inc.” for theft, conversion, breach of contract, and fraud. Majestic Cast’s posited that Khalaf was using ProCon’s corporate form as an empty shell to avoid liability, and that he should therefore be held personally liable as an alter ego of ProCon. The trial court granted traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment, and Majestic Cast appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the claims for theft, conversion and fraud. Whereas Majestic Case had pleaded those tort claims against Khalaf individually, Khalaf had sought summary judgment only by arguing that Majestic Cast could not pierce the veil to hold him liable on ProCon’s contract.  Because a corporate agent can be held liable for his own fraudulent or tortious acts even while acting within the scope of the agency, Khalaf was not entitled to summary judgment on the tort claims. As to Majestic Cast’s breach of contract claim, however, the Court held that there was no evidence to raise a fact issue on any theory for disregarding the corporate fiction in order to make Khalaf individually liable for breach of the Majestic Cast-ProCon contract. Thus, summary judgment was affirmed only as to the contract claim, with the tort claims remanded for further proceedings.

Majestic Cast, Inc. v. Khalaf, No. 05-12-00112-CV

The Court of Appeals has reversed the district court’s order sustaining the special appearance of an Iowa company formed by one of the plaintiff’s former employees. Interestingly, the opinion starts out with some discussion of a recurring problem in Texas practice — namely, the use and treatment of documents filed under seal. In this instance, much of the evidence necessary to determine the special appearance had been sealed by the trial court, including an exhibit that was “the only evidence of the terms of the relationship” between two of the defendants. The Court of Appeals resolved this difficulty by stating that it had made every effort to preserve the confidentiality of the designated materials, but that the appeal could not be decided without mention of some key jurisdictional facts. The lesson here appears to be that the Court will do what it can to preserve the litigants’ confidential information, but if the details are essential to the appeal, you can reasonably expect some of them to come out in an opinion that is a matter of public record.

Moving on to the merits of the special appearance, the evidence showed that Eco Technologies was an Iowa company that had all of its operations located in that state, but that it distributed its products to independent dealers in Texas and elsewhere. One of those dealers in Texas is owned by the plaintiff’s former employee Billy Cox, a Texas resident who also is a part owner of Eco Technologies itself. The plaintiff alleged that Eco Technologies and Cox had interfered with the plaintiff’s Texas contracts and unfairly competed with the plaintiff in Texas, and the Court held that those allegations were sufficient to bring Eco Technologies within the reach of the Texas long arm statute. Citing Iowa law, the Court held that as a member of a member-managed LLC, Cox was an agent of Eco Technologies, and that his recruitment of the plaintiff’s distributors in Texas to enter into relationships with Eco Technologies were jurisdictional contacts attributable to Eco Technologies. The company therefore fell short of its burden to negate the jurisdictional grounds alleged by the plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the order sustaining the special appearance and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Masterguard, L.P. v. Eco Techs. Int’l LLC, No. 05-12-01318-CV

McKinney Aerospace was in the business of airplane repair.  In 2006, Boyington Capital Group came to McKinney for repairs on its airplane.  During negotiations, McKinney’s executive vice president, Randall Haler, told Boyington Capital, that McKinney was in “very fine legally financial shape.”  As it turns out, McKinney was on the verge of bankruptcy and failed to repair the plane.  It had also used Boyington’s initial payments to hold off creditors, so it could not return those funds to Boyington.  Boyington sued McKinney and Haler for, among other things, fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the Texas Theft Liability Act.  The jury found for Boyington.

On appeal, Haler argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish a claim under the TTLA against him. The Court of Appeals disagreed, upholding the jury’s finding and pointing out that “by misrepresenting the financial condition of McKinney Aerospace and spending money it received from Boyington on payments other than those related to repairing Boyington’s plane, Haler unlawfully appropriated Boyington’s property with the intent to deprive Boyington of its money.”  However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of attorney’s fee to Boyington because Boyington did not segregate and exclude the fees for services that relate to its claims for which fees are not recoverable.

Haler v. Boyington Capital Group

Since 1994, the City of Dallas has been in litigation with its police, firefighters, and rescue officers. The question at hand is whether a referendum and ordinance passed in 1979 amounted to a one-time salary adjustment, as the city contends, or a perpetual entitlement in all future salary adjustments. More than a decade after the lawsuits started, the city suddenly remembered that it had governmental immunity, and filed pleas to the jurisdiction on that basis. In 2011, the Texas Supreme Court held that the officers could not pursue a declaratory judgment on their interpretation of the ordinance because the only potential relief from such a declaration would be an award of money damages. City of Dallas v. Albert, 354 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. 2011). In the meantime, however, the legislature had enacted a new, retroactive statute that waived local governments’ immunity from suit for certain breach of contract claims. See Tex. Local Gov’t Code § 271.151 et seq. The case was therefore remanded to the trial court to consider whether there was jurisdiction to hear the officers’ breach of contract claims. The trial court denied the city’s renewed pleas to the jurisdiction, ruling that the contract claims fell within the new statutory waiver of immunity. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed.

The analysis is somewhat lengthy, but its core relies on City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2006) for the proposition that city ordinances can create a unilateral contract between the city and its employees that is within the scope of the legislature’s waiver of governmental immunity. Finding all of the elements of such a contract contained within the 1979 ordinance, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was a unilateral contract between the city and the officers. However, on the key question of whose interpretation of the ordinance would prevail, the court deferred to one of its previous rulings in the case, holding that the ordinance was ambiguous and its interpretation was therefore a question of fact to be determined at trial. The court also held there was no jurisdiction on the remaining declaratory judgment claims, concluding that the Albert decision had already established the city was entitled to governmental immunity from such claims.

City of Dallas v. Arredondo, No. 05-12-00963-CV

The Court of Appeals has granted mandamus relief to the defendants in the defamation lawsuit brought by the teenaged son of baseball player Torii Hunter. The suit arises out of sexual assault charges that a grand jury eventually no-billed. In the subsequent defamation case, the defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which requires the plaintiff in such a case to come forward with prima facie evidence of each element of the case at an early stage of the litigation. The plaintiff responded with an emergency motion seeking leave to take the depositions of one of the alleged victims and her mother.  The trial court granted leave, but the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s briefing had not stated any “good cause” for the discovery, as required by the TCPA, and at the hearing on the motion had only argued that the depositions were necessary “in order to defend the motion to dismiss.” Without any specific showing of good cause in the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing the depositions and conditionally granted mandamus relief.

In re D.C., No. 05-13-00944-CV

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a car wreck case. The defendant sought summary judgment based on the 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury and the plaintiff’s alleged lack of diligence in serving the petition. The accident had happened on April 24, 2009, but the plaintiff’s petition had not been filed until April 25, 2011. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the summary judgment evidence was sufficient to show the petition was timely filed because the court had been closed for Good Friday when the plaintiff attempted to file it on April 22. See Tex Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a). The defendant had also failed to submit any summary judgment evidence showing that he had not been timely served, thereby failing to meet his own burden to establish the plaintiff’s lack of due diligence in serving the citation after the limitations period expired.

Sutton v. Sheikh, No. 05-12-01168-CV

In April 2009, American Home’s insured allegedly fell asleep while the stove was still on in her apartment, leading to a fire that damaged her unit and that of her neighbor, who was insured through Allstate. Allstate paid its insured’s claim for $18,000 in damages, then sought subrogation from American Home. However, American Home’s policy limit was $100,000, and the claim languished while American Home sought to determine the complete extent of the damage caused by the fire. After a year of waiting, Allstate filed for arbitration with Arbitration Forums, Inc. Both Allstate and American Home are signatories to AFI’s arbitration agreement, which requires parties to arbitrate subrogation claims “not in excess of $100,000.” The AFI arbitrator promptly ruled in favor of Allstate. American Home filed a post-hearing appeal as permitted by the AFI rules, arguing that arbitration was not compulsory because the overall damages from the fire were in excess of $600,000. The AFI arbitrator agreed and voided the prior award.

In the meantime, however, Allstate had filed an application to confirm the initial arbitration award. After the arbitrator voided that award, American Home moved to dismiss the court case. The county court at law apparently agreed with Allstate’s argument that the order declaring the initial award to be void was itself invalid because American Home had allegedly misrepresented its policy limits in order to obtain that order. It entered a final judgment confirming the initial award in favor of Allstate, and American Home appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment on a voided arbitration award. The court of appeals agreed, noting that “Necessarily embedded in the trial court’s ability to confirm an award is the presence of an award itself.” The court of appeals also rejected Allstate’s attempt to argue that the arbitrator’s decision to void the initial award was invalid, ruling that the documents relied upon for that argument did not constitute any evidence of misrepresentations being made by American Home. The case was therefore reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

American Modern Home Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 05-11-00997-CV

PAM Transport’s truck driver, James Herdo, allegedly backed into one of Stevens Transport’s semi-tractors.  Stevens sued PAM for negligence because it claimed Herdo failed to keep a proper “lookout” when he was backing the truck up.  The trial court found that Stevens had established that Herdo’s negligence proximately caused the collision and granted Stevens’ motion for summary judgment.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the mere occurrence of an accident does not establish negligence.  Instead, Stevens had to prove conclusively that Herdo’s failure to keep a lookout proximately caused the accident, not simply that Herdo backed into Steven’s tractor.

PAM v. Stevens

John Pride and Phareale Investments filed a restricted appeal from the district court’s grant of a no-answer default judgment against them. Among other things, the appellants argued that they should have been served with the plaintiffs’ first amended petition because it sought more onerous relief than the original petition that had been served on them. The record did not reflect that the amended petition had been served on either of the appellants, and the new pleading added claims against them for fraud, declaratory relief, and exemplary damages. Based on those additions, the court of appeals concluded that the failure to serve the appellants with the amended pleading meant that the trial court erred in entering a default judgment against them.

Curiously, the court of appeals mentions in a footnote that the restricted appeal had been abated for a period in order to let the district court dispose of some remaining issues that prevented the default judgment from being a final judgment. The court did not indicate why the appellants elected to proceed with the restricted appeal when they apparently could have still sought relief from the trial court to set aside the interlocutory default judgment, or why they did not pursue an appeal in the ordinary course after the judgment became final.

Pride v. Williams, No. 05-11-01189-CV

Regular readers may recall the plaintiff’s multi-year, multi-appeal quest to obtain a no-answer default judgment in the recent case of Elite Door & Trim, Inc. v. Tapia. That situation has presented itself again in another case arising out of the same trial court. This time, the case had only been reversed and remanded once before, unlike the two previous decisions in the Elite Door case. In the present case, the court of appeals had previously reversed the trial court’s order dismissing for want of prosecution because the court had not given the plaintiff sufficient notice of its intent to dismiss the case. On remand, the plaintiff amended its pleadings and filed an amended motion for entry of default. In the meantime, the trial court set another DWOP hearing. The plaintiff filed a motion to retain the case on the docket, noting that its request for a hearing on a default judgment had been denied by the court coordinator on the ground that the court did not set default motions for hearing unless it was deemed necessary by the court. The trial court then signed an order dismissing the case for want of prosecution. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to grant default judgment to the plaintiff, and that it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution in light of the plaintiff’s diligence in amending its pleadings and seeking entry of a default judgment. The court therefore remanded again and directed that judgment be granted in favor of the plaintiff on its claims for liquidated damages, attorney fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Harris, N.A. v. Obregon, No. 05-10-01349-CV

At a trial involving, among other things, counterclaims for breach of contract, the counterclaimant forgot to submit a jury question on the issue of damages. Because the jury agreed with the counterclaimant for all other elements of the breach of contract claim, the counterclaimant moved for judgment and requested that the trial court find that damages for the breach of contract established as a matter of law. The trial court did not expressly rule on the motion for judgment, but instead rendered a take-nothing judgment on  the counterclaim.

On appeal, the Court addressed several issues, including whether the counterclaimants had waived any objection to the jury charge on appeal.  The Court explained that, under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure “[w]hen an element of a claim is omitted from the jury charge without objection and no written findings are made by the trial court on that element then the omitted element is deemed to have been found by the court in such a manner as to support the judgment.”  Based on this, the Court concluded that the counterclaimants did not waive their claim for damages by failing to submit a jury question on that element of their claim and that they had also not waived argument concerning the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court’s “deemed finding.”

Alfia v. Overseas Service Haus

Parman sued TierOne to recover stock he allegedly owned in the company. The jury found that TierOne converted 4.5 million shares that belonged to Parman, and awarded him $600,000 in damages. TierOne appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence discovered after the trial began. TierOne received an audiotape after the second day of trial wherein Parman told another lawyer that “[No], man, I’ve got no stock [in TierOne], no nothing buddy.” TierOne produced the audiotape the next day, but the trial court denied TierOne’s motion to admit the tape.

Not surprisingly, the court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit the newly discovered audiotape of Parman admitting he doesn’t own any of the stock he was suing to recover from his employer. The court of appeals found that TierOne had good cause for failing to produce the audiotape before becoming aware that the lawyer who produced the tape had relevant information and becoming aware of the existence of the audiotape. The court also determined that TierOne supplemented its discovery responses reasonably promptly by producing the tape to Parman the day after TierOne received it. Finally, the court held that the trial court’s errors “probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment” because the audiotape likely would have impacted the weight the jury accorded Parman’s testimony. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

TierOne Converged Networks v. Parman, No. 05-12-00026-CV

Nationsbuilders Insurances Services sued two of its former employees and their new employer, Houston International Insurance Group, for violating the employees’ covenants not to compete. The case was resolved with a settlement agreement in which the defendants agreed they would not compete with Nationsbuilders for one year by “soliciting, selling, quoting, binding, rating, or producing” certain specialized types of insurance. They also agreed they would not own or be employed by any entity that “conducts or plans to conduct” a competing business. The defendants did not quote or sell any such insurance during the restricted period, but they actively planned to do so by sending out marketing materials, preparing regulator filings, drafting forms, negotiating with re-insurers, and developing agent and customer lists. Nationsbuilders filed a demand for arbitration under the settlement agreement, and the arbitrator ruled that the defendants’ conduct entitled Nationsbuilders to a one-year equitable extension of the noncompete period. The defendants filed suit to vacate the arbitration ruling, and the trial court ruled that the arbitrator had “exceeded his powers” or “so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.”

The court of appeals reversed. Indulging all reasonable presumptions in favor or the arbitration award, and granting great deference to the arbitrator’s decision, the court determined that the equitable extension of the noncompete period was within the arbitrator’s “broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy.” The settlement agreement had required the defendants to refrain from either conducting or planning a competing business for one year, and their actions had deprived Nationsbuilders of that bargained-for entitlement. Extending the noncompete for another year was rationally based on that contractual provision. The court of appeals also rejected the defendants’ claim that the arbitrator’s decision was moot. The court distinguished cases holding that requests for specific performance become moot after the expiration of the restricted period, noting that the remedy in this case was for an extension of the restricted period, not just its enforcement. Finally, the court of appeals rejected the defendants’ argument that the arbitration award was too badly drafted to enable them to understand how they were to comply with it. The line drawn by the arbitrator between “passive contemplation” of competition (which would not be material) and “head start” planning (which would violate the agreement) was clear enough that the defendants could reasonably understand what they were and were not permitted to do during the extended restricted period.

Surprisingly, the court of appeals relegated one obvious issue to a footnote at the end of the opinion. The extended restricted period had expired during the course of the appeal. Although the expiration of the noncompete may have rendered the appeal moot or the opinion advisory, the parties did not address how the expiration affected the case, and the court of appeals chose not to address the matter itself. That may be an issue for the trial court, as the court of appeals remanded the case for consideration of additional grounds for vacating the arbitration award that had not been ruled upon previously.

Nationsbuilders Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Houston Int’l Ins. Group, Ltd., No 05-12-01103-CV

Sauer obtained judgments in Pennsylvania and California against Valley Games, a foreign corporation. Sauer domesticated these judgments in the trial court, and filed suit against relator, Valley Games and others for fraudulent transfer and sought to pierce the corporate veil. Sauer obtained an ex parte order for a pre-judgment writ of attachment against relator, and an order requiring relator to deposit $260,000 into the court registry. The court of appeals conditionally granted a writ of mandamus as to both orders. The court found that it was error for the trial court to order the writ of attachment because Sauer’s claims were contingent and unliquidated.  As the court noted, such writ “may be issued only when the demand is not contingent, is capable of ascertainment by the usual means of evidence, and does not rest in the discretion of the jury.” The order requiring relator to deposit money in the court’s registry was also error because it is a form of mandatory injunction, and Sauer had not proven that he was entitled to injunctive relief.

In Re Radiant Darkstar Productions, LLC, No. 05-13-00586-CV

A temporary injunction order is void if it does not fix the amount of security for the applicant’s bond or fails to set a trial date. The injunction issued against appellant Michael Lodispoto did neither. As a result, the court of appeals set aside both the TI order and the trial court’s subsequent order to show cause for violations of the injunction.

Lodispoto v. Ruvolo, No. 05-12-01580-CV

The district court certified a class of claimants who alleged that Stewart Title Guaranty Co. had charged them more than permitted by the Texas Department of Insurance in renewing their mortgage title policies. On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals has now reversed that class certification. The opinion is lengthy and fact-intensive, but the case basically boils down to the question of whether questions of law or fact common to the class predominated over questions affecting only individual members. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the Fifth Circuit had recently rejected class actions in two recent cases alleging similar claims against different lenders.  See Ahmad v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2012); Benavides v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 636 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 2011). The court of appeals discussed both cases extensively and followed them to the same conclusion, holding that that facts of each class member’s loans would have to be examined individually, negating any possibility that common questions would predominate over those individual inquiries.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Mims, No. 05-12-00534-CV

Three months ago, the court of appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of an attorney who was alleged to have signed a fraudulent verification of deposit form on behalf of the borrower in a $1.9 million loan. In another appeal arising out of that same loan, Bank of Texas has managed to reverse summary judgment in favor of another attorney alleged to have issued letters “To Whom It May Concern” confirming the borrower’s employment and access to the same two trust accounts. The witnesses all told different stories about who prepared and signed the letters and who they had been provided to. Based on that conflicting evidence, the court of appeals concluded that the bank had submitted sufficient evidence to defeat the attorney’s no-evidence motion. Testimony of the law office’s business practices was sufficient to show that it was within the scope of his employees’ duties to sign the attorney’s name to various documents, and that the representations were made in the course of his business as an attorney. The court also rejected the defendant’s attempt to invoke the economic loss rule, reiterating the Supreme Court’s recent holding that the doctrine only applies to the parties to a contract, not between strangers to the contract. See Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407, 418 (Tex. 2011). The court went on to reverse the trial court’s grant of traditional summary judgment in favor of the attorney, holding that the attorney had not conclusively negated the authority of his employees to have prepared and signed the letters. And unlike the earlier case, where Bank of Texas could not show justifiable reliance because the verification form was not addressed to the bank, the letters here were addressed “To Whom It May Concern,” raising the inference that it was reasonable for anyone, including the bank, to rely on them.

Bank of Texas, N.A. v. Glenny, No. 05-11-01478

The trial court awarded the appellees over $360,000 in attorney’s fees in a commercial dispute concerning the sale of a business under an asset purchase agreement.  On appeal, the Court addressed the requirement that, when a party seeks attorney’s fees in a case involving several claims, some of which permit the recover of fees and some of which don’t, “the party must segregate and exclude the fees for services related to the claims for which fees are not recoverable.”  In this case, the appellees argued that they could not segregate fees because their tort claims (which don’t provide for attorney’s fees) arose from the same transactions and facts as their contract claims (which do).  The Court disagreed and found that “[b]ecause there is not a de minimis exception to the requirement to segregate recoverable attorney’s fees from non-recoverable and there was evidence of unsegregated non-recoverable attorney’s fees included in the amount awarded by the trial court, a new trial on attorney’s fees is required.”

CTMI v. Fischer

Van Voris was taking an aikido course at Chop Shop when he was injured during demonstration of a jiu-jitsu technique.  Van Voris sued Chop Shop for negligence and gross negligence.  Chop Shop moved for summary judgment based on its defense of pre-injury release from a one page “Release and Waiver of Liability and Indemnity Agreement.”  Chop Shop argued that the waiver barred the negligence claims, and that the gross negligence claim was inseparable from the negligence claim.

The court of appeals found that the one-page release met the fair notice requirements for purposes of releasing Chop Shop from liability for its own negligence.  The release was sufficiently conspicuous, and the language was specific and expressed the intent of exculpating Chop Shop. However, the court found that the waiver did not release the gross negligence claims and did not preclude proof of claims for negligence and actual damages.  The court pointed to Texas’s strong public policy prohibiting pre-injury releases of negligence, heightened concerns involving gross negligence and exemplary damages, and the distinct elements for proving negligence and gross negligence.  Thus, the court of appeals reversed the summary judgment against Van Voris regarding his gross negligence claims, and affirmed as to the negligence claims.

Van Voris v. Team Chop Shop, No. 05-11-01370-CV

UES sued Four D for failing to pay its invoices.  In support of its motion for summary judgment, UES attached an affidavit that established the amount due.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of UES, and Four D appealed.  Four D argued that fact issues exist on the amount owed on the account.  The court of appeals rejected UES’s argument that the affidavit could not support the summary judgment motion because it failed to meet the requirements of an interested witness affidavit.  The court found that UES waived this argument because it failed to obtain a ruling on its objection.  “Reasserting” the objection in UES’s motion for a new trial, which was subsequently overruled by operation of law, did not preserve the error.  However, the court agreed with Four D that invoices attached to the affidavit that were stamped “PAID” raised a fact issue as to the amount owed.  The court of appeals reversed and remanded.

Four D Construction v. Utility & Environmental Services, No. 05-12-00068-CV

Gautam and Shweta Daftary leased office space for their dental practice from the Henry S.  Miller real estate firm (“HSM”).  Among other disputes with HSM, the Dafatarys argued that they were constructively evicted from their office space when a excessively loud dance studio moved into the the office next door. Although HSM contended that the Dafatarys took too long to leave the premises to support a constructive eviction claim, the Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s finding that 13 months is a reasonable amount of time to expect a dental practice to move offices.

Daftary v. Prestonwood Markey Square

ICON appealed the trial court’s order denying their post judgment motion to enforce a pretrial protective order. ICON sought to prevent the City of Lubbock from publicly disclosing an audit of ICON’s administration of the City’s health care plan. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court’s ruling was not subject to direct appeal; the ruling was not a final judgment or an appealable order under a statutory exception. The court rejected ICON’s attempt to characterize the order as a request for injunctive relief or an order relating to the unsealing of court records. The court determined that the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the ruling is to seek mandamus relief. In the interest of judicial economy, the court treated the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus.

The court of appeals held that the trial court’s order permitting disclosure of the audit contradicted the plain meaning of its earlier protective order. The audit was created using and analyzing protected materials, and the protective order prohibited public disclosure not only of protected materials, but also any knowledge or intelligence taken from or received by those protected materials.  Because the order denying ICON’s motion was a clear abuse of the trial court’s discretion, the court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief.

Icon Benefit Administrators v. Mullin, No. 05-11-00935-CV

After their fathers’ death, Brenda Levitz and Thomas Sutton sued each other over the distribution of his estate. They settled this dispute during a mediation, but 4 months later Levitz moved to set aside the settlement.  Levitz argued that sleep deprivation combined with medications and fibromyalgia made it so that she didn’t have the requisite capacity to enter into the settlement during the mediation. Sutton moved to compel a medical evaluation of his sister, and amended his petition to include a claim for breach of the settlement agreement, seeking, among other things, specific performance. After a bench trial, the trial judge found that Levitz had had the requisite capacity the day she signed the settlement agreement and granted Sutton’s motion to for specific performance. Levitz moved for a new trial, which the court denied.

On appeal, the Court found that the trial judge could not grant specific performance as a remedy because specific performance is a remedy for a breach of contract claim only. In granting this remedy, the trial court only decided whether a binding contract existed between the brother and sister, it did not address whether Levitz had breached the agreement. Because a breach of contract claim requires proof of a valid contract, performance or tendered performance, breach and damages, “a determination that an agreement is enforceable . . . does not equate to a determination that a party is entitled to specific performance.” The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Levetz v. Sutton

Karen Smith sued Brown Consulting & Associates, her employer, for injuries she sustained during the course of her employment.  BCA never appeared, and the trial court entered  default judgment in Smith’s favor.   On appeal, BCA argued that Smith failed to properly serve it, and that the default judgment should be voided.  The Court of Appeals agreed with BCA, finding that the affidavit Smith submitted in suport of her rule 106(b) motion for substitute service of process was defective for two reasons.  First, the affidavit did not contain a statement that BCA’s address was the usual place of business of the defendant or its registered agent.  Second, the affidavit did not contain a statement that the address is a place where the registered agent could probably be found.  Because the Court strictly construes the rules governing service when a default judgment is entered, it reversed the trial court’s entry of default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Brown Consulting v. Smith

AmeriPlan Corporation’s customers pay a monthly membership fee in order to access a network of healthcare professionals who have agreed to provide discounted medical services.  Anderson worked as an independent contractor for AmeriPlan, and recruited its customers, healthcare professionals, and other independent contractors.  AmeriPlan’s business model is based on multilevel direct marketing, and Anderson was compensated through commissions and bonuses.  After AmeriPlan terminated his employment, Anderson sued AmeriPlan claiming that he was promised “lifetime residual income,” but did not receive any commissions or bonuses after his termination.  The trial court rendered judgment for Anderson, and AmeriPlan appealed.

The issue on appeal was whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding that AmeriPlan breached Anderson’s written sales contract.  AmeriPlan argued that the contract unambiguously required it to pay commissions and bonuses only during the continuation of the contract.  Anderson alleged that the jury was entitled to consider AmeriPlan’s promise of “lifetime vested benefits” contained in AmeriPlan’s marketing materials in deciding whether AmeriPlan breached the written contract.  The court of appeals concluded that the parol evidence rule barred the jury from considering the statements made in AmeriPlan’s marketing materials because the alleged promises were not a collateral consistent agreement.  The court also found that the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule was inapplicable because Anderson was not the defendant, and was not seeking to avoid the contract.  Because the jury was precluded from giving weight to AmeriPlan’s alleged promises, the court of appeals held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support Anderson’s breach of contract claim.  The court reversed and remanded to the trial court for consideration of the jury’s alternative liability and damages findings.

AmeriPlan Corp. v. Anderson, No. 05-11-00628-CV

BH DFW, the local franchise of the Blue Haven Pool & Spa group, took out an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News, claiming that it was the “World’s Largest!” That did not sit well with the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Dallas, whose guidelines require its members to be truthful when making statements of objective fact in their ads. When BH was unable to substantiate that it was, in fact, the “World’s Largest!”, the BBB revoked the company’s “Accredited Business” status and demoted its rating from A+ to F. BH sued for breach of contract, and the BBB moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the BBB’s motion to dismiss. The court first rejected BH’s argument that there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, disagreeing with the Fort Worth Court of Appeals’ previous holding that the TCPA did not grant the right of interlocutory appeal when the trial court timely denies a motion to dismiss. Proceeding to the merits, the court held that the TCPA was not narrowly limited to cases involving a citizen’s participation in government, but was instead more broadly extended to matters of free speech involving a matter of public concern. Although the TCPA includes an exemption for certain types of commercial speech, that exemption was not applicable to BH’s claims because the BBB was not engaged in the sale or lease of goods or services. Finally, the court of appeals held that the trial court should have granted the BBB’s motion to dismiss because BH had failed to come forward with prima facie evidence of the existence of a contract requiring the BBB to maintain BH as an accredited business in exchange for its $1000 annual fee. The court therefore rendered judgment in favor of the BBB and remanded to the trial court for consideration of its attorney fees and expenses.

Better Business Bureau v. BH DFW, Inc., No. 05-12-00587-CV

The court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus preventing disclosure of a “Confidential Quality Review Occurrence Report” protected by the medical committee privilege.  A visitor to the relator Hospital slipped and fell on Hospital premises, and sought damages in a premises liability suit.  The visitor sought production of all incident reports made by the Hospital related to her fall.  A two-page report titled “Occurrence Report Form” listed the visitor’s name and identifying information, the date and location of her fall, and a description of the occurrence and treatment provided; it was signed by a Hospital nurse.  The report also stated “Confidential Quality Review Committee Document (NOT PART OF MEDICAL RECORD).”  The Occurrence Reports are given to the Hospital’s quality review committee, which provides general governance for the Hospital’s quality of service.  The court held that the Hospital met the standard for claiming medical committee privilege through its privilege log and a doctor’s affidavit because the Occurrence Report was not created in the regular course of business and was not part of a patient’s medical file.  The court rejected the visitor’s argument that because this case involves a non-patient visitor, the medical committee privilege cannot apply.   Instead, the court found that the medical committee privilege is not limited to evaluation of occurrences relating only to direct patient care.

In re Methodist Dallas Medical Center, No. 05-13-00134-CV

Jeanette Hooper and her husband Charles sued their lawyers for legal malpractice. The underlying case had been a personal injury suit arising out of a car wreck, which was apparently dismissed after the lawyers sued the owner of the other vehicle instead of the actual driver. The jury awarded $235,000 in damages, based on the testimony of a legal expert who opined that the Hoopers should have recovered $130,000 for past medical expenses, $180,000 for lost earning capacity, $250,000 for pain and suffering, and $250,000 for damages such as loss of consortium and physical impairment. On appeal, however, the court of appeals held that the testimony did not establish a causal link between the underlying car wreck and the subsequent damages. While it was justifiable for the jury to compensate the plaintiffs for damages sustained in the immediate aftermath of the wreck, such as emergency room bills and initial pain and suffering, the “case-within-a-case” aspect of the legal malpractice claim required the plaintiffs to establish a causal connection between the accident and the health problems Charles experienced months and even years after the collision. That connection needed to be made by the testimony of a medical expert, and could not be demonstrated through bare medical records or inferred by the jury. Because some elements of the plaintiffs’ damages were valid and some were invalid, the court of appeals also sustained the defendants’ challenge to the trial court’s submission of a broad-form damages question, reversed the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Kelley & Witherspoon, LLP v. Hooper, No. 05-11-01256-CV

Charles Wunderlick and Martha Wilson ended their marriage in 1990 with a written agreement that required Wunderlick to pay Wilson alimony of $1000 per month indefinitely.  The payments were to end on the occurrence of certain contingencies, one of which was Wunderlick’s compensation being substantially reduced without “good cause” at the lumber company he owned and operated. In late 2008, the company responded to the recession by laying off employees and cutting the officers’ salaries to $1 annually. Wunderlick eventually stopped paying the monthly alimony payments, and Wilson sued for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for Wilson, and Wunderlick appealed.

The issue on appeal was whether Wunderlick had submitted summary judgment evidence showing that the company had reduced his compensation without “good cause,” a term which was not defined in the contract. For his part, Wunderlick argued that “good cause” should be interpreted in the employment context, which would require the employee to have done something wrong to justify termination or demotion. Wilson argued that the divorce agreement was not an employment contract, and “good cause” should therefore be given its ordinary meaning of “good reason” — and Wunderlick had admitted that the recession gave the company “good reason” to cut his salary. The court of appeals concluded that both constructions were reasonable, that the contract was therefore ambiguous, and a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the parties’ intent. The court of appeals therefore reversed the summary judgment and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Wunderlick v. Wilson, No. 05-11-01597-CV

Natalie Holmes, a graduate student at SMU, has taken and failed twice the graduate comprehensive exam (“GCE”)–which she needed to pass to receive her Master’s Degree in Music Education.  After both tests, Holmes appealed the results to SMU’s internal academic appeals board as either “arbitrary and capricious” or “beyond the scope of the coursework.”  SMU offered Holmes the chance to re-take the exam a third time, but Holmes refused and instead insisted that SMU giver her the degree as well as monetary damages.  While her second appeal remained pending, Holmes sued SMU for breach of contract, fraud and DTPA violations.  SMU moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Holmes had failed to exhaust her administrative appeal rights before bringing suit.  The trial court agreed with SMU and dismissed the case.

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court, finding that SMU had failed to submit any evidence to establish that Holmes was required to proceed through an administrative appeal before bringing suit.  According to the Court, SMU’s only evidence was a “short and conclusory” affidavit that did not address the appeals process, and this was not enough to establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

Holmes v SMU

In July 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals ruled — in a rare en banc opinion — that an arbitration clause contained in a testamentary trust could not be enforced because there was no contract with the trust’s beneficiary to arbitrate his claims. Rachal v. Reitz, 347 S.W.3d 305 (Tex App.-Dallas 2011). This morning, the Texas Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the beneficiary was bound to arbitrate his claims against the trustee due to the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel. In brief, that doctrine means that if the plaintiff accepts the benefits of the trust, he also has to accept the arbitration clause contained in the trust. In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court noted that the Texas Arbitration Act requires an “agreement” to enforce arbitration, not a “contract” with the claimant. Such an agreement could be satisfied through direct benefits estoppel, as the beneficiary failed to disclaim his interest in the trust, thereby accepting both its benefits and its burdens.

Rachal v. Reitz, No. 11-0708

A temporary injunction order is void if it doesn’t set a specific date for trial on the merits. In this case, the county court at law issued a temporary injunction that only said it “shall remain in effect until final disposition of this case or until further order of the Court.” Neither “final disposition” nor “further order” is a date certain, so the TI was reversed on appeal as void without further reference to the merits.

ACI Healthcare Staffing, LLC v. V-Platinum Consulting, LP, No. 05-12-01060-CV

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a dispute over the termination of a Gold’s Gym franchise. The defendants were listed as personal guarantors of the franchise agreements, but part of their defense was the claim that the signatures on the guaranties were forged. The court of appeals reversed summary judgment on that issue, concluding that the conflicting opinions of the two sides’ handwriting experts created a fact issue that would need to be tried. However, the court of appeals rejected Gold’s Gym’s contention that the defendants had ratified the agreements even if they were forged, concluding (1) that the defendants were never listed as parties to the franchise agreement, and therefore they could not have ratified it through their actions on behalf of their company that was the actual franchisee, and (2) that Gold’s Gym had not produced any summary judgment evidence showing that the defendants ratified the guaranties where they had consistently refused to pay Gold’s demands on the basis that the signatures had been forged.

Gold’s Gym Franchising, LLC v. Brewer, No. 05-11-00699-CV

When the defendant has filed an answer but doesn’t appear for trial, the plaintiffs have to prove up all elements of their claim in order to obtain a default judgment. In this case, the plaintiffs had previously obtained a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction against their stepfather. When they appeared for trial on their request for a permanent injunction, the stepfather did not show up. The plaintiffs’ lawyer then asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the court file, and the lead plaintiff testified that she was asking the court to convert the temporary injunction into a permanent one. On appeal, the court of appeals sided with the stepfather. While the plaintiffs had asked the court to take judicial notice of the file, there had been no ruling on that request, nor had the plaintiffs pointed to any particular materials in the file. Moreover, the elements of a temporary injunction are different from a permanent injunction in any event, particularly the requirement of no adequate remedy at law in order to obtain a permanent injunction. Accordingly, the case was reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Young v. Smith, No. 05-10-01294-CV

In a lengthy opinion arising from a legal malpractice case, the court of appeals has reversed the judgment of the district court striking the plaintiffs’ experts and granting judgment for the defendants due to the lack of expert testimony. The experts had been struck after the plaintiff’s attorney had missed two previous disclosure deadlines, then failed to provide expert reports as required by the trial court’s amended scheduling order. The plaintiff argued that the trial court had issued improper “death penalty” sanctions, and the court of appeals agreed. There was nothing in the record indicating that the plaintiff herself bore any responsibility for her attorney’s failure to timely designate the experts, so there was no direct relationship between the plaintiff’s conduct and the sanction imposed. The court of appeals also held that the sanctions were excessive in any event, because the trial court had not previously awarded any lesser sanctions for the previous failures to timely designate the experts. It was not enough, the court of appeals held, for the trial court to simply recite that no lesser sanction would suffice because this was not the type of egregious and exceptional discovery abuse that would make death penalty sanctions “clearly justified” and “fully apparent.” However, the court of appeals also affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended petition after the pleading deadline, where the petition sought to add new claims and causes of action to the case.

Gunn v. Fuqua, No. 05-11-00162-cv

In February, the court of appeals reversed a district court’s temporary injunction prohibiting a lender from foreclosing on the borrower’s properties, concluding that the testimony only established an agreement to negotiate, not an enforceable agreement to forebear from foreclosure. The court has now issued an updated opinion in that case that clarifies the standard of review. In the original opinion, the court wrote that “the trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law to established facts or when the evidence does not reasonably support the trial court’s determination of the existence of a probable injury or a probable right of recovery.” In the revised opinion, the court states that an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court “misapplies the law to established facts or when there is no evidence that supports the trial court’s determination of the existence of a probable injury or a probable right of recovery.” The difference between those two standards yielded no difference in the outcome of the case, but anyone appealing a temporary injunction should be sure to cite the correct standard of review.

Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. TCI Luna Ventures, LLC, No. 05-12-00653-CV

Gregory Strange worked at HRsmart for over 5 years designing and developing software designed to help companies manage human resources.  As part of his employment with HRsmart, Strange signed a non-competition agreement in which he consented not to work for a competing business for one year following his termination of employment.  The agreement defined “competing business” as one “which provides the same or substantially similar products and services” as HRsmart.  Shortly after he left HRsmart, Strange and another former co-worker developed a new program called ClearVision, which was a human resources program aimed at small businesses with less than 200 employees.  In developing this new program, Strange felt that he had not run afoul of his non-competition agreement because, in his view, HRsmart did not aim to serve small businesses.  HRsmart, of course, disagreed and sued Strange.  The trial court granted HRsmart’s request for a temporary injunction, and, later, HRsmart’s motion for summary judgment.  Strange appealed.

On appeal, Strange pointed out all of the differences between the products designed and marketed by HRsmart and what Strange sought to do with ClearVision.  First, ClearVision sought to serve a niche market of “micro businesses” with less than 200 employees, whereas HRsmart targeted businesses with more than 500 employees.  Second, ClearVision was “less function” and could not be “configured,”but HRsmart’s products were “fully customizable.”  Finally, ClearVision is a single product, while HRsmart includes seven interconnected HR modules.  On this record, the Court of Appeals concluded that fact questions exist regarding whether HRsmart actually competes with ClearVision, and reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision.

Strange v. HRsmart

The court reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of PlainsCapital Bank for damages and attorney’s fees resulting from Martin’s loan default based on Chapter 51 of the Property Code. In 2008 Martin defaulted and the Bank foreclosed upon and purchased the underlying property at auction for $539,000. Martin owed the Bank nearly $800,000. In 2009, over a year later, the Bank sold the property for $599,000 and sued Martin for the deficiency. Martin sought a damages offset under Property Code § 51.003 based on the value of the property, introducing expert testimony at trial that the property’s fair market value at the time of foreclosure was $850,000. The Bank argued that § 51.003 did not apply because it was not seeking to apply the foreclosure sale price as a credit but instead what the Bank actually received from the property: the 2009 sales price. The trial court agreed, holding § 51.003 inapplicable and crediting Martin $599,000 toward the deficiency.

On appeal, the court held that § 51.003 applies, regardless of the lender’s requested measure of damages, when (1) §51.002 foreclosure sale occurs, (2) the foreclosure sale price is less than the debt, and (3) an action is brought to recover the “deficiency,” or the amount owed on the debt after application of the collateral’s value. The court noted that the lender may not receive the benefit of a § 51.002 foreclosure sale but then “opt out” of § 51.003’s offset to the borrower. Additionally, the price received in the 2009 sale was legally insufficient evidence under § 51.003 because the Bank failed to link that price to the property’s value on the date of foreclosure. The court refused to render judgment based on Martin’s evidence, however, noting that the Bank refuted this value with its own expert testimony but indicating that the 2009 sales price was not evidence of the property’s fair market value at foreclosure.

It should be noted that the court did not hold that a later sales price of property can never be evidence of its fair market value. Rather, it is important for the lender to tie the actual sales price closely to § 51.003’s definition of fair market value, including a showing how it reflects the property’s value on the date of foreclosure.

Martin v. PlainsCapital Bank, No. 05-10-00235-CV

In this suit by Compass Bank to recover money owed under a promissory note, Compass moved for summary judgment.  To support its motion, Compass submitted an affidavit by a custodian of records attaching copies of the note and the trial court granted summary judgment.  The Court of Appeals, however, overturned the trial court’s ruling because it found Compass’s affidavit could not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement.  In particular, “[t]he affidavit did not demonstrate whether [the affiant] was employed by Compass, what her job position and responsibilities were, or how her job duties gave her personal knowledge of the facts.”

Vince Poscente Int’l v. Compass Bank

In 1989, the Texas Legislature passed the Residential Construction Liability Act, which preempts or modifies many types of claims for damages arising from any “construction defect.” In this case, the court of appeals applied the RCLA to bar a homeowner’s claim for lost rental value of his condominium during the long delay occasioned by the remodeling contractor before the contract was finally terminated. Under the statute, a “construction defect” is defined broadly to include any matter “concerning the design, construction, or repair of a new residence, of an alteration of or repair or addition to an existing residence, or of an appurtenance to a residence, on which a person has a complaint against a contractor.” Tex. Prop. Code § 27.001(4). Because the contractor’s delay was one such matter, the court held that the RCLA governed the claim for damages caused by the delay. The plaintiff’s claim could not succeed under the RCLA for two reasons. First, the homeowner had failed to give the contractor notice of the claim, as required by the statute. Second, the plaintiff was seeking to recover the rental value of his own home during the time that completion of the remodeling was delayed, while the RCLA would only allow the homeowner to recover the cost of substitute housing. Id. § 27.004(g)(4). The court of appeals therefore rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothinig and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney fees the defendant was entitled to under an agreement of the parties.

Timmerman v. Dale, No. 05-11-01690-CV

This breach of contract case arises out of an inverse condemnation action filed by Continental Foods against the state of Texas.  In that action, Continental alleged that the state had acquired property for a highway expansion and did not compensate it for its loss of value under its lease with Rossmore Enterprises.  The Court of Appeals ruled that the lease’s language stated that the lease terminated upon condemnation, leaving Continental with no compensable interest to protect.  Continental then sued Rossmore arguing that its landlord had breached the lease in two ways: (1) by not requiring the state to proceed with the condemnation in a Special Commissioner’s hearing so Continental could receive compensation and (2) by not tendering to Continental its share of the condemnation proceeds.  Rossmore moved for summary judgment on the ground that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred Continental’s claim because its right to condemnation had already been decided.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that “[n]othing in our prior opinion determined the parties’ obligation under the Master Lease before condemnation.”  Accordingly, Continental’s claim was not barred by collateral estoppel.

Continental Foods v. Rossmore Enterprises

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

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.

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