Hernandez v. Hernandez
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-13-01219-CV (October 20, 2014)
Justices O’Neill, Lang-Miers, and Brown (Opinion)
On the first day of a car-wreck trial, the defendant Gerardo Hernandez failed to appear, and his attorney announced that he would stipulate to liability. The trial court stated: “I don’t like that …. It’s sanctionable.” On cue, plaintiff’s counsel moved for sanctions under Rules 13 and 215 the next day. But the court declined to rule on the motion, stating, “We’re not going to do everything just willy-nilly out of the blue without giving the other side an opportunity to respond to whatever motion you are going to file.” The court said that any sanctions motions could be dealt with after the trial on damages. At that trial, the plaintiff was awarded $44,591. Plaintiff’s counsel then filed a written motion for sanctions requesting her attorney’s fees incurred in preparing for the liability portion of the trial and in taking Gerardo’s deposition. The trial court ordered Gerardo to pay $5000 in sanctions. Gerardo appealed the sanctions as well as two other substantive issues.
The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the sanctions order on two grounds. First, the appellate court held that the plaintiff waived his right to Rule 215 discovery sanctions by failing to get a ruling on his motion prior to trial. It was not moved by the fact that the plaintiff had made his motion timely but the trial judge had deferred ruling until after trial. The Court of Appeals also distanced itself from the substance of the trial court’s ruling, noting in a footnote that it did not “wish to create the impression that Gerardo’s stipulation of liability during the pretrial hearing on the day the case was set for trial was discovery abuse.” In addition, the Court ruled that the sanctions could not be upheld under Rule 13 or the trial court’s inherent power either, because the trial court had failed to recite particularized findings of good cause in its order.
