Penny Wise But Pound Foolish. Serving as Your Company’s Registered Agent Can Be Costly in the Long Run

Huffman Asset Management, LLC v. Colter

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-22-00779-CV (November 8, 2023)

Justices Partida-Kipness (Opinion, linked here), Reichek, and Breedlove

Brent M. Rubin

Entities that do business in Texas, like corporations and limited liability companies, must “designate and continuously maintain” a registered agent and a registered office to be served with process. For around $100 annually, an entity can hire a company to serve as its registered agent and provide an address for its registered office. A business owner who faces ever-increasing expenses may be tempted to save costs by personally serving as his or her business’s registered agent and listing the business’s current address as its registered office. But this decision can prove perilous, as it did in this case.

The Colters claimed their apartment was infested by insects and sued their landlord, Prairie Capital, LLC, and its property management company, Huffman Asset Management, LLC. Both entities listed Douglas Huffman as their registered agent. Public filings for Prairie Capital listed a house in Highland Village as its registered office, and Huffman Management’s filing listed an office in Dallas as its registered office. But when the Colters tried to serve Huffman at these addresses, a bank occupied the address listed for Huffman Management and their process server was told Huffman had sold the Highland Village house.

Unable to serve Huffman, the Colters served the Secretary of State, as Texas law allows when a registered agent cannot be located at the registered office. The Secretary of State must then send notice to the “most recent address of the entity on file with the secretary of state” via certified mail. Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 5.253. The Secretary of State issued certificates confirming that it forwarded the documents the Colters served to the Highland Village house for Huffman Management and the Dallas office for Prairie Capital and that it later received the documents back “Return to Sender.”

The Colters then obtained a default judgment. The trial court sent a Notice of Default Judgment to the defendants at a Dallas address on San Jacinto Street, which the Colters listed as the defendants’ last known mailing address but was not either defendant’s registered office. The defendants appeared and moved for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.

On appeal, the defendants argued the Colters’ service on the Secretary of State was invalid because they gave the Secretary of State “bad” addresses. They argued the Colters knew the San Jacinto address was the defendants’ “most recent … address on file with the secretary of state.” Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 5.253. The defendants pointed to public information reports filed with the Secretary of State listing the San Jacinto address as each company’s principal place of business. The court of appeals rejected this argument, reasoning that the purpose of § 5.253 and related provisions is to effect service on the designated registered agent at the designated office. The Secretary of State, according to the court, should not have to ignore an entity’s filings about its registered agent and office in favor of a more recent filing not related to service of process.

A $100 annual fee gets a company a registered agent and registered office consistently available during normal business hours at an address that will not change. While this might seem like an easy expense to eliminate because a principal of the business can serve as the registered agent, a company faces a real risk of a default judgment if its registered agent is not actually available for service or if it fails to keep its registered agent information updated with the Secretary of State.

Arbitration: Where's the Agreement with the Plaintiff?

Fox v. The Rehabilitation & Wellness Centre of Dallas, LLC, et al.

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-21-00904-CV (June 5, 2023)

Justices Molberg (Opinion), Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

Neil R. Burger

Roger Fox brought wrongful death and survivor claims on behalf of his deceased wife, Karen. Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by Roger—not Karen. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed all claims.

The issue before the Court was simple: Did Defendants “meet their initial evidentiary burden to prove the existence of a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement?” No, they did not.

The Court noted that the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing, did not consider any affidavits, and did not admit any evidence into the record. Instead, the only items before it were unauthenticated documents attached to the filings. Although the parties apparently ignored this evidentiary problem in both the trial court and on appeal, which would have been dispositive had he raised it, the Court recognized another fundamental problem: there was no evidence that Roger signed the agreement on Karen’s behalf. Therefore, even assuming the contract had been authenticated and admitted, Defendants did not meet their burden under principles of contract law and agency, which require the agent’s (Roger’s) authority to be established through the principal’s (Karen’s) conduct. Roger’s signature, accompanied by language in the agreement purportedly stating Roger was acting as Karen’s agent, did not suffice.

The Court thus reversed the order compelling arbitration and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Enter Declaratory Judgment Because It Was Uncontested

In re Banigan

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-22-01084-CV (January 12, 2023)

Chief Justice Burns and Justices Partida-Kipness and Smith (Opinion, linked here)

Kelli Hinson

After her husband filed for divorce in 2021, Cynthia Banigan moved to vacate a 2015 declaratory judgment establishing that the parties’ agreed partition of community property was valid and enforceable. The husband had filed the declaratory judgment action on the same day the partition agreement was signed. In her response, the wife confirmed the facts set forth in the petition and expressed her consent to entry of an order declaring the partition agreement to be valid. At the hearing, the husband testified as to the validity of the agreement, and the wife testified that she agreed with everything the husband had said.

The wife’s tune changed, of course, after the husband filed for divorce six years later. She argued that she did not voluntarily sign the partition agreement and that it was unconscionable. The trial court referred the matter to arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the partition agreement.

The wife then filed a mandamus proceeding arguing the declaratory judgment was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Dallas Court of Appeals agreed, holding there was no justiciable controversy between the parties when the trial court entered the declaratory judgment. The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act allows a person interested under a written contract to have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the contract and to obtain a declaration of “rights, status, or other legal relations.” But a declaratory judgment is only appropriate if (1) a justiciable controversy exists as to the rights and status of the parties and (2) the controversy will be resolved by the declaration sought. Lack of a justiciable controversy results in a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the wife confirmed the facts set forth in the petition, consented to the entry of the declaratory judgment, and “agreed with Husband’s position entirely” at the hearing, there was no live controversy between the parties. The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter the requested order, and so the Court of Appeals vacated the declaratory judgment as void.

Refresher: To Get Judgment on a Rule 11 Agreement, Plead Breach of Contract

Patel v. Gonzalez Hotels, LLC

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-01020-CV (July 7, 2022)

Justices Partida-Kipness (Opinion, linked here), Reichek, and Goldstein

Ken Carroll

A little reminder is welcome and helpful every now and then—although it’s often less fun for the parties who are being reminded.

Mahesh Patel sued Mehulkumar Patel, Chirag Patel, and Jayson Patel for breach of fiduciary duty, theft, and other claims relating to Gonzalez Hotels, LLC, of which they were all co-owners. After a mediation, the parties entered into a Rule 11 agreement in which Mehulkumar, Chirag, and Jayson “consented to the entry of an agreed judgment making them liable for half of Mahesh’s past and future contributions to the company.” Mahesh promptly filed a motion to enforce that agreement. But Mehulkumar, Chirag, and Jayson withdrew their consent before the trial court could act on that motion. Mahesh then filed a motion for summary judgment, “the stated goal of [which] was to obtain an agreed judgment to enforce the terms of the agreement.” The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for Mahesh, but the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed.

“Written settlement agreements may be enforced as contracts even if one party withdraws consent before judgment is entered on the agreement,” the Court acknowledged. But, as the Texas Supreme Court explained in Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656, 663 (Tex. 2009) and elsewhere, “[w]hen consent is withdrawn [before the trial court renders judgment], the agreed judgment that was part of the settlement may not be entered. The party seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement must pursue a separate claim for breach of contract, which is subject to the normal rules of pleading and proof.” Here, Mahesh had not asserted a claim for breach of the agreement, and neither his motion to enforce nor his MSJ could substitute for that required pleading. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed and remanded to the trial court, where Mahesh no doubt will now plead breach and take a second swing at enforcing the agreement.

“Taking Responsibility” ≠ Negligence as a Matter of Law

Yedlapalli v. Jaldu

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00531-CV (June 28, 2022)

Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness (Opinion, linked here), and Carlyle

Brent M. Rubin

While Yedlapalli was stopped at a stop sign, Jaldu rear-ended her. Yedlapalli testified that, from her rear-view mirror, she saw Jaldu on her cell phone and that Jaldu never slowed down. Jaldu, in contrast, claimed she was at a complete stop behind Yedlapalli and reached down to get a piece of paper on the floor, which caused her foot to slip off the brake and her car to roll forward and tap Yedlapalli’s car.

Yedlapalli sued Jaldu, claiming not only damage to her car but also bodily injury. On cross-examination, Yedlapalli’s attorney asked Jaldu if she was “taking one hundred percent responsibility for the crash.” Jaldu agreed that her car hit Yedlapalli’s when her foot slipped from the brake. Jaldu also admitted she told Yedlapalli at the scene that it was her “mistake,” making her responsible for the damage to Yedlapalli’s car. But Jaldu refused to take responsibility for Yedlapalli’s purported injuries, claiming everyone was “completely fine” immediately after the accident. Jaldu also explained to the jury that it was “fishy” that Yedlapalli sued only after Yedlapalli did not pay her medical bills.

Yedlapalli moved for a directed verdict based on Jaldu’s purportedly “taking one hundred percent responsibility” for the accident. The trial court denied the request for directed verdict. The jury later answered “no” on the question whether Jaldu’s negligence caused the occurrence in question. So, the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against Yedlapalli.

Yedlapalli appealed, challenging the denial of the motion for directed verdict and the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding on negligence. On the directed verdict, the court of appeals explained that acceptance of responsibility, standing alone, does not establish negligence as a matter of law. The court observed that a jury could have concluded a person of ordinary prudence, sitting at a complete stop a safe distance behind Yedlapalli, could have reached down to pick up a piece of paper, as Jaldu testified. On factual sufficiency, the court similarly explained that a rear-end collision, standing alone, does not mean a jury’s failure to find negligence is not supported by sufficient evidence. The jury could have credited Jaldu’s account and concluded that a reasonably prudent person would have acted in the same way. Or, the jury could have concluded Yedlapalli failed to meet her burden of proving negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the court of appeals affirmed.

What's so Special for a Special Master?

In re Alford

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-22-00240-CV (May 16, 2022)

Before Justices Osborne (Opinion), Partida-Kipness, and Smith

Neil R. Burger

In re Alford concerns the sua sponte appointment of a Special Master to determine a pending plea to the jurisdiction and rule on future discovery disputes. Concluding that the appointment was not supported by findings from the trial court that “good cause” existed or that the case was “exceptional” under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 171, the Fifth Court of Appeals conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus.

Without a request or consent from the parties, the trial court appointed a Special Master under Rule 171. The Order required the parties to compensate the Special Master at $500 per hour, and granted him broad authority, including the ability to have ex parte communications with the court, parties, and witnesses. Although the Order stated that “good cause exists in this exceptional case” for a Special Master, it did not specify facts or circumstances in support.

The Court of Appeals determined that the appointment did not meet the requirements of Rule 171. There were no pending discovery disputes. In addition, the record did not demonstrate that the case was “unusually complicated” or required “special knowledge.” As such, without the consent of the parties, the appointment of the Special Master was a clear abuse of discretion, and mandamus relief was warranted.

Not So Fast: Trial Court Cannot Compel Discovery While Plea to Jurisdiction Attacking Pleadings Is Pending

In re Dallas County, Texas and Dallas County Constable Bill Gipson

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-21-01144 (May 10, 2022)

Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness (Opinion, linked here), and Carlyle

Brent Rubin

After Gipson was elected constable, he told deputy constables Woodard and Yarbrough that they would not be re-sworn as deputy constables after he took office. Woodard and Yarbrough sought to pursue grievances with Dallas County. But the County concluded they were not covered by the civil-service grievance system because they had been hired after August 19, 2003; it therefore denied them a grievance hearing.

Woodard and Yarbrough then sued, claiming they were denied their property rights in employment and denied equal protection because they were not allowed to access the grievance procedure available to those hired before August 19, 2003. The County and Constable Gipson answered and filed pleas to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity. After the jurisdictional pleas were filed, Woodard and Yarbrough moved to compel discovery. The trial court ordered the County and Constable Gipson to respond to discovery requests and to appear for depositions.

The County and Constable Gipson sought mandamus relief, arguing discovery was improper while their pleas to the jurisdiction were pending.

The Court of Appeals explained that there are two types of pleas to the jurisdiction: an attack on the sufficiency of the pleadings and an evidentiary attack on the existence of jurisdictional facts. When a plea to the jurisdiction is based on evidence, a trial court has discretion to decide the plea at a preliminary hearing or later, after the case is more fully developed. If the trial court delays determination, the trial court can also allow targeted discovery on issues relevant to the plea to the jurisdiction. In contrast, when a plea to the jurisdiction is based on the pleadings alone, discovery is not proper while the plea is pending.

The Court of Appeals concluded the County’s and Constable Gipson’s pleas to the jurisdiction were based on the pleadings, so the trial court was obligated to hear and decide the pleas to the jurisdiction before compelling discovery. Further, the Court of Appeals noted that even if this were a scenario where the court could compel targeted discovery, the trial court erred by failing to confine the compelled discovery to jurisdictional issues. The Court of Appeals therefore granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling discovery.

Post-Petition Developments Derail Mandamus

In re Am Re Syndicate, Inc.

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-21-00358-CV (February 23, 2022)

Justices Myers (Opinion, linked here), Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

Ken Carroll

Ordinarily, an appeal or mandamus is decided on the basis of the record before the trial court at the time it issued the order challenged in the appellate court. But not always.

Plaintiff TEXCAZ sued Am Re and its CEO, Barder, alleging breach of contract, fraud (for entering into a contract they didn’t intend to perform), tortious interference, and conspiracy. Am Re and Barder moved to dismiss, because the contract at issue specified that the forum for determining “any controversy arising out of this Agreement, or any breach thereof, shall be in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.” Am Re and Barder were not parties to that contract—Am Re’s principal, GIC, was—but Am Re and Barder contended TEXCAZ was estopped to deny it was bound by the Oklahoma forum-selection clause by virtue of its claims of breach of the contract containing that provision and fraud regarding the lack of intent to perform that contract. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Am Re and Barder sought mandamus to enforce the forum-selection clause.

Several months after Am Re and Barder filed their mandamus petition, TEXCAZ amended its petition in the trial court to drop its claims for breach of contract and fraud. In addition, GIC revoked Am Re’s agency authority. Based on these post-petition developments, the Dallas Court of Appeals concluded “that the controversy does not arise out of the contract and that relators lack capacity and standing to assert the forum- or venue-selection clause.” It therefore denied mandamus.

Two Practice Pointers: Redacting Fee Statements and Post-Judgment Interest Rates

THB Construction, LLC v. Holt Texas, Ltd.

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00020-CV (January 13, 2022)

Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness (Opinion, linked here), and Carlyle

Ken Carroll

The opinion of the Dallas Court of Appeals in THB Construction included two important reminders, the first for those practitioners proving up attorney’s fees, and the second for those seeking the maximum post-judgment interest allowed by law:

First, when seeking attorney’s fees, don’t go overboard in redacting the fee statements you submit to prove up those fees. Redactions are customary and necessary to avoid revealing confidential information protected by privilege or to eliminate time and expenses for tasks not covered by the fee request. But in THB Construction, the Court found the plaintiff’s redactions to be so extensive for one period of time that those billing records did not constitute “evidence identifying the specific tasks performed, the individual who performed the tasks, and the time each task took,” as required under Rohrmoos. That led to the reversal or remittitur of a significant portion of the fees awarded by the trial court. So, redact as necessary, but be careful and don’t overdo it. And supplement with other evidence if need be.

Second, remember that the Finance Code sets different levels of maximum post-judgment interest, depending on the basis for the judgment. In most circumstances, the post-judgment interest rate is 5%, unless the prime rate is higher. Tex. Fin. Code § 304.003. If the judgment is based on a contract “that provides for interest or time price differential,” however, post-judgment interest accrues at the “rate specified in the contract,” as one would expect. Tex. Fin. Code § 304.002. But, if the contract provides for interest but doesn’t specify a rate, then the court should order post-judgment interest at “18 percent a year.” Id.

No Evidence? No Problem! Court Takes Judicial Notice of Property Records to Dismiss Based on Mootness

Courtney D. Alsobrook v. MTGLQ Investors, LP

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00400-CV (October 26, 2021)

Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness (Opinion, linked here), and Garcia

Brent Rubin

        Alsobrook stopped making mortgage payments on her house, and MTGLQ, the mortgagee, gave notice that it planned to foreclose. Alsobrook obtained a temporary restraining order stopping the foreclosure sale, but she never obtained a temporary or permanent injunction stopping future foreclosure proceedings. The trial court eventually granted MGTLQ’s motion for summary judgment. Alsobrook appealed.

        In its response brief on appeal, MTGLQ argued the appeal was moot because Alsobrook’s property had been sold at a foreclosure sale after the trial court entered judgment. But MTGLQ did not file a copy of the foreclosure sale deed or any other tangible proof of the sale. Nevertheless, the Court explained that it had the power to take judicial notice, for the first time on appeal, of facts that are a matter of public record and not subject to reasonable dispute.

        Rockwall County Central Appraisal District’s online records showed that the house was conveyed away from Alsobrook by foreclosure sale and identified someone other than Alsobrook as the current owner. Therefore, the Court took judicial notice of the sale. Because the property at issue had been sold, the Court held Alsobrook’s case had become moot and dismissed the appeal without considering the merits.

Beyond Mandamus: Writ of Injunction Secures Relief from Trial Court Order Pending Appeal

In re David Mu

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-21-00323 (October 12, 2021)

Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle (Opinion, linked here)

Brent Rubin

The trial court issued a protective order requiring Mu to complete a Batterer’s Intervention and Prevention Program (BIPP) no later than 30 days before the first anniversary of the order. Mu appealed and asked the trial court to stay the BIPP requirement pending that appeal, arguing that it violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because the course would require him to discuss his alleged bad acts before the statute of limitations had expired. The trial court denied Mu’s request to stay the BIPP requirement. So, Mu sought a writ of injunction against the BIPP requirement from the court of appeals.

An appeals court can grant writs of injunction only in limited circumstances, one being to prevent an appeal from becoming moot. Here, the Dallas Court of Appeals concluded that if Mu had to complete the BIPP course before the appeal was resolved, any relief on appeal could be ineffectual. Therefore, the court of appeals granted a writ of injunction enjoining the trial court from enforcing the BIPP requirement pending the appeal.

Law Firm Cannot Avoid Agreement to Litigate Rather Than Arbitrate

Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP v. Strunk

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-21-00003-CV (September 30, 2021)

Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness (opinion available here), and Carlyle

Kelli Hinson

        The law firm Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP sued its former clients for payment under a contingency fee agreement. The fee agreement contained an arbitration provision, and the firm initiated an arbitration before the AAA. The clients claimed the arbitration provision was unenforceable. So the firm filed suit in Dallas County, delivered a copy of the lawsuit to the clients’ new attorneys, and asked whether the clients preferred to resolve the dispute in court or arbitration. The letter stated: “Please discuss with your clients and let us know which forum they wish to choose to address this matter. If they choose to litigate in District Court, then please advise if you will agree to accept service of the enclosed petition on behalf of all Defendants effective as of this date and assuming you agree, we will dismiss the AAA arbitration without prejudice.”

        The clients chose arbitration, but the attorney responding to the firm’s letter was not their “trial attorney” and was not authorized to accept service. The firm had the clients personally served, and the suit was underway. After the clients answered and filed a motion to transfer venue, the firm moved to compel arbitration. But what about the agreement to proceed in District Court? The firm argued that acceptance of service and maintaining the litigation in Dallas County were conditions to its offer to litigate in court, which conditions the clients did not accept. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The firm appealed.

        The Dallas Court of Appeals sided with the clients and affirmed the trial court’s order. It concluded a novation occurred in which the parties extinguished their arbitration agreement and formed a new agreement to litigate in District Court. The Court rejected the firm’s argument that acceptance of service was a condition to accepting the proposed novation. It concluded that allowing the clients to choose the forum for resolving the fee dispute was the only material term of the offer. The sentence “If they choose to litigate in District Court, then please advise if you will agree to accept service” merely provided “alternative subsequent actions to be taken based on the [clients’] forum choice.” The Court found no indication in the letter that the clients’ forum choice was dependent on acceptance of service. This conclusion was bolstered by the fact that the firm moved forward with effecting personal service of the lawsuit. The Court also found nothing to suggest the offer was limited to litigating in Dallas County, so the clients’ attempt to transfer venue did not invalidate the agreement.

Dallas Court Affirms 9-Figure Judgment Against Toyota Even Though Toyota Complied With All Applicable Safety Regulations

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Reavis

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-00075-CV (June 3, 2021)

Justices Partida-Kipness and Nowell (opinion available here); Justice Schenck dissenting (here)

Kelli Hinson

The Reavis family was involved in a violent car accident in their Lexus, which resulted in the parents being propelled into the back seat, where they crashed into their small children, who suffered skull fractures and traumatic brain injuries as a result. The family sued Toyota, asserting design and marketing defects. Even though the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards, the jury found against Toyota, awarding $242 million in damages, including $144 million in exemplary damages. Toyota appealed.

        Section 82.008(a) of the CPRC provides a rebuttable presumption that a product manufacturer is not liable for injury caused by a product that complied with federal mandatory safety standards. The presumption can be rebutted under § 82.008(b) if the plaintiff proves that the federal standards are “inadequate to protect the public from unreasonable risk of injury” or that the manufacturer withheld or misrepresented information relevant to the federal government’s determination of adequacy of the safety standards or regulations at issue.

        Toyota first argued that § 82.008(b) is preempted by federal law because it allows a jury to reject a federal agency’s determination of safety standards, but the Court held Toyota had waived that defense in the trial court.

        The Court upheld the jury’s determination that the federal standards are inadequate to protect the public, particularly the standard regarding seat-back strength. It noted that all automakers greatly exceed the mandatory standard—in fact, the Toyota seats at issue exceeded the standard by over 700%—so the standard must be inadequate. The Court also held there was evidence to support a finding that Toyota withheld or misrepresented information relevant to the adequacy of the safety standard. In particular, the Court noted a letter from Toyota to two senators in 2016 in which it stated that Toyota had a “long and robust safety culture.” The Court found this statement misleading in light of a deferred prosecution agreement Toyota had entered into in 2014 over misrepresentations made with regard to sudden unintended acceleration in some of its vehicles. The Court also held the jury could have rationally concluded that Toyota was misleading in claiming that the NHTSA was an “effective regulator” in light of Toyota’s extensive lobbying efforts with the agency. With the § 82.008(a) presumption rebutted, the Court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Toyota’s design was unreasonably dangerous.

        The Court also upheld the jury’s finding that Toyota failed to warn of the car’s dangers. Although the owner’s manual “strongly recommended” that children be placed in the rear seat, it did not warn of the danger that front seat occupants might be propelled into the back seat, injuring the children, in a rear-end collision.

        Justice Schenck filed a dissent, noting that “the record reflects no evidence of any automobile that has been marketed with both the seatback strength necessary to avoid the injuries here and the proposed seatbelt changes that would protect front seat occupants.” He expressed skepticism that “every car ever marketed and sold to this point could be ‘defective’ and that their manufacturers could all be subject to exemplary damages on this basis.” He also took issue with the Court’s affirmance of a design defect without evidence that fewer injuries and deaths would result from an alternative design taking into account all potential crash scenarios, not just the rear-end collision at issue in this case. He noted that additional protections for rear-end crashes could cause additional injuries in front-end crashes. Justice Schenck would have held the plaintiffs failed to rebut the §82.008(a) presumption of no liability. He characterized the Court’s conclusion that the federal standards were inadequate as ipse dixit and noted that Toyota’s alleged misrepresentations to regulators were unrelated to seatback strength or seatbelt function and so were not relevant to the “safety standards or regulations at issue in the action” under §82.008(b)(2).

        With the money at stake and the importance of the § 82.008(a) presumption to auto manufacturers like Toyota, expect this one to go to the Supreme Court of Texas.

NO FORMAL PLEADING REQUIRED FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES IN ARBITRATION

Ninety Nine Physician Services, PLLC v. Brian Murray

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-01216-CV (February 22, 2021)

Justices Schenck (Opinion), Osborne, and Partida-Kipness (Concurring)

Neil R. Burger

In Ninety Nine Physician Services, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and enforced an arbitrator’s award of attorneys’ fees even though there was no pleading in the arbitration seeking such an award.

The parties’ arbitration agreement provided that all disputes would be governed by the AAA’s Commercial Rules, but it was silent about any award of attorneys’ fees. The AAA rules permit an arbitrator to award fees in three circumstances: (1) if all parties request fees, (2) if fees are authorized by law, or (3) if fees are authorized by the agreement.

Appellant did not assert a claim that supported an award of attorneys’ fees as a matter of law. Nor did it formally plead for fees. But both Appellant and Appellees filed post-hearing submissions, including expert affidavits, seeking an award of fees. The panel majority agreed that this post-hearing briefing was sufficient for the arbitrator to conclude that all parties had requested their fees, despite the absence of any formal pleading on the issue. The AAA rules therefore authorized the arbitrator to award them.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Partida-Kipness would have concluded that awarding attorney’s fees in the absence of a pleading for such an award violated Texas’s fair notice requirements. Nevertheless, she concluded that the arbitrator’s award was a mistake of law, which would not constitute grounds to vacate the award.

DOMINANT JURISDICTION: TRANSFER AFFECTS WHICH CASE IS “FIRST FILED”

In re Equinor Texas Onshore Properties f/k/a Statoil Texas Onshore Properties LLC

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00578-CV (October 7, 2020)

Chief Justice Burns (Opinion, linked here), and Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek

Ken Carroll

Against a convoluted factual and procedural background, the Dallas Court of Appeals announced a comparatively simple rule: When determining which of two interrelated cases is “first filed” for purposes of “dominant jurisdiction,” if one of those cases has been transferred to a different court and county, it is the date on which that case arrived in the transferee court that governs, not the date when that case was originally filed in the transferor court.

A bank, as trustee, held certain oil and gas interests in LaSalle County, Texas—an enclave of about 7,000 souls roughly halfway between San Antonio and Laredo. Equinor and Repsol together acquired lease rights to some of those interests. When a dispute arose about royalty payments, the bank filed two separate lawsuits in LaSalle County, one against Equinor and one against Repsol—even though it would later contend they were jointly and severally liable for the alleged shortfall. The case against Repsol was assigned a lower docket number than the Equinor lawsuit, even though the file-mark on the petition indicated it was filed three days later. Equinor accepted venue in LaSalle County. But Repsol challenged venue, and the case against it was transferred by agreement to Dallas County. After the transfer, the bank added Equinor to the Dallas case that had originally been filed only against Repsol. Equinor objected, moved to transfer venue, and filed a plea in abatement, asserting dominant jurisdiction lay with the LaSalle County district court in the case in which the bank had sued Equinor originally.

With respect to interrelated lawsuits, the “court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” In re JB Hunt Transp., Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 294 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The parties did not dispute that the two suits here were interrelated. But there was considerable disagreement about which was “first filed,” given the confusion arising from the discrepancy between the file stamps and the sequence of case numbers assigned to the original Equinor and Repsol lawsuits in LaSalle County. The Dallas Court of Appeals, however, swept that confusion aside, holding that the “LaSalle County court acquired jurisdiction over the Equinor Lawsuit long before the Dallas County court acquired jurisdiction over the Repsol Lawsuit” to which Equinor was later added, and that the date and timing of the transferred Repsol lawsuit did “not relate back” to its original filing in LaSalle County. Dominant jurisdiction, therefore, lay with the LaSalle County district court in the original Equinor lawsuit. So Equinor was entitled to have the Dallas County case against it abated.

DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS CONTINUES TO REIN IN THE TCPA’S APPLICABILITY TO BUSINESS DISPUTES

Palladium Metal Recycling, LLC v. 5G Metals, Inc.

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-00482-CV (July 28, 2020)

Justices Bridges, Molberg (Opinion, linked here), and Partida-Kipness

Woods Capital Enterprises, LLC v. DXC Technology Services, LLC

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-00380-CV (July 29, 2020)

Justices Pedersen, III, Reichek (Opinion, linked here), and Carlyle (Concurrence, linked here)

Ken Carroll

In a pair of opinions this week, the Dallas Court of Appeals continued its trend of holding the TCPA inapplicable to many private business disputes. Palladium arose from a disagreement regarding a joint venture to acquire and re-sell scrap metals. Woods Capital grew out of a failed agreement for the sale of a large tract of commercial real estate. In each case, the Court of Appeals held the TCPA’s free-speech and right-of-association protections did not apply to communications and conduct focused on the business dealings of the parties involved. In each case, the Court referenced the stated purpose of the TCPA to protect “public participation” and drew upon the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Creative Oil & Gas, LLC v. Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, 591 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2019). A sampling of the Court’s observations in the two cases:

• “The TCPA’s purpose of curbing strategic lawsuits against public participation is not furthered by a construction finding a right of association based simply on communications between parties with a shared interest in a private business transaction.”

• Rejecting a TCPA free-speech attack, the Court held the allegations targeted by the motion “lack any communications regarding matters of public concern as opposed to private pecuniary interests and thus do not implicate the TCPA’s protection of Palladium’s exercise of the right of free speech.”

• Acknowledging that the TCPA defines “matters of public concern”—the linchpin of TCPA free-speech protection—to include “issues related to health or safety; environmental, economic, or community well-being; the government; a public official or public figure; or a good, product, or service in the marketplace,” the Court cautioned that “not every communication related to one of the broad categories set out in [the statute] always regards a matter of public concern.” Because the record was “devoid of allegations or evidence that the dispute had any relevance beyond the pecuniary interests of the private parties involved,” the Court refused to find TCPA free-speech protections applicable.

• “This Court has consistently held that to constitute an exercise of the right of association under the TCPA, the nature of the communication between individuals who join together must involve public or citizen participation.”

Beyond its pronouncements on the applicability of the TCPA to business disputes, each decision also included an additional holding to which litigants should be alert. In Palladium, the Court held the TCPA movant had waived its objections to the non-movants’ evidence because it had not obtained a ruling on those objections and had not objected to the trial court’s failure to rule.

In Woods Capital, the Court ruled that the movant had “forfeited its [TCPA] motion” by failing to schedule a hearing within the period prescribed by statute. The TCPA allows the parties to delay a hearing by agreement for up to 90 days after service of the motion. A hearing may be delayed up to 120 days only if the court, upon a showing of good cause, “allows” limited discovery related to the TCPA motion. Reaffirming its ruling earlier this summer in Walker v. Pegasus Eventing, LLC, the Court held that the parties’ agreement to conduct discovery and the court’s acquiescence does not equate to “allowance” by the court that triggers the extra 30 days. Consequently, failure to schedule a hearing within the 90-day period, without court “allowance” of discovery, resulted in forfeiture of the motion.

GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT FOR MISPLACED SURGICAL SPONGE

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Rhoades

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-00445-CV (June 30, 2020)

Justices Molberg, Partida-Kipness (Opinion linked here), and Bridges (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion linked here)

Lyndon Bittle

A divided Dallas Court of Appeals panel held the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW) does not have governmental immunity in a lawsuit arising from a medical team’s failure to remove a sponge during surgery.

As a breast reconstruction operation neared conclusion, the medical staff reported one of the surgical sponges used to absorb blood during the operation was missing. After a visual search of the surgical field did not reveal the location of the sponge, the doctor ordered x-rays with a portable x-ray machine. The missing sponge did not appear on x-rays of the chest and abdomen. The patient’s position did not allow x-rays of the pelvic area, but the doctor was confident the sponge would not have been there, and concluded the sponges must have been miscounted. The surgery was concluded and the patient was sent to intensive care for recovery. The search for the missing sponge added several hours to what normally would have been a six-hour surgery.

While the patient was recovering, an x-ray of her pelvic region revealed the missing sponge, which was then removed in a second surgery. The patient developed post-operative complications that required four additional surgeries. The patient sued UTSW for medical negligence. UTSW filed a plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds that as a governmental hospital, it is immune from the patient’s suit. The trial court denied the plea, finding immunity was waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act. UTSW appealed.

On appeal, the dispositive issue was whether UTSW’s governmental immunity was waived because the alleged injuries were caused by the negligent “use of tangible personal … property” under the TTCA, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.021(2). Two separate items were at issue—the surgical sponge and the x-ray machine. UTSW argued that the claims “arise from the surgeons’ allegedly negligent medical judgment, for which immunity is not waived.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s holding as to both items, after a painstaking review of cases applying the “use of personal property” waiver of immunity, including University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. McKenzie, 578 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. 2019). Justice Partida-Kipness’s majority opinion, rejecting UTSW’s argument, emphasized that the doctor’s “erroneous decision to call off the search and close the remaining incisions followed the allegedly negligent use of the sponge.” Likewise, according to the majority, immunity was waived by the allegation and jurisdictional evidence that “UTSW used the machine negligently by failing to x-ray the entire surgical field.”

Justice Bridges joined the majority’s conclusion that UTSW waived immunity “for negligent use of the sponge during the operation.” He dissented, however, from the holding concerning use of the x-ray machine, arguing that the majority improperly expanded the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in McKenzie “to create jurisdiction where none exists.” Offering a detailed rebuttal to the majority’s review of the case law, Justice Bridges concluded the “negligence claims alleging misuse of the x-ray machine are artfully pleaded complaints about UTSW surgeons’ and radiology staff’s medical judgments, rather than use or misuse of tangible personal property.”

CONCLUSORY OPINIONS ARE NOT COMPETENT EVIDENCE

NexBank, SSB v. Winstead, PC
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-18-01345-CV (April 21, 2020)
Justices Bridges, Partida-Kipness, and Nowell (Opinion, available here)

Kelli Hinson

In this legal malpractice case, the Dallas Court of Appeals confirmed that an expert’s conclusory causation opinion cannot create a fact issue to defeat summary judgment. NexBank filed suit against its former lawyers, alleging the lawyers were negligent in connection with a loan and subsequent non-judicial foreclosure. The foreclosure resulted in a deficiency, and NexBank claimed the lawyers’ negligence prevented it from fully recovering the deficiency from the loan guarantor and forced NexBank to settle with the guarantor for less than it should have.

The lawyers filed a no-evidence summary judgment motion arguing, among other things, that NexBank had no evidence of causation. In response, NexBank offered the affidavit of an expert witness who opined that the lawyers should have taken several identified steps to ensure a valid foreclosure and that, because of the lawyers’ alleged negligence, NexBank would have lost the litigation against the guarantor had that case gone to trial. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s determination that this testimony was conclusory and constituted no evidence of causation. It held the expert did not “explain how an invalid foreclosure would have caused NexBank to lose the Guarantor Litigation had that case gone to trial.” “Instead, without linking any facts to his conclusion, he summarily announces it is more likely than not that NexBank would not have prevailed.” An expert’s “conjecture, guess, or speculation will not suffice” as proof of what would have occurred had the litigation against the guarantor proceeded to trial. Summary judgment for the lawyers, therefore, was appropriate.

CITY EMPLOYEE CAN’T SUE RISK POOL FOR DENYING CANCER TREATMENT

Stegall v. TML Multistate Intergovernmental Employee Benefits Risk Pool, Inc.
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-18-00239-CV (October 2, 2019)
Justices Whitehill, Pedersen (Opinion linked here), and Partida-Kipness (Dissent linked here)

Lyndon Bittle

The Dallas Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held a municipal risk pool providing health benefits for city employees cannot be sued for wrongfully denying medical treatment.

Joe Stegall was the CFO for Royse City, and participated in the city’s medical-benefits plan provided through the TML Risk Pool. When Mr. Stegall was diagnosed with liver cancer, TML refused to authorize the use of a specific drug prescribed by his oncologist, and threatened to terminate coverage entirely if he used the drug without its authorization. Although TML later reversed its position, Mr. Stegall died several weeks later. His widow sued TML for “wrongful denial of medical benefits and additional acts of interference with the decedent’s access to prescribed chemotherapy.” TML filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity from suit, which the trial court granted, dismissing the case. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed.

Writing for the Court, Justice Pedersen described the case as “an emotional and tragic scenario,” but held Texas law granted TML immunity from suit. The Court first determined TML was a distinct governmental entity, “an intergovernmental self-insurance risk pool that operates under the Interlocal Cooperation Act,” Government Code chapter 791. It then rejected the argument that TML’s “claims-adjusting” involved “proprietary,” not “governmental” functions, which would have meant immunity did not attach. Municipalities are immune from suit when exercising their governmental functions, but not when the actions are proprietary, i.e., discretionary actions that can be, and often are, performed by private parties. The Court held, however, the distinction did not apply to TML, which, like other political subdivisions created by the legislature for public purposes, performs only governmental functions.

In dissent, Justice Partida-Kipness argued the governmental-proprietary distinction applied to TML, and that although creating and participating in the risk pool was a governmental function, claims adjusting and coverage decisions were proprietary functions not subject to immunity. She criticized the majority opinion as reaching “an absurd result—the removal of logic and humanity from application of the law.”

COURT CAN’T PUT OFF HOLDING HEARING ON TCPA MOTION

In re Herbert
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-01126-CV (September 19, 2019)
Justices Whitehill (Opinion available here), Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Kelli Hinson

The Dallas Court of Appeals granted mandamus relief and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing on the movant’s TCPA motion to dismiss by the statutory deadline—a deadline that expires the day after the appellate court’s decision. The Relator, Aaron Herbert, filed a TCPA motion to dismiss counterclaims brought against him for defamation and invasion of privacy. Although he tried several times to get the trial court to schedule a hearing on the motion before the 60-day deadline (August 21) or to acknowledge the crowded docket conditions and schedule a hearing within 90 days (September 20), the court would not do so. The trial court’s staff informed him that (1) the court wanted the parties to mediate before conducting a hearing; (2) the court only heard dispositive motions on Fridays; and (3) the earliest hearing date available was October 18.

Herbert sought mandamus relief, which the Dallas Court granted. It held that, although trial courts generally have the discretion to schedule hearings within a “reasonable time,” the trial court must set a TCPA motion to dismiss for hearing within the applicable statutory deadline if the movant makes reasonable efforts to obtain a timely hearing. If the movant does not receive a timely hearing, he is deprived of his rights under the TCPA. And because a failure to hold a hearing is not subject to interlocutory appeal, the movant lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. So on September 19, the Court ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing on the TCPA motion “no later than September 20.”