Brian Vodicka and Steven Aubrey provided nearly $1 million for a loan to fund a real estate development. The loan was only secured by a subordinate lien, and Vodicka and Aubrey lost their entire investment after the borrower defaulted. They sued North American Title, which had served as the escrow agent for the loan, alleging a variety of fraud, negligence, and fiduciary duty claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the title company. The Court held that the trial court had not erred in striking the plaintiffs’ summary judgment evidence. The trial court had not abused its discretion in sustaining the defendant’s objection to a spreadsheet because the plaintiffs had failed to file it under seal as required by the court’s protective order. The plaintiffs also waived their complaint about their summary judgment affidavit because their appellate briefing failed to address several of the objections the defendant had asserted before the trial court. Those rulings meant that the plaintiffs were left with literally no evidence to respond to North American Title’s no-evidence motion, and the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was therefore affirmed.

Vodicka v. N. Am. Title Ins. Co., No. 05-13-00126-CV

Clint Simon applied for a “Termite & Pest Control General Liability” insurance policy for his d/b/a, Sherlock Pest. The application included a “WDI Exclusion,” which excluded liability for claims or losses arising out of inspections for Wood Destroying Insects. That exclusion, in somewhat different form, was included in a pair of endorsements to the policy that was subsequently issued, as well as a later renewal policy. When a homeowner sued Simon for performing an improper inspection, the insurer invoked the WDI Exclusion to deny coverage. Simon sued, but the insurer obtained summary judgment on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Simon could not have justifiably relied on a coverage certificate the insurer had filed with the Texas Department of Agriculture, which had not mentioned any exclusion in Simon’s insurance policy. Because the application, the initial policy, and the renewal policy all contained the WDI Exclusion, a reasonable person could not have relied on the coverage certificate as a representation that there was actually insurance coverage for WDI inspections. The Court also rejected Simon’s argument that the trial court should have granted a continuance to permit him to conduct more discovery, as his appellate brief failed to explain how the additional discovery would have allowed him to respond to the summary judgment motion.

Simon v. Tudor Ins. Co., No. 05-12-004430CV

The Court of Appeals has affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a breach of contract case. Defendant Cody Murphy had taken his truck to Killer Ridez, Inc. and asked that they make his 1983 Chevy pickup “look showroom new.” When Murphy went to pick up the truck, the shop informed him of everything they had and had not done, noting in particular that they had followed Murphy’s instruction by not replacing the carburetor. As a result, the truck did not run well, and Murphy put a stop payment order on the final check he had issued to the shop. On appeal, Murphy challenged the evidence supporting the existence and validity of the parties’ contract, but that issue was negated by Murphy’s own pleading, which had specifically pleaded (and not in the alternative) the existence of a contract to restore the pickup. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s fact findings in support of the breach of contract claim, including the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that Killer Ridez had performed more $28,000 worth of work but was still owed approximately $6000 by Murphy.

Murphy v. Killer Ridez, Inc., No. 05-13-00035-CV

To settle a previous lawsuit, TST Impreso agreed to make a series of payments to Overveen General Trading. After TST was failed to make the first scheduled payment, Overveen demanded that TST cure the default. Instead, TST sued Overveen for a declaratory judgment seeking to avoid its payment obligations. The Court of Appeals held that the term “security interest” was not ambiguous, TST could not successfully invoke a contract term regarding security interests by pointing to several judgments entered against an entity related to Overveen. Judgments, the Court held, are not security interests, particularly where they have not been reduced to a lien against specific property of the judgment debtor. Moreover, the judgments against Overveen’s corporate sibling did not relate to the settlement funds owed by TST, so there was no possibility that any judgment creditors could seek to enforce their judgments against the settlement payments. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Overveen, including its award of liquidated damages against TST.

TST Impreso, Inc. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Trading (USA), Inc., No. 05-12-01551-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

Two and a half years ago, Charlene Taggert obtained the reversal of a declaratory judgment ordering that certain retirement accounts of her late husband belonged to his estate, not to her. The probate court had awarded attorney fees to the executors, so the Court of Appeals remanded to that court for further consideration of the attorney fees now that Charlene had become the prevailing party. On remand, the probate court awarded Charlene $18,000 for fees incurred at trial, and an additional $5,000 for the appeal. Both sides appealed the $5,000 award for the first appeal. The Court of Appeals rejected the executors’ claim that appellate fees could only be awarded on a conditional basis (i.e., “if the appeal is successful”), rather than for an appeal that has already been successful. The Court noted that “[o]n remand, the parties stand in the position they held before judgment was entered.” Likewise, the Court rejected Charlene’s argument that the probate court should have permitted her to offer new evidence of her actual appellate fees, rather than relying on the estimated fees presented during the original trial of the case. Relying on the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Varner v. Cardenas, 218 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. 2007), the Court held that retrial of a party’s attorney fees on remand is only necessary when the evidence offered at trial is no longer relevant.

Tigert v. Tigert, No. 05-12-01282-CV

After accepting a $1500 settlement for damage to his truck, David Lynd allegedly began to harass various executives and employees of Bass Pro Shop, threatening them and demanding additional money. Bass Pro responded by filing a motion to enforce the releases in the settlement agreement and seeking injunctive relief. The trial court granted temporary and permanent injunctions, ordering Lynd not to contact Bass Pro personnel and to stay at least 100 feet away from Bass Pro’s locations and the homes of its directors, officers, and employees. Lynd — appearing pro se — asserted an impressive 33 issues on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court was unwilling to consider the errors Lynd claimed from the original lawsuit, which had not been appealed and could only be attacked on bill of review. The Court rejected Lynd’s attempts to argue that the settlement had been procured by fraud, as well as his complaint that he had been “betrayed by own counsel” in that lawsuit. More notably, the Court affirmed the trial court’s injunction, holding that Lynd’s pattern of harassment demonstrated imminent harm that could not be remedied by an award of damages. An injunction was proper, the Court held, because Lynd’s demands for additional money were in violation of his settlement agreement with Bass Pro, in which he had released all his claims concerning his truck, including all claims against the company’s personnel.

Lynd v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, Inc., No. 05-12-00968-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 once again reiterated that the sole issue in a forcible detainer case is the right to immediate possession of the property. Both the justice court and the county court at law sided with Wells Fargo, which had purchased the home in foreclosure. On appeal, the borrowers argued that Wells Fargo had not shown itself to be an assignee of the original deed of trust, and that notice of the foreclosure sale had not been properly recorded. Because those issues alleged defects in the bank’s title and the foreclosure process, and not the right to immediate possession, they could not  be addressed in a forcible detainer action. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the lower courts’ rulings awarding possession to Wells Fargo.

Noye v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 05-12-00997-CV

In a products liability and wrongful death lawsuit, Fisher & Paykel Appliances was ordered to produce three reports it had made to the Consumer Product Safety Commission regarding the safety of its gas clothes dryers. F&P objected to the discovery based on Texas Rule of Evidence 502, which states that reports required by law to be made are privileged “if the law requiring it to be made so provides.” The Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to F&P. The Court rejected application of the Rule 502 privilege because the Consumer Product Safety Act does not provide for any privilege for reports mandated under the statute. The Court rejected F&P’s attempt to have it recognize a more general “self-critical analysis privilege,” holding that such privileges can only be created by statute. The Court also considered the “selective waiver doctrine,” under which the federal Eighth Circuit has held that the privilege for attorney work product is not waived when the material is turned over to a government agency pursuant to subpoena. Noting that most courts around the country have rejected that rule, the Court of Appeals held that “documents transmitted to a regulator as part of an entity’s mandatory reports are not protected from disclosure simply because an attorney chooses which documents or other materials to produce to the regulator or because an attorney prepares or compiles portions of the report to the regulator.”

In re Fisher & Paykel Appliances, Inc., No 05-13-01498-Cl

In this oil and gas case, a pair of working interest owners sued to recover alleged overcharges made by the operator to the joint account. The trial court found that the joint operating agreement was ambiguous and submitted the matter to a jury, which ruled in favor of the operator. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The contract provision at issue was from a pre-printed form, but included a typewritten addition at the end. The form language permitted the operator to allocate a portion of its overhead and charge it to the joint account, while the typewritten insert provided for flat-rate monthly charges. The working interest owners believed that the flat rate in the inserted language was all the operator could charge to the joint account, while the operator believed it could charge both its overhead and the per-well rate. The Court of Appeals held that the contract was ambiguous because both proffered interpretations were reasonable, and therefore affirmed the jury’s finding in favor of the operator’s interpretation.

MCS Minerals, Ltd. v. Plains Explor. & Prod. Co., No. 05-12-01309-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

Dan Lopez sues RS Clark & Associates for violating the Debt Collection Practices Act, the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, and the DTPA. The dispute apparently arose out of a $54.34 cleaning charge assessed and turned over to the collections agency by Lopez’s former apartment complex. Lopez based his case on four unanswered phone calls the agency made to his residence during daytime hours, as well as its failure to inform credit reporting services that Lopez disputed the debt. The collections agency counterclaimed for sanctions and attorney fees, alleging that Lopez’s suit was groundless and brought in bad faith. The trial court granted summary judgment for the collections agency and, after a bench trial, awarded it attorney fees as a sanction against Lopez. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that Lopez had failed to establish that he gave the collections agency written notice he no longer wished to communicate with them, as his letter only directed them not to call his cell phone or work number. With respect to his home phone, the letter stated only that it was “inconvenient” for them to call him at home. The letter also did not dispute the validity of the debt, stating instead that he just did not want it reported to the credit agencies. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed.

Lopez v. RS Clark & Asscos., Inc., No. 05-12-00868-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

Raymundo Rico was fired after being accused of sexually assaulting a co-worker at L-3 Communications. He was acquitted on the criminal charges, and subsequently brought suit against L-3 and his accuser for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court rejected Rico’s claim that he should receive the benefit of an adverse presumption due to the defendants’ alleged failure to preserve security videos, as he had not moved to compel any discovery on those tapes. On  the malicious prosecution claim, the Court concluded that there was no evidence in the summary judgment record to negate the legal presumption that a person who reports a crime does so in good faith and with probable cause. Likewise, the Court held that there was no evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because Rico did not have evidence that the complainant had not honestly believed she had been a victim of assault when she reported it to the police.

Rico v. L-3 Communications Corp., No. 05-12-01099-CV

One of the legacies of Texas consumer protection laws was Article XVI, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution, which effectively prohibited home equity lending. In 1997, voters approved amendments to that section to permit home equity loans, but only under certain conditions. Among other restrictions, the loan cannot exceed 80% of the value of the equity in the home, and the lender must cure any violation of the constitutional requirements within 60 days of the date the borrower gives notice. If those requirements are not met, the lender forfeits all principal and interest and loses its lien on the property.

Lonzie Leath obtained a $340,000 home equity loan in 2005, and signed an acknowledgment that his home’s fair market value was $425,000. In 2008, the servicer sought to foreclose on the property, and Leath responded by alleging that the loan was illegal because it had actually exceeded 80% of the value of the home at the time it was made. The jury found that the property’s fair market value had been only $421,400, a finding that placed the principal of the loan barely over the 80% limit. The trial court therefore entered judgment forfeiting the principal and interest and invalidating the lender’s lien.

Although the servicer claimed that Leath had failed to provide notice of the alleged constitutional deficiency, the Court of Appeals agreed with Leath that his pleadings had given notice and started the clock on the lender’s 60-day cure period. The Court also held that the jury’s valuation finding was adequately supported by the evidence, including the admission of the servicer’s appraisal expert that he had not accounted for $3,600 of electrical work that needed to be performed at the time of the loan. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the judgment in favor of the borrower, leaving the lender without principal, interest, or the right to foreclose.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Leath, No. 05-11-01425

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

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

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

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

Union Pac. RR Co. v. Stouffer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gonzalez v. VATR Construction

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

Kaye-Bassman Int’l v. Dankuka

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

Autobuses Ejecutivos v. Cuevos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kimzey Wash v. LG Auto Laundry

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

Amir-Sharif v Quick Trip Corp

After Brown missed at least twenty-five mortgage payments, the Bank sent Brown notice of default and he failed to cure. The Bank sought a declaratory judgment authorizing a non-judicial foreclosure sale of the property, and obtained summary judgment. Brown appealed, and the Court affirmed. First, the Court found that Brown’s attacks on the admissibility or competency of the Bank’s summary judgment evidence were largely inadequately briefed. Second, the Court rejected Brown’s argument that the trial judge erred by denying Brown a continuance of the summary judgment hearing because (1) Brown’s motion for continuance did not mention the summary-judgment hearing, (2) Brown failed to preserve error because there was no ruling on his motion, and (3) Brown failed to submit evidence demonstrating the materiality of the purportedly previously unavailable summary-judgment evidence. Finally, the Court held that Brown failed to show reversible error due to the clerk’s late filing of the record on appeal.

Brown v. Bank of America

Kimberly Ball-Lowder brought suit against Pegasus for wrongful discharge under the Texas Whistleblower Protection Act.  Pegasus filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Ball-Lowder’s claims must be dismissed because the Whistleblower Protection Act is not applicable to a Texas open-enrollment charter school.  The Court held that the Act applies to an open-enrollment charter school, and affirmed the trial court’s order denying the plea to the jurisdiction.  Government immunity is waived for a “local government entity” respecting claims under the Act.  The Court concluded that the Whistleblower Protection Act’s definition of “local government entity” must be interpreted to include an open-enrollment charter school to be consistent with the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in LTTS Charter School, Inc. v. C2 Construction III, 342 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2011).

Pegasus School v. Kimberly Ball-Lowder

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

Benica Brown’s former employer, Digital Intelligence Systems (“DIS”) sued her in Dallas county, where she was employed in DIS’s Dallas office, even though Brown’s employment agreement with DIS  (which DIS drafted) specified Virginia as the exclusive forum to resolve any disputes between the parties.  The Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to dismiss the action based on the forum selection clause in the employment agreement.  The Court specifically rejected DIS’s argument that Virginia would be an inconvenient forum because DIS “certainly could have foreseen that it would be required to litigate against Brown in Virginia, especially given that it drafted the employment agreement containing that requirement and required Brown to sign it.”

In re Brown

Last year, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff had properly alleged a waiver of sovereign immunity for a government body’s use or condition of tangible personal property, based on the allegation that an improperly secured whiteboard had fallen on the plaintiff. Dallas Metrocare Services v. Juarez, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.–Dallas 2012). The Texas Supreme Court has now reversed that decision, citing its more recent decision in Rusk State Hospital v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012), for the proposition that the Court of Appeals should have considered Metrocare’s argument on appeal — not raised before the trial court — that the injury did not arise from the “condition” of the property. The Supreme Court also held that there was no waiver of immunity by Metrocare’s “use” of the whiteboard, since it had simply made the board available for use by patients. The case will now be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration.

Dallas Metrocare Services v. Juarez, No. 12-0685

The Texas Supreme Court has also granted the petition for review in another case from the Dallas Court of Appeals. In Ponderosa Pine Energy, LLC v. Tenaska Energy, Inc., 376 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2012, pet. granted), the Court of Appeals reinstated a $125 million arbitration award that had been vacated by the trial court. The Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant had waived its ability to challenge the “evident partiality” of one of the arbitrators by failing to investigate the arbitrator’s disclosures until after the panel had made its award. Oral argument at the Supreme Court has been set for January 7. 

Readers of the blog will probably be familiar with our “Waive Goodbye” series of posts on the Dallas Court of Appeals’ recent line of cases holding that borrowers and guarantors can contractually waive their statutory right to offset any deficiency if foreclosed property is sold for less than its fair market value. The Texas Supreme Court has now granted the petition for review in the first of those cases, Interstate 35/Chisam Road L.P. v. Moayedi, 377 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2012, pet. granted). Oral argument has been set for January 8, and we will continue to keep our eyes on the issue.

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

Although the contract at issue in this breach of contract matter included an arbitration provision, the defendant went ahead and actively litigated the case by, among other things, filing a motion for summary judgment, propounding affirmative discovery, deposing expert witnesses and attending mediation.  Then, after 19 months of active litigation (and 4 months before trial), the defendant invoked the arbitration provision in the agreement and moved to compel arbitration.  The Court found that the defendant had waived arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process.

Ideal Roofing v. Armbruster

Pattie and Warren Gilbert were married in 1959. During the course of the marriage, Pattie inherited investment assets from her parents and uncle, and in 1993 she rolled those assets into a trust for the benefit of the couple’s daughter. The following year, Pattie and Warren entered into a post-nuptial agreement that defined their separate and community property, including Pattie’s separate interest in the trust assets. Shortly thereafter, Beal Bank obtained a judgment against Warren for default on a note. In 2008, the bank sued Pattie and Warren, seeking to set aside the transfer of Pattie’s inherited assets to their daughter’s trust as a fraudulent transfer. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court ruled in favor of the Gilberts. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Property acquired during the course of a marriage is presumed to be community property, and the bank sought to take advantage of that presumption in collecting on its judgment against Warren. In this case, however, the undisputed evidence established that Pattie had inherited the assets in the trust, and that made them her separate property. The Court of Appeals also rejected the bank’s argument that interest and dividends on those assets were community property that became commingled with the separate property in the trust account. The earnings from Pattie’s separate property might have been community property, but they were “sole management” community property, and that meant they were not subject to any non-tortious liability of her spouse. Because the bank was only a creditor of Warren, and not Patttie, her transfer of those assets to the trust was not a fraudulent transfer as to the bank.

Beal Bank v. Gilbert, No. 05-12-00692-CV

Donald and Ida Mae Card owned the headstone that once marked the grave of Lee Harvey Oswald.  During the 1980s, the Cards gave the headstone to Ida Mae’s sister and brother-in-law for safekeeping.  The Cards, in turn, gave the  marker to their son, Johnny Ragan.  Donald and Ida Mae died, and ownership of the Oswald gravestone passed to their children, who demanded it back from the Ragans.  As it turns out, the Ragans had sold it to an Illinois resident, Wayne Lensing, who had arranged for its exhibition at a museum in Illinois.  The Card children sued to get the headstone back.   Lensing filed a special appearance challenging the court’s personal jurisdiction.  The Court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged jurisdiction because they established that Lensing had committed several relevant acts in Texas, including flying to Fort Worth to take possession of the headstone.  Accordingly, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding of personal jurisdiction.

Lensing v. Card

In this forcible detainer case, the defendant objected to the entry into evidence of the deed at issue.  While stipulating to the deed’s existence, the defendant argued that the court should exclude the deed’s recitals because they were hearsay.  The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and pointed to Texas Rule of Evidence 803(15), which provides a hearsay exception to “a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property.”  Because the Court found that the recitals were “germane to the purpose of the document,” it affirmed the trial court’s decision to admit the deed in its entirety.

Mason v. Wells Fargo Bank

The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief after the trial court issued a TRO preventing relators from terminating Greg Marquez’s  employment. The TRO stated that Marquez’s injury was irreparably because the loss of his job would result in the loss of health insurance benefits for him and his family, and that he would be unable to obtain medical treatment.  The Court of Appeals held that Marquez’s injury was not irreparable because the cost of medical treatment is compensable through monetary damages.  Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion by granting the TRO.

In re Southern Foods Group, LLC

The Court subsequently withdrew its opinion and vacated its order in In re Southern Foods Groups.  The Court found that because the trial court had orally denied the real party in interest’s request for a temporary injunction, the issues relating to the TRO were moot.

Among other claims, the Olmsteads sued the Goldmans for breach of contract to purchase residential real estate.   The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Olmsteads and awarded them damages and attorney fees; the Goldmans appealed.  The Court of Appeals partially reversed, holding that the Olmsteads take nothing on their claims and remanded the issue of attorneys’ fees.  The Court found that the trial court erred by awarding the Olmsteads damages based on the carrying costs of the house after the Goldmans breached the contract until the house was sold.  The proper measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the house on the date the Goldmans breached the contract, which was zero.  The court reasoned that non-breaching sellers should not be awarded the post breach costs of ownership because it could “incent the seller to hold the property indefinitely while waiting for market conditions to change, or for a purchaser willing to pay a specific price.”

Goldman v. Olmstead

Unaware that the law prohibited the creation of a professional association between doctors and non-doctors, the plaintiff, Andrew Small (a medical doctor) formed a joint practice with the Parker brothers (two chiropractors).  The association operated for several years, but ended in 2003.  After the relationship ended, Small sought to establish that he should have been paid more under the the entity’s articles or association, so he brought suit.  The Court of Appeals, however, rejected Small’s claim because, under Texas law, it is illegal for a doctor to jointly own a professional association with non-doctors.  Accordingly, the Court voided the contract on the ground that “a contract to do a thing which cannot be performed without violation of the law is void.”

Small v. Parker Healthcare

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

In 1977, Bullough married Hundley because she told him she was pregnant with his child – Dale Jr. – who was born the following year.  In 2004, the parties divorced after a two-day trial, and the trial court made a division of the parties’ marital estate.  More than six years later, Bullough learned that Dale Jr. was not his biological son through DNA testing.  A few months later, the Will Slip 2011 Trust was created for the benefit of Bullough and the children of Dale Jr.  Bullough then assigned his claims against Hundley to the Trust, and seventeen days later, the Trust filed suit.

The essence of the Trust’s claims was that Hundley deceived Bullough into marrying her by lying about the paternity of Dale Jr., and continued to lie throughout the marriage.  As damages, the Trust sought the value of the support Bullough provided Hundley during more than 20 years of marriage, the value of the assets Hundley received as part of the divorce, and the parties’ art collection.  The trial court found that the 2004 final divorce decree barred the Trust’s claims and granted Hundley’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the Trust’s claims arise out of facts that could have been litigated in the divorce, they were barred by res judicata.

Hevey v. Hundley

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

The parties entered an operating agreement, which contained a forum selection clause that required them to submit to jurisdiction in Oregon. CKH initiated litigation related to the operating agreement in Texas. The trial court granted appellees motion to dismiss on venue finding that CHK agreed to venue in Oregon, and CKH appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed for three reasons. First, the Court found that appellees did not waive the court’s jurisdiction to rule on its motion to dismiss based on a forum selection clause simply because the trial court denied their special appearance. Second, the Court held that whether CKH’s claims are subject to arbitration is irrelevant to the forum selection clause. The operating agreement requires parties to submit to jurisdiction in Oregon “provided such claim is not required to be arbitrated.” CKH initiated a lawsuit rather than filing arbitration; the Court found such “action” to be controlled by the forum selection clause. Further, the parties agreed to arbitration in Oregon, which makes it clear that the parties envisioned all claims–whether brought before a court or an arbitration panel–be filed in Oregon. Third, the Court held that a non-signatory was entitled to rely on and enforce the forum selection clause because the claims against the non-signatory are substantially interdependent on the claims against the signatory.

CKH Family LP v. MGD-CCP Acquisition

Several landowners entered into an easement agreement with the City of Celina so the City could build a sewer to a local high school.  Among other things, the City agreed to replace the top soil along the easement after the sewer was installed.  When the original top soil was not replaced, the landowners sued for inverse condemnation.  The Court of Appeals found that the agreement’s top soil provision was not intended to act as a condition subsequent.  Because the takings claim was based on the landowners assertion that breach of a condition subsequent voided the easement, the Court found that the trial court erred in denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction.

City of Celina v. Dickerson

The Court of Appeals has once again ruled that a contractual waiver prevents a guarantor from invoking its statutory right to offset if the foreclosed property was sold for less than its fair market value. This is the seventh time the Court has made that ruling in a little over a year, dating back to August 2012 in the case of Interstate 35/Chisam Road, L.P. v. Moayedi, and as recently as August 2013 in Compass Bank v. Manchester Platinum Mgmt. In this particular instance, the parties actually stipulated that the two homes at issue had fair market values in excess of the amounts owed under the promissory notes, even though they were sold for $582,623.07 less than those stipulated values. The Court further held that the broad waiver of “any statute or limitations or other defenses affecting [the guarantor’s] liability hereunder” was sufficiently specific to include a waiver of the offset defense provided by section 53.001 of the Texas Property Code. The Court therefore reversed the trial court and rendered judgment for the deficiency in favor of the lender.

Given the importance of this recurring issue to borrowers, lenders, and guarantors, it would not be surprising to see the Texas Supreme Court weigh in. The petition for review in the Moayedi case has proceeded to briefing on the merits.

Compass Bank v. Goodman, No. 05-13-00447-CV

The pace of opinions from the Court of Appeals has slowed down during the fall, but there is still news from the Texas Supreme Court. This morning, that court granted the petition for review in Farmer’s Insurance Exchange v. Greene. In August 2012, the Dallas Court of Appeals sided with the insurer in holding that a homeowner’s damages were barred by a vacancy clause in the insurance contract, which excluded liability for damages that occurred more than 60 days after the residence became vacant. The Court of Appeals rejected the insured’s claim that the exclusion did not apply because the vacancy of the home did not contribute to the fire that destroyed it. Oral argument at the Supreme Court is set for December 4, and you can find the parties’ briefs at the link below.

Greene v. Farmer’s Ins. Exch., No. 12-0867

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

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

In 2008, Metroplex entered a mail processing agreement with Donnelley’s predecessor in interest Browne & Co under which Metroplex would sort mail for Browne’s Dallas facility customers.  In 2009, Metroplex ceased its operations, and Browne filed suit against Metroplex seeking the return of money it had on deposit.  The jury found in favor of Browne, and Metroplex appealed.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s finding of breach of contract against Metroplex and its award of attorney’s fees.  The Court, however, found no evidence to support piercing Metroplex’s corporate veil to hold its president personally liable.  Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s judgment to the extent it orders recovery against the president individually, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

Metroplex Mailing Servs. v. R.R. Donnelley Sons

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

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

Jeffrey Bay sued Regions Bank for breaching an escrow agreement.  According to Bay, Regions was to serve as escrow agent for his $500,000 investment and was only to carry out the investment if it received an opinion from counsel affirming that the described investment was either registered securities or exempt from registration.  Regions argued that it did receive such a letter prior to releasing the funds, but the Court of Appeals held that the only letter it did receive describing the securities at issue did not provide the opinion required by the escrow agreement.  Instead, the letter merely stated that the offering was “designed” to be exempt from securities registration.  The Court thus held that Bay had offered sufficient evidence to show Regions breached the escrow agreement.

Regions Bank v. Bay

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

Appellant Danny Katave and two other individuals solicited Israeli investors to develop commercial real estate. The negotiations took place in Israel, and were conducted in Hebrew. The discussions resulted in two written contracts, one in Hebrew and one in English. The Hebrew document provided for a 10% success fee to Katave, but the English document included a 20% success fee. Naturally, Katave claimed the 20% fee when the property was sold. In the resulting litigation, the jury sided with the investors, finding that Katave had committed fraud by failing to disclose that the English document did not contain the same terms as the Hebrew contract.

The Court of Appeals confirmed the adequacy of the evidence supporting the finding of fraud by omission, holding that Katave had a duty to make a full disclosure in order to correct the false impression conveyed by his partial disclosure that the terms of the documents were consistent. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s finding of $466,226 in out-of-pocket damages, rejecting Katave’s contention that his agreement to submit the issue of “damages” to the trial court did not include the measure of damages to be applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s award of attorney fees in favor of the investors, holding that the investors had plead and prevailed in the case as a fraud claim, not a claim for breach of contract. Because attorney fees are not recoverable on the basis of fraud, the investors could only recover their out of pocket damages.

K.A. West, LLC v. GK Investments, Inc., No. 05-11-00617-CV

The pace of the Court’s docket has slowed down since the end of August, but the stakes are still high for some litigants. Relator Todd Tomasella was convicted of criminal contempt and sentenced to consecutive terms of 6 and 3 months. The Court of Appeals granted habeas corpus because Tomasella had not had a jury trial, which cannot be denied if the sentence is in excess of six months. However, Tomasella had also been convicted of civil contempt, and he did not challenge that portion of the conviction in his habeas petition. The Court of Appeals therefore discharged the conviction and sentence for criminal contempt, but left the conviction and sentence for civil contempt in place. As a result, Tomasella will apparently remain in the custody of the Kaufman County Sheriff for an unspecified period of time.

In re Tomasella, No. 05-13-01077-CV

A little over a year ago, country music star Randy Travis was arrested for DWI, an event that was captured on the arresting officers’ dashboard video cameras. After pleading guilty, Travis’ attorney asked the court for a protective order requiring the Department of Public Saftey to destroy all copies and transcripts of the video. The trial court granted the motion. When DPS received a copy of the order, it moved to set it aside, but the trial court denied that motion. In the interim, DPS received an open records request for a copy of the video under the Texas Public Information Act. The Attorney General ruled that parts of the video could be redacted, but the rest of it must be released as public information. DPS sought mandamus relief to set aside the destruction order. Citing the AG’s ruling that the video was public information, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had no jurisdiction to order that it not be released in response to an open records request, and therefore also had no authority to order that it be destroyed.

It will be a while before the video hits the Internet, however. In accordance with the PIA, Travis has filed suit in Austin to set aside the Attorney General’s ruling that the arrest video should be released. The Court of Appeals expressed no opinion on the merits of that challenge.

In re: Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, No. 05-13-00882-CV

The defendants here were two executives of a California-based party-planing company that contracted in with a Texas company to throw a Super Bowl party before the 2011 Super Bowl in Dallas.  While the details on what happened at the party are unclear, the party apparently did not go well, so the plaintiff sued these two executives for breach.  After the trial court granted the defendants’ special appearance based on the fiduciary shield doctrine, the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the fiduciary shield doctrine applies only in cases where the plaintiff asserts general jurisdiction over the defendants, and here the plaintiff asserted specific jurisdiction over the executives.  The Court rejected this argument and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Stull v. LaPlant

In 2004, Crutcher filed a lawsuit against the Dallas Independent School District (“DISD”) alleging discrimination and retaliation.  The 2004 lawsuit was settled out of court.  In the summer of 2009, Crutcher interviewed for a position with the DISD, but did not get the job.  Following this adverse employment decision, Crutcher sued DISD.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DISD, and Crutcher appealed.  The Court of Appeals held that Crutcher failed to establish a causal connection between Crutcher’s filing of the 2004 lawsuit and the adverse employment decision so as to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.  The Court further held that DISD provided substantial evidence to show legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision to not hire Crutcher.

Crutcher v. Dallas Indep.Sch. Dist., No. 05-11-01112-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

It’s not a Dallas Court of Appeals case, but the Texas Supreme Court this morning issued an opinion further limiting a trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial. The Supreme Court had previously required trial courts to issue written explanations of their reasons for granting a motion for new trial. In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009). Now, the court has held that if the record does not support the trial court’s explanation, the appellate courts may grant mandamus relief and order the trial court to render judgment on the jury’s verdict.

In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 10-0933

Two years ago, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the statutory “assumption of the risk” defense (CPRC § 93.001) superseded the common law “unlawful acts” doctrine, which provided that plaintiffs cannot recover damages if, at the time of injury, they were engaged in an illegal act that contributed to the injury. Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 9 S.W. 602, 603 (Tex. 1888). The unlawful acts doctrine is typically invoked in legal and medical malpractice cases. This morning, the Supreme Court decided the same case on different grounds, holding that the Proportionate Responsibility Act negates the common law doctrine and instead requires the finder of fact to apportion responsibility between the lawbreaking plaintiff (or, in this case, the decedent) and the defendant. The illegal activity in this instance was the consumption of marijuana and heroin, which led to the death of Joel Martinez, the son of plaintiff Mary Ann Arredondo. The mother sued the son’s friend, Geoffrey Dugger, who had failed to tell the paramedics that Martinez had snorted the heroin. Dugger initially escaped liability completely when the trial court granted summary judgment in his favor based on the unlawful acts doctrine. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 93.001 superseded the common law doctrine, but did not apply under the facts of the case. On petition for review, the Supreme Court has now held that the Proportionate Responsibility Act applies even where the statutory assumption of the risk defense does not apply. Thus, a jury will have to apportion responsibility between the lawbreaking decedent and his partner in recreational drug consumption. However, the court expressly limited its holding to personal injury and wrongful death cases, leaving open the question of whether a client’s illegal acts will continue to serve as a complete bar to legal malpractice claims.

Dugger v. Arredondo, No. 11-0549

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

What, you may be asking yourself, is a viatical settlement? A new securities opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals provides the answer to that question, and in the process examines the scope of the Texas Securities Act. Life Partners, Inc. is in the business of buying life insurance policies and reselling interests in those policies to investors, transactions known as “life settlements” or “viatical settlements.” The purchasers of those policies are not told what Life Partners paid for them, and Life Partners remains the owner of the policies while holding them as the agent for the investors. Several of the company’s investors filed suit for violations of the TSA, alleging that the life settlements were actually investment contracts that qualified as securities under the TSA. The trial court court granted summary judgment for Life Partners.

The case turned on the question of whether the profits sought by the investors of these viatical settlements were derived “solely from the efforts of others,” one of the four factors for determining whether investment contracts qualify as securities under SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S.293 (1946) and Searsy v. Commercial Trading Corp., 560 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. 1977). After a detailed analysis of a line of cases holding that viatical settlements were not securities, the Court disagreed. Because the investors were dependent upon Life Investors for the evaluation and purchase of the policies, and because they were also required to rely on Life Investors for information about the insureds, the profits were indeed derived solely from the efforts of Life Partners. In so holding, the Court expressly disagreed with the Waco Court of Appeals, which had reached the opposite conclusion in a previous case, and instead followed rulings by the 11th Circuit, the Tyler Court of Appeals, and several courts in other states. In doing so, the Court rejected Life Partners’ argument that it was engaged in the business of selling insurance, which is exempted from regulation by the TSA. Finally, the Court determined that while the claims of the two lead plaintiffs were barred by limitations, some of the claims of two other plaintiffs had been timely filed and could proceed on remand to the trial court.

Given the split of authorities, this case would seem to be a candidate for review by the Texas Supreme Court. We’ll keep you updated if it proceeds in that direction.

Arnold v. Life Partners, Inc., No. 05-12-00092-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

Today’s the day for successor cases from lawsuits in 2004. Alexandrea Crutcher originally sued DISD for discrimination and retaliation in that fateful (for 2013 purposes) year.  That lawsuit was resolved by settlement. In 2009, Crutcher interviewed for a job as a basketball coach and science teacher. After some initial recommendations that she be hired, the school hired a different candidate. Crutcher filed suit under the Texas Commission for Human Rights Act, alleging retaliation for her previous retaliation and discrimination lawsuit. Under the TCHRA, employers cannot retaliate or discriminate against an employee or applicant for filing a discrimination complaint. Tex. Lab. Code § 21.055. But Crutcher failed to meet her initial burden of coming forward with either direct or circumstantial evidence that the adverse employment decision was motivated by discriminatory purpose.

The principal who initially recommended Crutcher’s hiring did so after she learned of the earlier lawsuit, and only withdrew the recommendation later on. The person in the HR department who was responsible for making the employment decision was unaware of the first lawsuit, and a paperwork error had caused a misdescription of the job that was actually available. Allegations of hanky panky with a colleague in a supply closet also make a cameo appearance in the opinion, along with a bunch of other facts that the Court of Appeals ruled had adequately negated any causal connection between the decision not to hire Crutcher with her previous lawsuit. The Court therefore concluded that Crutcher had failed to show a prima facie case of retaliation, and that DISD has negated any showing of discriminatory intent in any case. As a result, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district.

Crutcher v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 05-11-01112-CV

Back in 2004, the State of Texas filed an animal cruelty proceeding against Marsha Chambers, who was apparently breeding the dogs for sale. The jury found that the animals had been treated cruelly, and the justice court transferred their ownership to the Dallas SPCA. Chambers has spent the years since then futilely pursuing collateral litigation challenging the justice court’s order. In March 2012, that quest led to the filing of a suit alleging a constitutional taking of the animals, seeking $575,000 in damages for the value of the animals and lost income. The State filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. According to the Court of Appeals, Chambers had failed to plead a claim capable of evading the State’s sovereign immunity, because she had not adequately pleaded that the alleged taking had been made for a “public purpose.” Seizing neglected or mistreated animals serves to protect the welfare of the animals, not to confer a benefit on the public. Because the pleading did not establish a constitutional takings claim, the trial court properly dismissed the case, and that judgment was affirmed.

Chambers v. State, No. 05-12-01178-CV

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

Pursuant to a contract with Chapman Custom Homes, Duncan Plumbing installed the plumbing in a house Chapman was building in Frisco, Texas.  But a year-and-a-half later, those pipes sprung a leak and damaged the house.  The Court of Appeals, however, found that Chapman could not recover for negligence because the economic loss rule bars such a tort claim where a contract governs the parties’ relationship.  The Court rejected Chapman’s argument that the economic loss rule only bars recovery for damages to the “plumbing system itself” (while its damages based on injuries to the entire home), because “the only duty [Chapman] alleged Dallas Plumbing breached was its contractual duty.”

Chapman Custom Homes v. Dallas Plumbing Co.

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

The trial court granted summary judgment for approximately $30,000 in unpaid invoices under an “account stated” theory, as well as roughly $15,000 in attorneys fees.  Pegasus Transportation Group v. CSX Transportation, No. 05-12-00465-CV (August 14, 2013, mem. op.)  The Court of Appeals affirmed, reminding that “account stated” can allow recovery without an express contract when the parties have “a standard course of dealing . . . after the expiration of that written agreement.”  The Court also gave no weight to a controverting affidavit on attorneys fees, noting that it “does not address what was described by [plaintiff’s] lawyer as the work that was done, what is customarily charged in similar cases, why the time expended was excessive to accomplish the work provided, or that the work performed was unnecessary.”  (citing Cammack the Cook, LLC v. Eastburn, 296 S.W.3d 884, 895 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2009, pet. denied)).

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

Except perhaps for emotional distress, lost profits continue to be one of the most difficult measures of damages to sustain on appeal. In this instance, Timothy Barton and two other individuals formed a corporation, JMJ Development, to develop resort properties in the Riviera Maya of Mexico. The company entered into non-binding letters of intent with both property owners and the owners of the W Hotel and St. Regis Hotel brands. Before those deals were completed, however, Barton formed a new corporation, JMJ Hospitality, and the record included evidence that he instructed the landowners to deal with the new company instead of JMJ Development. The jilted business associates sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of their shareholder agreement, tortious interference, and conspiracy. The jury returned a verdict of $7 million for past lost profits on the fiduciary duty claim and $3 million in future lost profits on the breach of contract claim.

The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered, concluding that there was insufficient evidence the original company ever had the ability to develop the properties in the first place. Although they had multiple letters of intent, the evidence showed those letters had expired of their own terms, and there had never been any binding contracts for the purchase or development of the properties. The meant there was no causation for the lost profits claimed by Barton’s former business owners. The plaintiffs also failed to account for subsequent events — namely, the economic recession that started after Barton formed his new company — and that failure rendered their lost profits model speculative and not reasonably certain. The plaintiffs also confused projected items of income as profits, without properly accounting for associated expenses. Without any reliable, non-speculative evidence of the plaintiffs’ lost damages, the Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment.

Barton v. Resort Dev. Latin Am., Inc., No 05-11-00769-CV

After Media Consultants, LLC defaulted on its lease and filed for bankruptcy, plaintiff 11327 Reeder Road, Inc. filed suit against Kenneth Guarino and Capital Video Corp. to recover the unpaid rent owed under the lease agreement, alleging that Media Consultants and Capital Video were Guarino’s alter egos. 11327 further alleged that Guarino had fraudulently induced it to enter into a lease modification, and that Media Consultants had conspired with Guarino to commit fraud. However, Guarino and Media Consultants were not residents of Texas, and they filed a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction. On interlocutory review from the denial of the special appearances, the Court of Appeals reversed. Proof that an individual is an officer, director, or majority owner of a company is insufficient, standing alone, to establish alter ego. Nor was there general jurisdiction over Guradino because “Making telephone calls and sending e-mails about separate business entities in another state are not the types of continuous and systematic contacts that approach the relationship between the state and its own residents.” 11327 also failed to establish jurisdiction over Guradino through proof that he had negotiated the lease modification through a telephone call to Texas, because a single telephone call to Texas that included alleged misrepresentations does not demonstrate the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas sufficient to support specific jurisdiction.

Guarino v. 11327 Reeder Road, Inc., No. 05-12-01573-CV

Liability for foundation damage under a multi-year series of CGL policies was at issue in Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Castagna, No.05-12-00383-CV (Aug. 20, 2013).  Among other holdings, the Court concluded that one policy, which named “McClure Brothers Custom Homes, LLC,” did not extend to an entity of which it was a general partner, “McClure Brothers Homes LP,” because of an exclusion “with respect to the conduct of any current or past partnership . . . or limited liability company” not expressly named. While that policy did reach members and managers of the LLC, no summary judgment evidence made that connection as to this party.  The Court also found that a breach of the implied warranty of good workmanship, despite its relationship to the parties’ construction contracts, did not go so far as to trigger the “contractual liability” exclusion under Gilbert Texas Construction, LP v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010).

We’ll start off yesterday’s flurry of opinions with CTMI, LLC v. Fischer, which reiterates the familiar principle that agreements to agree don’t actually bind the parties to reach an agreement. In this instance, the parties entered into an asset purchase agreement that contained an earn-out provision. The earn-out provided that the parties would have to “mutually agree” on the percentage of completion of projects that were in progress as of December 31, 2010. The trial court ruled that provision was enforceable, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. Without the “mutually agreed” percentages required to calculate the earn-out, there was no formula that could be applied to calculate what was owed, rendering the earn-out unenforceable as a matter of law.

CTMI, LLC v. Fischer, No. 05-11-00970-CV

Tuesday was a busy day for the Court of Appeals, which issued half a dozen new opinions we’ll be posting about soon. While we’re getting them written up for full posts, the cases are already on the site at the following links:

• Holliday v. Weaver (attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty)
• CTMI, LLC v. Fischer (agreement to agree)
• Chapman Custom Homes, Inc. v. Dallas Plumbing Co. (standing to sue under contract and economic loss rule)
• Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Castagna (coverage dispute)
• PetroDrillBits Int’l Indus., Inc. v. Varel Int’l Indus., L.P. (breach of sales and services contract)
• Guarino v. 11327 Reeder Road, Inc. (special appearance)

The Court of Appeals has mostly affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in a case arising out of “the downfall of a real estate empire built by W. Eric Brauss through a complex web of real estate limited partnerships involving hundreds of investors and creditors.” Because our firm represents some of those creditors, we will keep the commentary brief. Among other issues, the court discusses the inferences that can be drawn in a civil case from a party’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In the end, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision to render damages jointly and severally against one of the individual defendants, but affirmed the findings of fraud and the overall award of damages.

Brauss v. Triple M. Holding GMBH, No. 05-11000271-CV

The Court of Appeals has affirmed the district court’s order denying two motions to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs had sued for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, arising out of a bad investment promoted by the defendants. The brokerage account documents signed by the plaintiffs contained an arbitration clause, but that clause only required arbitration of claims against “Introducing Firm, Clearing Agent, and any Sub-Advisor” — terms that were not defined in the agreement. While it may have been reasonable to conclude that the arbitration clause was intended to cover claims against the defendants, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to find that they were within the scope of the arbitration clause. The Court of Appeals also rejected the defendants’ attempt to invoke “direct benefits estoppel,” a doctrine that allows non-signatory defendants to compel arbitration “if the nature of the underlying claims requires the signatory to rely on the terms of the written agreement containing the arbitration provision in asserting its claims against the non-signatory.” That doctrine did not apply here because the plaintiffs were not seeking any direct benefit under the contracts that contained the arbitration provisions. The order denying arbitration was therefore affirmed.

VSR Financial Services, Inc. v. McLendon, No. 05-12-01016

Marquis Acquisitions and several related entities were sued after a fire at an apartment complex killed three people. The defendants were covered by several layers of insurance, which assumed the defense of the case in successive order as policy limits were exhausted. At each layer, one or another of the defendants sought to reject the insurers’ choice of defense counsel and to be represented instead by the business partner and personal attorney of the defendants’ primary owner. Marquis eventually filed suit against Steadfast Insurance, and that move finally created a conflict between Marquis and the insurer’s chosen counsel that caused the attorney to withdraw. Marquis thereafter sued the insurer to recover “the attorney fees it expended in getting Steadfast to retain separate counsel” for Marquis and some of the other insureds. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Marquis could not recover for breach of the insurance contract because it could not identify any specific terms or conditions that required Steadfast to immediately hire separate counsel based on an insured’s unspecified and unsubstantiated allegations of a conflict of interest. Marquis also could not recover the attorney fees it paid to Shaw as damages, since attorney fees are only recoverable “in addition to” the recovery of actual damages, not as independent damages themselves. The court went on to reject Marquis’ claim that Steadfast’s conduct had constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Insurance Code because Marquis could not point to any alleged misrepresentation by Steadfast, and further held there was no evidence that the insurer had any duty to independently identify conflicts among its insureds when appointing legal counsel to defend them.

Marquis Acquisitions, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., No. 05-11-01663-CV

With its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted affidavits testifying to, among other things, the terms of an unsigned lease agreement with its former tenant, a law firm.  The defendant generally objected to these affidavits as inadmissible hearsay, but failed to specify which portions of the affidavits contained the hearsay.  The Court of Appeals held that, although an affidavit containing hearsay may not support summary judgment, the opposing party must make “specific objections to each component part of a particular piece of evidence to preserve error on appeal.”  Because the defendant simply objected that “the Affidavits contain inadmissible hearsay,” the Court of Appeals held that they had not specifically objected to the allegedly inadmissible statements and concluded that the trial court properly considered the affidavits.

Stovall & Assocs. v. Hibbs Fin. Ctr., Ltd.

Following a number of recent waiver cases, the Court of Appeals held that the appellees waived their contractual right to offset when they agreed that “Guarantor waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the benefit of any statute of limitations or other defenses affecting its liability hereunder.”  The Court rejected appelles’ argument that this language was not specific enough to waiver their rights under section 51.003.

Compass Bank v. Manchester Platinum Mgmt.

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

Based on a report from a confidential informant, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services investigated Robert Mason for allegations that he hit his ten-year-old daughter three times.  The investigation determined that, based on the available evidence, the alleged abuse did not occur.  But Mason suspected that the informant was David Glickman, the Rabbi of a congregation with which Mason associated, so he sued Glickman for defamation.  Because the TDFPS had redacted its report (as required by Texas law) to conceal the name of the informant, Mason could not establish that Glickman was the one who made the allegedly defamatory statement.  Under a Texas Family Code provision, however, Mason moved the trial court to order disclosure of the unredacted report, arguing that disclosure was essential to the administration of justice.  The trial court denied the motion and granted Glickman’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment.  The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that disclosure of the report was not essential to the administration of justice.  Further, the court rejected Mason’s stated goal of discouraging reports of suspected child abuse since the statute exists to encourage child abuse reporting, regardless of whether the allegations are ultimately confirmed.

Mason v. Glickman

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 the course of a lawsuit for breach of contract and fraud, the district court entered an order permitting discovery on a pair of banks, but prohibiting the litigants from disclosing their documents to third parties. The plaintiffs’ attorney subsequently filed the two business records affidavits produced by the banks, along with 1300 pages of accompanying documents. Six months later, the defendants moved to seal the documents and for sanctions based on the earlier protective order. The trial court fined the plaintiffs’ attorney $2000. The attorney appealed after final judgment in the case, arguing that the defendants had not asked for any particular amount of sanctions and had presented no evidence justifying the $2000 award. The Court of Appeals agreed, citing the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc. for the proposition that “[s]anctions for discovery abuse should not be dispensed as arbitrary monetary penalties unrelated to any harm.” 372 S.W.3d 177, 184 (Tex. 2012). In this instance, the defendants had not even incurred any attorney fees for bringing their motion, as they were appearing pro se at the time. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment denying the motion for sanctions.

Wiegand v. Sky King Foundation Inc., No. 05-12-00020-CV

IBP leased a restaurant space to Pizza Associates.  Graman executed the lease for Pizza Associates as its president, and executed a written guaranty, guaranteeing the payment and performance of the lease.  IBP terminated the lease after Pizza Associates failed to comply with its terms.  IBP sued Pizza Associates for breach of the lease, and sued Graman pursuant to the guaranty.  The trial court granted IBP’s motion for summary judgment, to which Graman had filed a response but Pizza Associates did not.  Graman appealed.

The court of appeals held that Graman did not raise a viable challenge to the trial court’s summary judgment against them because their arguments did not address the obligation to pay under the guaranty.  Instead, Graman raised issues related to the lease, but Pizza Associates’ liability was settled.  The court of appeals determined that Graman cannot avoid liability under the guaranty by now questioning the settled underlying liability related to the lease.  The court of appeals also rejected Graman’s argument that IBP was required to segregate its fees between the breach of lease suit and the breach of guaranty claim.  The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Graman v. IBP Retail No. 5, L.P., No. 05-12-00565-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

Bob Montgomery Chevrolet, a car dealership doing business entirely in Kentucky, entered into an agreement with Dent Zone, a dent repair service, to allow Dent Zone to operate out of Montgomery’s dealership in exchange for a cut of Dent Zone’s take.  After some negotiation, the parties signed an agreement that included the following language: “Additional benefits, qualifications and details of the [relationship] are available for your review at our website:  http//.linxmanager.com./pdf.CRCTermsconditions.pdf.”  The terms and conditions on that website included a minimum six-month contractual term, a Texas choice-of-law provision, and a forum-selection clause requiring any suit between the parties to be brought in Dallas, Texas.  One month after signing the agreement, Montgomery ended its relationship with Dent Zone.  Dent Zone sued Montgomery for breach of contract in Dallas, and Montgomery filed a special appearance, which the trial court denied.

On appeal, Montgomery insisted that the terms and conditions linked to in the agreement were not part of the contract, while Dent Zone argued that the terms were incorporated by reference.  The Court of Appeals agreed with Montgomery, explaining that for a contract to incorporate another document by reference that contract must demonstrate the parties’ intent to incorporate all or part of the referenced document.  Turning to the language of the agreement, the Court found that the phrase “Additional benefits, qualifications and details of the [relationship] are available for your review at our website” was informative only and   does not suggest that the parties intended the terms and conditions to become part of their agreement.

Bob Montgomery Chevrolet v. Dent Zone Cos.

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

Okunfulure hired Ortiz to build a masonry wall along the front of his house.  Ortiz sued Okunfulure, claiming he was not fully paid according to the parties’ oral agreement.  Okunfulure counterclaimed, alleging Ortiz’s performance was deficient.  The trial court found in favor of Ortiz and dismissed Okunfulure’s counterclaim with prejudice.  Okunfulure appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.  The parties disagreed on the amount Ortiz was to be paid, but the court of appeals held that a reasonable fact finder could have believed Ortiz’s testimony that Okunfulure failed to pay him $1250.  The parties also gave conflicting testimony on whether Ortiz advised Okunfulure to build a foundation below the masonry wall to prevent deterioration, but the court of appeals again concluded that a reasonable fact finder could have believed Ortiz warned Okunfulure about the foundation.  Thus, the court of appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment.

Okunfulure v. Ortiz, No. 05-12-01045

In a breach of contract case, a group of defendants appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue them because there was no evidence it had privity of contract with any of the defendants. The court of appeals rejected that argument, holding that the defendants were actually challenging the capacity of the plaintiff to sue or be sued. The plaintiff had standing to sue on the contract because it pleaded and proved it was “formerly known as” the party named in the agreement. As to the challenge to the plaintiff’s capacity, the court held that the defendants had been untimely in making that challenge, as the verified denial of capacity required by Rule 93 was only filed the morning of the summary judgment hearing — not 7 days before as required by Rule 63. The trial court’s summary judgment order indicated that it had not considered the amended pleading, stating that it had considered the “pleadings timely filed,” not all of the pleadings in the case. Nor was the issue of capacity tried by consent as part of the summary judgment proceeding, since the response to the summary judgment motion raised no issue of the plaintiff’s capacity to bring suit. Likewise, the court of appeals rejected the claim of one of the individual defendants that he could not be personally liable on the contract because he had signed it as CEO of the defendant corporation. Because the defendant had not timely filed a verified denial of his capacity to be sued individually, that issue was also waived. As a result, the trial court’s judgment was afffirmed.

John C. Flood of DC, Inc. v. SuperMedia, LLC, No. 05-12-00307-CV

The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief after the trial court appointed a receiver over relators and then expanded the powers of that receiver.  The court of appeals found that the trial court’s orders were void as to relators because they were not served with process or otherwise notified of the receivership proceedings, which meant the trial court had no jurisdiction over relators.

In re C.D. Henderson Construction Servs., No. 05-13-00593-CV

General Capital Group, a German investment firm, claimed that it entered into an oral deal with AT&T in January 2009 to broker the purchase of T-Mobile for a 2% commission on what was to be a $39 billion deal. In May 2009, GC held another meeting with AT&T, during which AT&T indicated it was not interested in pursuing the transaction at that time. After two years with no communication between GC and AT&T, the latter announced that it intended to acquire T-Mobile. GC approached AT&T, which denied that it had any deal with GC.

GC filed suit for breach of contract.  During the pendency of the suit, AT&T announced that it was not longer going to pursue the T-Mobile deal due to opposition by the Justice Department.  With no sale on which to base its claim for a massive commission, GC changed its theory to to fraud, seeking recovery of $30 million for the “reasonable value of its services.” The trial court granted summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed. GC could not recover for fraud because even if AT&T had agreed to a 2% success fee, GC could not show harm because there hadn’t ever been any success for such a fee to be based on. Likewise, GC could not recover for quantum meruit because it has no expectation of being paid unless there was a successful acquisition.

General Capital Group v. AT&T, No. 05-12-00446-CV

Orr is the trustee of a trust of which Wall is a beneficiary.  Wall sued Orr in Kentucky for actions he took as trustee.  The case was sent to arbitration, and the arbitrators Wall’s claim that the trust must distribute $63,000 to her.  But the arbitrators did grant Orr’s counter motion to permit him to give a cashier’s check for $63,000 made out to Wall to the arbitrators until Wall signed a release.  A Kentucky trial court confirmed the order.  Several years later, Wall filed suit in Collin County, Texas, claiming she is still owed the $63,000 despite the fact that she never signed the release.  The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s conclusion that Orr wins on the affirmative defense of claim preclusion because the transactional nucleus of facts between the two cases were essentially identical.  Wall argued that her claim in this suit was that the requirement that she sign a release constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, which was not litigated in the prior suit.  The court rejected this argument.

Wall v. Orr

Jay Nanda and his brother, Atul, ended up in a dispute over their jointly-owned company, Dibon Solutions. An arbitrator awarded ownership of the company to Atul and ordered him to pay Jay in excess of $500,000. After the arbitration award, Jay began to call Dibon’s customers and its bank, claiming that Dibon was engaged in all kinds of misconduct, including money laundering, human trafficking, and forging documents. Dibon sued Jay, asking the trial court for a temporary injunction to stop Jay from spreading his allegations any further. The trial court denied the temporary injunction, and Dibon filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the testimony supported Jay’s assertion that the statements were true. Without any false or misleading statements at issue, Dibon could not meet its burden of establishing an exception to the First Amendment’s prohibition of prior restraint. The court went on to hold that an injunction could not be sustained on Dibon’s alternative theory of tortious interference because, apart from the fact that Jay admitted sending the disparaging information in an email, there was no evidence that he had otherwise taken an active part in persuading Dibon’s customer to breach its contract. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dibon’s request for a temporary injunction.

Dibon Solutions, Inc. v. Nanda, No. 05-12-01112-CV

Robison filed a medical malpractice suit against Texas Health Resources, Inc. d/b/a Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Allen a/k/a Texas Health Allen (“THR”).  However, Robinson was treated by Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Allen (“THPHA”), and THR does not do business as THPHA nor did THR provide any of the care at issue in Robinson’s claim.  The trial court granted summary judgment for THR, and dismissed Robison’s claims due to the misidentification.  Robinson appealed, claiming that her original petition against “d/b/a [THPHA]” constituted an actual suit against THPHA.  The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the “d/b/a” designation does not make the entity a party to the lawsuit. Further, nothing in the record showed that THPHA has been an assumed name for THR or vice-versa. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Robison v. Texas Health Resources, No. 05-11-01376-CV

On July 6, 2012, the trial court in this case signed an order denying the defendant’s special appearance.  The defendant then moved for reconsideration of that denial on August 9, which the trial court subsequently denied on September 24.  On October 15, the defendant appealed the second denial.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because, under the rules, the defendant’s notice of interlocutory appeal was due by July 26, or twenty days after the trial court denied the first special appearance. The Court explained that permitting appeals twenty days after a motion for reconsideration would essentially eliminate the twenty-day requirement.

Pahl v. Swaim

The court of appeals has granted mandamus relief in a pair of cases challenging the decisions of trial courts in Dallas and Collin Counties that had granted pre-suit depositions under Rule 202. Reiterating that Rule 202 depositions are not intended for routine use, the court held that the trial courts had abused their discretion because the movants had not presented any evidence that the likely benefit of the depositions outweighed their burden or expense. Although the movant had filed verified petitions as required by Rule 202, those pleadings could not justify the pre-suit depositions because the movant had not sought to admit the verified pleadings at the Rule 202 hearings. Finding that the order granting the depositions was not subject to an ordinary appeal, the court conditionally granted mandamus to vacate the lower courts’ orders.

In re Campo, No. 05-13-00477-CV

In re Doak, No. 05-13-00538-CV

Cambridge and Jain entered into an option program agreement. Cambridge later determined the investment programs managed by Jain were not economically feasible and told Jain it intended to terminate them. Jain demanded Cambridge pay certain fees allegedly due him, Cambridge refused, and Jain filed suit for breach of contract. The matter was arbitrated before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) panel of arbitrators. The panel entered an award in favor of Jain, which the trial court confirmed. Cambridge appealed the judicial confirmation of the award. The court of appeals rejected Jain’s argument that Cambridge waived judicial review of the arbitration award by agreeing to arbitrate pursuant to FINRA rules. However, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment because it found that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers by relying on impermissible matters outside the broad scope of the arbitration agreement.

Cambridge Legacy Group v. Jain, No. 05-12-00991-CV

Several former Dallas municipal judges brought this lawsuit challenging the 2012 municipal judge selection process, claiming that the Mayor and the City Council violated the city code by asking nominees to comment in writing on legislative proposals by an ad hoc legislative committee and by interviewing additional candidates without justification.  The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that these former judges lack standing to sue because they seek only a declaration that the City Council violated the law.  The Court found that the judges lacked any personal stake in the outcome of the case because (1) they disclaimed any intent to challenge the appointment of their successor judges; (2) they do not seek to be reinstated as judges; and (3) they deny that they are challenging the legitimacy of any ordinance.

Rawlings v. Gonzalez

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

Sullivan purchased a commercial cleaning franchise from Jani-King. The parties ended up in two disputes that were resolved through a single settlement agreement in 2004. The settlement agreement required Sullivan to “immediately and permanently cease operation” of his competing business, and Jani-King to offer Sullivan a certain amount of accounts within the next 12 months. The franchise agreement remained in full force and effect. In 2005, Jani-King sued Sullivan for breach of the franchise and settlement agreements, alleging that Sullivan continued to operate his competing business and failed to pay Jani-King royalty and advertising fees in compliance with the franchise agreement. The jury found in favor of Jani-King and Sullivan appealed.

Among other issues, Sullivan challenged the factual sufficiency of the jury’s findings. The court of appeals found that Sullivan’s factual sufficiency complaints were not preserved for review because Sullivan failed to file a motion for new trial. The court rejected Sullivan’s claim that his motion to disregard the jury’s findings or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict sufficed as a motion for new trial because those motions did not ask the trial court to vacate the judgment and order a new trial. The court of appeals also found that Jani-King’s failure to provide Sullivan with accounts was excused by Sullivan’s prior breach of the settlement agreement through his failure to immediately cease operation of his competing business. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Sullivan v. Jani-King of NY, Inc., No. 05-11-01546-CV

In August 2002, after Kroupa and WIlliams had been living together in a common law marriage for a number of years, Williams took out a home equity loan on the parties’ residence without telling Kroupa.  Kroupa discovered the home equity loan the following month, in September 2002.  Several years passed, and Kroupa and Williams finalized their divorced in 2007 and Kroupa received the residence as part of that proceeding.  In 2008, Kroupa filed a petition seeking to have the home equity loan declared as void.

On appeal, the Court looked to the Texas Constitution’s 1998 amendment concerning home equity loans to determine whether Kroupa could prevail.  Under that amendment , Kroupa argued that the home equity line was void because she did not sign the written agreement or consent to it as the Texas Constitution required.  In response, Williams and Wachovia (the holder of the lien) insisted that Kroupa’s claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  Examining the Texas Constitution and the line of cases discussing this specific provision, the Court found that becuase the lien here was voidable and not void, the statute of limitations applied.  The Court then found that, because Kroupa discovered the lien in September in 2002, and because she filed her lawsuit in September 2008, her suit was barred by the four-year statute of limitations.

Williams v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp.

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

In this forcible detainer action, the defendant disputed the validity of the foreclosure sale in light of an automatic bankruptcy stay that had been issued. The Court noted, however, that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 746, the only issue that may be adjudicated in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession.  Accordingly, because the validity of of the foreclosure sale in light of a bankruptcy stay goes to the merits of the title, the Court held that this issue may not be raised in a forcible detainer action and rejected the defendant’s argument.

Stonebreaker v. FNMA

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

Cousins and business partners Matthew and J.W. Jenkins agreed to buy an investment property out of foreclosure. They claimed the negotiated price was to have been $250,000, but the closing documents listed the sale price as $349,000. Stewart Title Co. closed the sale, and J.P. Morgan Chase accepted assignment of the funded loan. The Jenkins sued the title company and the bank on theories including negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and defamation.

Stewart Title and Chase both filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment. The cousins did not file any response, and the trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants. The Jenkins moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. The Jenkins appealed from the denial of the motions for reconsideration, but the court of appeals affirmed. Although the motions for reconsideration proffered evidence contesting the prior summary judgment motions, the plaintiffs did not ask for leave of court to file that evidence, nor did they demonstrate good cause for failing to respond to the original motions in a timely manner. Hence, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny reconsideration of the summary judgment rulings.

Jenkins v. Stewart Title Co., No. 05-12-00685-CV

Henning obtained a mortgage loan from Willow Bend Mortgage, which was later sold to IndyMac Mortgage Services, a division of OneWest Bank. IndyMac notified Henning that his loan was in serious default, and that failure to cure the default could result in foreclosure. Henning filed suit against OneWest, and OneWest filed a counterclaim for foreclosure. The trial court granted OneWest’s no evidence motion for summary judgment as to all of Henning’s claims, and OneWest’s summary judgment motion on its counterclaim. Among other issues, Henning alleges that the trial court erred by granting OneWest’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for foreclosure.

The court of appeals rejected Henning’s claim that the assignment of the note and deed of trust from IndyMac to OneWest was invalid because it was signed by a “robo-signer,” ruling instead that the note was endorsed in blank and OneWest was in possession of the original note. Thus, there was no genuine issue of material fact respecting the “chain of title” on the note. The court of appeals also concluded that Henning failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to default. The court found no evidence in support of Henning’s claim that OneWest’s documents reflect confusion and misrepresentations regarding its claim of default. The court also rejected Henning’s claim that OneWest’s “loss mitigation obligations” precluded foreclosure because the record did not show that the note or deed of trust “expressly incorporated” any “loss mitigation obligations.” Thus, the court affirmed summary judgment for OneWest on its foreclosure counterclaim.

Henning v. Onewest Bank FSB, No. 05-12-00078-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

Patrick Curry and PJC Equipment Leasing are the owners of an IAI Westwind II jet. They hired Matthew Webb and MKW Aviation to manage the plane, and MKW maintained possession of it in that capacity. A dispute arose over MKW’s charges, and the trial court granted a writ of sequestration requiring MKW to relinquish the airplane and its records to PJC. MKW then filed a lien against the aircraft for unpaid storage, maintenance, and fuel charges totaling over $35,000. The trial court granted MKW’s application for turnover relief, thereby requiring PJC to hand the plane back over to MKW. In an opinion focused on statutory construction, he court of appeals ended up denying PJC’s mandamus petition challenging that decision. Section 70.302 of the Property Code permits the holder of an aircraft storage and maintenance lien to retain and even retake possession of the subject airplane. The court of appeals rejected PJC’s contention that MKW would have to be a “secured party” to retake possession of the aircraft, ruling instead that being the holder of the aircraft lien was sufficient basis under the statute for reclaiming the property subject to the lien. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in ordering the plane to be returned to MKW.

In re Curry, No. 05-13-00734-CV

Rickey Wayne Tolbert sued his former attorney, George Otstott, for legal malpractice. Tolbert is a pro se prison inmate, and was incarcerated at the time Otstott settled three separate personal injury matters on Tolbert’s behalf. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant based on his limitations defense, and since the underlying lawsuits were settled between 1987 and 1991, you would think that’s probably a meritorious defense. The court of appeals agreed. As a matter of law, a reasonably diligent person, after receiving a $1,012 check from his attorney, followed by sixteen years of silence, would have investigated and discovered that the lawyer had settled all three claims. Thus, the two year limitations periods for legal malpractice expired long before the filing of Tolbert’s lawsuit in 2010.

Tolbert v. Otstott, No. 05-12-0024-CV

Several years ago, the court of appeals affirmed most of a judgment against Spin Doctor Golf, but reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment sustaining Paymentech, L.P.’s statute of limitations defense. Spin Doctor Golf, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 296 S.W.3d 354, 363 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied). On remand, the trial court denied Spin Doctor’s motion to modify the scheduling order to permit it to designate expert witnesses. The court denied that motion, and granted Paymentech’s traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment.

Spin Doctor had sought to designate five experts prior to the first summary judgment ruling and appeal, but that designation came months after the deadline under the scheduling order then in effect, and the trial court determined Spin Doctor had not shown good cause for the late designation of the experts. On remand, the trial court again rejected Spin Doctor’s request to designate experts. The court of appeals sustained that ruling, concluding that (1) there was a valid scheduling order in effect and Spin Doctor had blown well past it, (2) Spin Doctor’s need for a lost profits expert did not establish good cause for missing the deadline, (3) Paymentech’s failure to produce certain documents did not explain why Spin Doctor was prevented from timely designating the experts, and (4) the trial court could have reasonably determined that Paymentech would be unfairly surprised by the experts’ testimony because the record did not disclose any proffered report from those experts, leaving Paymentech to take discovery in the dark. The court of appeals also affirmed the summary judgment ruling, holding that the affidavit of Spin Doctor’s president had been properly stricken the first time through the trial court, and that its lost profits analysis was conclusory in any event.  With no evidence of damages, the judgment against Spin Doctor was affirmed.

Spin Doctor Golf, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., No 05-11-0104-CV

Amy Self sued Tina King and Elizabeth Tucker for  injuries she received in a car accident purportedly caused by King.  On March 21, the trial judge sent a letter to all counsel requiring them to sign and return the enclosed scheduling order by April 8, 2011, or the court would place the matter on its dismissal docket.  Self failed to comply with this requirement and the court notified the parties of a dismissal hearing on April 21.  When Self failed to appear at this hearing, the court issued an order of dismissal.  In July 2011, Self moved to vacate the order of dismissal because, she argued, neither she nor her attorney had received notice of the scheduling order or the dismissal hearing.  The trial judge stated that, although the court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate the case, she would deny the motion to reinstate if she had jurisdiction to do so.  On appeal, the Court found that Self failed to address all possible grounds for the dismissal of the case, which was required because “[i]f a dismissal order does not state the grounds for the dismissal, a plaintiff seeking reinstatement must negate all possible grounds.”

Self v. King

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

Michael Tabasso was a salesman for BearCom Group, Inc., a Garland-based wireless equipment dealer. Tabasso was based out of BearCom’s office in Philadelphia, and was in charge of a sales region that did not include Texas. Nevertheless, the company disciplined Tabasso for attempting to make sales outside of his sales region, including contracting with a Texas company and then referring a portion of that contract to another party at BearCom’s expense. After Tabasso was terminated, he apparently continued to fulfill service requests by BearCom customers and forwarded confidential information to his personal email account. All of that led to BearCom filing suit against Tabasso in Dallas County. Tabasso filed a special appearance, which the district court denied.

On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals affirmed. BearCom’s pleading raised a plethora of alleged jurisdictional contacts, including contacts with BearCom’s customers in Texas. That pleading shifted the burden to Tabasso to negate each of the alleged jurisdictional contacts, but he did not do so. Instead, the trial court deemed his affidavits to be “not credible in light of the record,” and there was ample evidence of Tabasso’s communications and dealings with those Texas customers. Tabasso also failed to preserve any objections to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. In light of the entire record, the court of appeals found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial of the special appearance.

Tabasso v. BearCom Group, Inc., No. 05-11-01674-CV

In 2006, Dr. Tran bought medical equipment on eBay for $14,580 using his Citibank credit card.  When the equipment arrived, Dr. Tran found that it was missing a key component so he contacted Citibank to dispute the purchase.  In response, Citibank issued two chargebacks: one in October 2006 for $4,580 (which the seller accepted) and one in November 2006 for the remaining $10,000 (which the seller did not accept).  Among other things, Tran sued Citibank for breach of an oral agreement to “timely” issue the credit card chargebacks together.  The Court of Appeals found that Tran had not put forward any evidence showing that Citibank agreed to issue the chargebacks “by a certain date, within a certain time frame, or at the same time.”  Thus, the Court held that the oral contract alleged by Dr. Tran failed for indefiniteness.

Citibank v Tran

In a commercial dispute concerning a furniture liquidation sale, the trial court awarded appellees damages for breach of contract and fraud, and attorney’s fees, but reduced the jury’s attorney’s fee award by nearly $425,000.  Among other issues, appellants challenge the trial court’s $100,000 judgment against Lavercombe based on fraud, and appellees challenge the trial court’s reduction of attorney’s fees.

The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment with respect to the fraud claim.  The court found no evidence in the record showing that Lavercombe made a material misrepresentation as to the quantity and availability of upholstery products with an intent to deceive and with no intention of performing as represented.  The court of appeals also reinstated the jury’s higher award of attorney’s fees because there was more than a scintilla of evidence in the record supporting the jury’s award.  In all other respects, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Broyhill Furniture Indus. v. Murphy, No. 05-11-01545-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 Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Dallas may end up being the single biggest beneficiary of the Texas Citizens Participation Act.  For the third time in the last month, the Dallas Court of Appeals has sided with the BBB in an appeal arising out of a motion to dismiss under the TCPA. In this instance, Wholesale TV and Radio Advertising, LLC sued for business disparagement, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and DTPA claims after the Bureau gave Wholesale an F rating. The trial court granted the Bureau’s motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court rejected Wholesale’s argument that the TCPA did not apply to false commercial speech, relying on its recent BH DFW and Ward opinions for the proposition that the TCPA covers speech that relates to “a good, product, or service in the marketplace.” That meant the burden was on Wholesale to come forward with prima facie evidence of each element of its claims. However, the court concluded that Wholesale had failed to adequately brief those issues on appeal, omitting any discussion of one or more of the elements of each of its claims. The court therefore affirmed both the trial court’s dismissal of Wholesale’s entire case and its award of $15,999 in attorney fees to the BBB.

Wholesale TV & Radio Advertising, LLC v. Better Business Bureau, No. 05-11-01337-CV

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

Big D appealed from the denial of its motion for new trial following a no-answer default judgment. The court of appeals found that the trial court properly refused to set aside the default judgment.  Big D did not prove that its failure to answer was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was due to a mistake or accident.  Rollins properly served Big D by substituted service on the secretary of state after seven failed attempts to serve Big D’s registered agent at the agent’s registered office and home.  The substitute service on the secretary of state was not rendered void by the process being returned with the notation “Refused” because the secretary is not an agent for serving but for receiving process on the defendant’s behalf.  Big D also failed to show that the evidence was insufficient to support the amount of damages awarded by the trial court.  The court of appeals found that the car owner’s testimony regarding the “Blue Book” value of her vehicle was not so weak that the finding of damages was clearly wrong and unjust.  Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Big D Transmission v. Rollins, No. 05-11-01019

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

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

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

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

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

In this car accident case, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations.  In response, the plaintiff argued that, under CPRC 16.063, the out-of-state trips she took over the past two years tolled the statute of limitations for the time period she was outside of Texas.  On appeal, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, finding that section 16.063 was intended to apply to “Texas creditors faced with individuals who enter Texas, contract a debt, depart, and then default on the debt.”  Here, the plaintiff remained a Texas resident for the entire two-year statue of limitations, and, during that period, would have had no difficulty in serving the defendant with process.

A dissenting opinion argued that the majority’s reading of the section 16.063 “has rendered the statute meaningless and effectively repealed the statute.”

Liptak v. Brunson (majority)

Liptak v. Brunson (dissent)

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

In 2009, Andres Diaz paid $85,000 for his “dream car,” a 2010 Mercedes C63 AMG. Two weeks later, Caroline Culwell rear-ended him at a stop light, costing Diaz over $9,000 for repairs. At trial, Culwell stipulated to liability, leaving only the question of damages to be decided by the jury. Among other items, Diaz sought to recover $15,671 for the post-accident diminution in value of the car. That claim was supported by the testimony of Diaz’s appraisal expert, but the jury awarded $0.00 for diminished value. Diaz sought judgment notwithstanding that portion of the verdict, and the trial court awarded him the full amount of the claim. The court of appeals reversed, holding that it was within the province of the jury to disbelieve the appraisal expert’s testimony. Even uncontroverted expert testimony does not bind the jury unless the subject matter is one for experts alone. The court of appeals concluded that determining the value of a car for diminution of value damages is not so complicated that an expert’s testimony is required for the jury to understand the issue. Accordingly, the court of appeals reinstated the jury’s refusal to award Diaz any damages for diminution of value.

Culwell v. Diaz, No. 05-12-00093-CV

Citibank sued Albert Evans to collect approximately $10,000 in credit card debt. Evans appealed from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the bank, and the court of appeals affirmed. Among other things, Evans argued that he had never agreed to, or even seen, Citibank’s credit card agreement, that Citibank’s credit card statements were erroneous, and that the account statements were never delivered to him. However, the trial court struck those portions of Evans’ summary judgment affidavit as conclusory. The court of appeals held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in that evidentiary ruling, noting that Evans’ denials of the documents were not accompanied by any underlying facts or documentation that supported his denial. Without that affidavit testimony, Evans had no other evidence showing that he had not agreed to the amounts owed as shown by Citibank’s credit card statements, making summary judgment appropriate on the bank’s account stated claim.

Evans v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., No. 05-11-01107

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

Lorrie Smith filed suit for judicial foreclosure of a judgment lien against three lots in a Frisco subdivision. Smith had obtained her judgment against Shaddock Builders & Developers, and she recorded an abstract of the judgment on July 15, 2010. Two years earlier, Shaddock had acquired the three lots and immediately conveyed them to another company, Basin, Ltd. The conveyance from Shaddock to Basin was recorded, but the original sale to Shaddock went unrecorded until the seller corrected its “oversight” exactly one day before Smith recorded her judgment lien. Shortly thereafter, Basin conveyed the lots to Sumeer Homes, which built houses and sold the lots to the current homeowners. Each of those subsequent transactions was recorded. Seeking to foreclose on the lots in order to collect on her judgment against Shaddock, Smith sued the homebuilder, the homeowners, their mortgage lenders, and the title company. The defendants moved for and obtained summary judgment against Smith.

On appeal, Smith argued that the conveyance to Shaddock had been fraudulently backdated, and that it had really been filed the day after she recorded her judgment lien. According to Smith, that meant that legal title to the property had not been transferred to Shaddock until after she filed her lien, therfore making the three lots subject to her claim. The court of appeals rejected that argument. Although “legal title” to property serves as evidence of ownership, it does not constitute full and complete title to the property. What really matters when it comes to a judgment creditor’s lien is equitable title to the property, which passes to the purchaser when it pays the purchase price and fulfills the obligations of the contract of sale. In this case, Shaddock had acquired equitable title to the lots three years before Smith recorded her lien, and Shaddock had immediately transferred that title to Basin. Equitable title is a complete defense against the lien of a judgment creditor. Because Basin had acquired equitable title long before Smith acquired her judgment against Shaddock, that title subsequently passed to Sumeer Homes and the subsequent homebuyers free and clear of Smith’s judgment judgment against Shaddock. Nor did Shaddock hold “legal title” to the three lots on the day Smith recorded her lien. The summary judgment evidence showed that the original seller had recorded the sale the day before, and because Shaddock had conveyed the property to Basin by warranty title two years earlier, legal title to the property passed instantly to Basin when the sale to Shaddock was finally recorded. The court of appeals therefore affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Smith v. Sumeer Homes, Inc., No. 05-11-01632-CV

Gardners appealed from a take-nothing judgment in a medical malpractice lawsuit against Children’s Medical Center. Gardners challenge the constitutionality of section 74.153 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, arguing that the heightened standard of proof in cases involving emergency medical care in certain facilities violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the Texas and US Constitution. The statute created two categories of claimants: (1) those who received emergency medical care in certain settings and must meet a heightened standard of proof, and (2) those who receive emergency medical care in non-covered settings or receive non-emergency care and must only meet the traditional standard of proof. Gardners claim this classification is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The court of appeals held that the statute does not violate the Equal Protection clauses. According to the court, the lack of legislative facts explaining the basis for the statute’s classification has no significance in rational-basis analysis because legislative choices may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data. The court also noted that the classification does not fail rational-basis review simply because in practice it results in some inequity. Instead, the statute must be upheld if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. The court determined that the statute bears a rational relationship to the State’s legitimate interest in ensuring the provision and availability of emergency medical care to its citizens. Thus, Gardners’ sole issue on appeal was overruled, and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

Gardner v. Children’s Medical Center, No. 05-11-00758-CV

The Dallas Court of Appeals denied a mandamus petition seeking to set aside the trial court’s disqualification of counsel for the plaintiff in a commercial dispute. In re RSR Corp., 405 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding).  The Texas Supreme Court later took the opposite review and remanded for further proceedings.  In re: RSR Corp., No. 13-0499 (Tex. Dec. 4, 2015). The opinions involve the interplay of the different disqualification standards provided by In re American Home Products Corp., 985 S.W.2d 68 (Tex. 1998), and In re Meador, 968 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. 1998). We will present this case without the usual commentary because our firm represents the real party in interest, but it is a useful read or anyone wondering about what lawyers can and cannot do with a former employee of an opposing party.

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