ANDERS AND THE SECOND MILE

In the interest of J.L.B., a child

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00526-CV (October 15, 2020)

Justices Whitehill (Opinion, linked here), Osborne, and Carlyle

Ken Carroll

In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), the United States Supreme Court established a procedure for how appointed counsel for a criminal defendant must deal with the client’s request to pursue an appeal when that lawyer knows that any appeal would be frivolous. In short, that lawyer must file the appeal as requested, but prepare and file a brief that examines the law and the record in detail and explains why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Anyone who has ever written an “Anders brief” knows it is a soul-crushing experience, contrary to every advocate’s basic instincts. Because the client understandably feels betrayed by the lawyer’s performance of his duty to the legal system under Anders, the brief is accompanied by a motion to withdraw as counsel for that client. And in the federal criminal system, when the appeals court agrees with the lawyer’s analysis and decides the appeal lacks merit, that motion to withdraw is routinely granted. But there’s a twist in Texas.

Texas courts have extended Anders to parental termination cases. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). In J.L.B., the counsel appointed for a mother in a parential rights dispute duly followed the Anders procedure and filed a brief that “professionally evaluate[d] the record and demonstrate[d] that there are no arguable grounds for reversal.” The appeals court affirmed the ruling the mother had sought to overturn. But it denied the attorney’s motion to withdraw. The Court reminded us that here, an appointed counsel’s obligations extend through a potential petition for review to the Supreme Court of Texas. “If Mother, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel must file a petition for review that satisfies Anders.” Counsel must walk the second mile. “[T]he appeal’s frivolousness … is not sufficient good cause for withdrawing” before that task is done.

NO PERMISSIVE APPEAL WHERE CONTROLLING ISSUES WERE NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIAL COURT

Home State County Mutual Insurance Co. d/b/a Safeco v. Taiwo

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00596-CV (August 12, 2020)

Chief Justice Burns (Opinion, linked here), and Justices Whitehill and Nowell

Ken Carroll

In a very short opinion, the Dallas Court of appeals rejected an insurer’s petition for a permissive interlocutory appeal. The briefs explain Taiwo was injured in a traffic accident allegedly caused by another driver. He settled for the limits of that driver’s insurance policy, an amount less than his purported damages. Taiwo then sued his own insurer, Safeco, relying on his UM/UIM coverage. Safeco sought summary judgment, arguing Taiwo was required to obtain a judicial determination that he was legally entitled to recover from an uninsured or underinsured motorist before proceeding against his own insurer—something he had not done. See Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co, 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2006). Taiwo, however, moved to postpone the summary judgment hearing in order to take discovery, and the trial court granted that motion.

Safeco sought permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal of that ruling under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(d) & (f). It argued the trial court’s decision “turned on” three “controlling questions of law”—i.e., (1) whether an insured must obtain a judicial determination that he was legally entitled to recover from an uninsured or underinsured motorist before he can proceed against his own insurer on UM/UIM issues, and (2) whether a court can defer dismissal or abatement based on that ground and (3) allow discovery to proceed, without first resolving that threshold issue. The trial court granted permission for the appeal, pursuant to § 51.014(d). But the Dallas Court of Appeals rejected Safeco’s petition and denied the appeal under § 51.014(f).

The appeals court held that “to invoke this court’s permissive appeal jurisdiction, the trial court must make a substantive ruling on the controlling legal issues presented in the petition for permissive appeal.” It found the trial court had not done that here. The record reveals that although the trial court’s order refers to “the controlling questions of law decided by this order,” it actually contains no such decisions on those questions—at least no express decisions. The proposed form of order tendered by Safeco included such rulings, but the trial court manually lined through those passages and inserted the more generic statement that its order was predicated on “the argument and authority in the motion, the response, and papers on file.” This, the appeals court apparently concluded, did not constitute the “substantive ruling on the controlling legal issues” necessary to support a permissive appeal.

TAX-COLLECTION LAW FIRM IS NOT IMMUNE FROM VENDOR’S SUIT

Linebarger Goggan Blair & Simpson, LLP v. TinStar Title Inc.

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-00614-CV (July16, 2020)

Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Evans (Opinion linked here)

Lyndon Bittle

A law firm that collects delinquent tax accounts for Dallas County and other taxing entities is not protected by governmental immunity from lawsuits by its subcontractor, according to the Dallas Court of Appeals. Importantly, the case did not involve claims brought by taxpayers.

The Linebarger law firm contracted to perform tax-collection services for Dallas County and other taxing entities, and subcontracted title-abstract services to TinStar. When TinStar sued Linebarger for breach of contract and various business torts, Linebarger asserted governmental immunity in a plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court denied the plea, and Linebarger filed both an interlocutory appeal and a mandamus petition.

The Dallas Court of Appeals first held it lacked jurisdiction to consider Linebarger’s interlocutory appeal under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(8), which authorizes interlocutory appeals from orders granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction by a “governmental unit.” At least in the context of a private dispute between Linebarger and one of its subcontractors, the Court found Linebarger is not a “governmental unit” as that term is defined in the Tort Claims Act, CPRC § 101.003(a). The Court distinguished University of the Incarnate Word v. Redus, 518 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. 2017), in which the Supreme Court extended governmental immunity to a private university defending the actions of its police department created under express legislative authority because the “department was part of the state’s larger law enforcement system.”

The Court held it could address Linebarger’s mandamus petition under its original-proceeding jurisdiction, but denied mandamus relief. The Tort Claims Act retains governmental immunity for claims arising in connection with the assessment or collection of taxes by a governmental unit. CPRC § 101.055(1). Following Brown and Gay Eng’g v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. 2015), however, the Court found that Linebarger’s contract with the County made Linebarger an independent contractor and that the County did not “control in any way how Linebarger used title abstractors to perform its contract with the County.” It distinguished several previous cases invoking governmental immunity, because those cases involved “taxpayers asserting claims for actions taken by the taxing authority through Linebarger as its agent”—not for the law firm’s “independent actions.”

BUYING A TRAIN TICKET ISN’T “PAYING FOR USE” OF THE TRAIN STATION

City of Dallas v. Kennedy

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-01299-CV (June 18, 2020)

Justices Whitehill (Opinion available here), Osborne, and Carlyle

Kelli Hinson

Ms. Kennedy tripped and fell in Union Station train station and sued the City of Dallas for premises liability. The Texas Tort Claims Act waives a city’s governmental immunity for personal injuries caused by a real property condition if the city would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant under Texas law. Whether the City could be held liable depends on whether Kennedy is treated as a licensee or an invitee. The City’s duty is that owed by a private person to a licensee “unless the claimant pays for the use of the premises,” in which case the City’s duty is elevated to that owed to an invitee. This is critical because a premises owner only owes a licensee the duty not to injure her (i) by willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct or (ii) by failing to use ordinary care to warn of or make safe a dangerous condition of which the owner is aware and the licensee is not. By contrast, an invitee must prove only that the owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition.

Kennedy alleged she paid for use of the Dallas train station because she purchased a train ticket to travel from Kilgore to Dallas. The Dallas Court of Appeals disagreed. Kennedy paid a fee to Amtrak to ride the train, but did not pay a separate fee to the City of Dallas for use of Union Station, and a fee must be paid “specifically for entry onto and use of the premises” in order to trigger invitee status. Because Kennedy did not pay a fee to use the train station, she was a mere licensee and had to produce evidence the City was actually aware of the allegedly dangerous condition, which she failed to do. Kennedy testified that a man wearing “a gray top and blue pants” told her that “they should’ve have had that fixed a long time ago.” But this testimony did not raise a fact issue regarding the City’s knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition because there was no evidence the man worked for the City or ever reported the condition to the City. The Court therefore rendered judgment granting the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing Kennedy’s claim.

DOCTORS’ DISPUTE IS NOT A “HEALTH CARE LIABILITY CLAIM”

Baylor Scott & White Health v. Roughneen

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-18-00966-CV (June 9, 2020)

Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Pedersen, III (Opinion, available here)

Kelli Hinson

Not all claims involving doctors and hospitals are health care liability claims subject to the procedural protections of TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE Chapter 74. Roughneen involves a long-running dispute among various doctors and other health care providers. In 1999, Dr. Roughneen joined a group of physicians practicing cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, and vascular surgery (CSANT). Dr. Roughneen left CSANT in 2005, and the following year he filed suit against the practice. The litigation ended in a settlement, with the CSANT physicians agreeing that “they would voluntarily recuse themselves from any voting, deliberation and/or decision-making relating to any peer review matters involving [Dr.] Roughneen.” Years later, when the doctors worked together at Heart Hospital and Baylor Grapevine, the CSANT doctors participated in purportedly “sham peer review proceedings” against Roughneen in alleged violation of their settlement agreement. Other disputes followed, resulting in claims and counterclaims for breach of contract, tortious interference, improper restraint of trade, and other causes of action. The CSANT parties filed a motion to dismiss under Chapter 74, arguing that Roughneen’s claims were health care liability claims and that he had failed to timely serve an expert report as required by the statute.

The trial court and the Dallas Court of Appeals both held that the claims were not health care liability claims under the statute and so the expert report requirement did not apply. The CSANT parties argued that all of Roughneen’s claims arose out of the peer review process and that “credentialing activities are an inseparable part of the medical services” a patient receives. The Court disagreed, noting that “at their heart, appellees’ complaints do not relate to how any patient was treated, but to how Dr. Roughneen was treated in the business of practicing medicine.” The Court distinguished a prior opinion holding that a claim that a faulty peer review process caused harm to a patient is a covered health care liability claim. In contrast, Dr. Roughneen’s causes of action did not involve any specific patient-physician relationship and were not rooted in the care and treatment of any patient. When claims against a health care provider “do not directly relate to any patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement,” those claims are not health care liability claims. The motion to dismiss was, therefore, appropriately denied. 

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.”

WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH MY APPEAL? TCPA CASE SHEDS LIGHT ON COURT’S PROCESSES

U.S. Anesthesia Partners of Texas, P.A. v. Whitney Kelley Mahana
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-18-01414 (August 27, 2019)
Justices Bridges (Dissent, linked here), Brown, and Nowell (Opinion, linked here); Dissent from Denial of En Banc Rehearing by J. Whitehill (linked here)

Brent Rubin

Mahana, a nurse anesthetist, alleged that her supervisor at U.S. Anesthesia Partners sent text messages falsely stating that she tested positive for drugs and was being fired. Mahana sued the employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The employer moved to dismiss under the TCPA and appealed after the trial court denied the motion.

In a split decision, the Dallas Court of Appeals concluded that because the text messages did not address Mahana’s job performance, they were not “communications related to the provision of medical services by a health care professional.” Therefore, the text messages were not an exercise of the employer’s right to free speech, which the TCPA defines to include communications on an “issue related to health or safety,” and the TCPA did not apply. Justice Bridges dissented, arguing that any drug use that could impair Mahana’s ability to do her job had a sufficient relationship to issues of health and safety, such that the TCPA applied to the text messages.

Notably, at the same time the majority opinion and dissent issued, Justice Whitehill also issued an opinion dissenting from the denial of reconsideration en banc, arguing that the majority opinion conflicted with the Court’s own precedent. Justice Whitehill’s dissent sheds light on some of the Court’s behind-the-scenes practices:

How did the opinion and the dissent from the denial of en banc reconsideration issue on the same day? Did U.S. Anesthesia Partners request en banc reconsideration before the Court issued its opinion?

No, U.S. Anesthesia Partners never moved for reconsideration en banc. TRAP 49.7 allows a “majority of the en banc court may…, with or without a motion, [to] order en banc reconsideration of a panel’s decision.” And the Court’s own Internal Operating Procedures note that it will “on occasion” sit en banc without a request from the parties. So, Justice Whitehill requested en banc consideration sua sponte.

But doesn’t the en banc process start after the opinion issues?

No, TRAP 49.7 allows en banc consideration to occur at any time the Court has plenary power. In fact, a Court can order the case to be heard en banc in the first instance. See TRAP 41.1(a), 41.2(a). For example, the Court might order en banc consideration at the outset when an appeal directly challenges binding precedent from the Court, which a panel cannot overrule.

I still don’t understand why the vote on en banc happened before the Court issued an opinion in the case. 

Although we can’t know the precise reasons why Justice Whitehill requested en banc review when he did, a few considerations appear to be at play. First, the Court has a practice, which some Justices have mentioned but which does not appear to be formally memorialized for the public, of circulating opinions in certain cases to the entire Court before an opinion issues. This will occur, among other times, when there will be a dissent in a case heard by a three-justice panel, as occurred here. Second, the Court has an internal goal of issuing opinions in all cases that have been argued (or submitted without argument) before the start of its new fiscal year on September 1. The opinions here issued on August 27. Both of these factors could have led to the decision to address en banc review at the same time the panel was issuing its opinions.

INSURANCE COVERS DAMAGES AWARDED AGAINST MAJORITY OWNER WHO WRONGFULLY FIRED BUSINESS PARTNER

Prophet Equity LP v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-17-00927-CV (August 19, 2019)
Justices Bridges, Brown, and Whitehill (Opinion linked here)

Lyndon Bittle

A majority partner wrongfully fired his partner, and paid the judgment entered against him. After the first $10 million of insurance coverage was exhausted, he sued an excess insurer for another $4 million. Reversing the trial court, the Dallas Court of Appeals held the excess insurer must pay the balance of the judgment and additional attorney’s fees, summing up its decision in a nifty flow chart:

DEC ACTION: IS A HARASSING DEFENDANT A JUDICIABLE CONTROVERSY?

Gutman v. Richard Wayne Wells and Real Estate Arbitrage Partners, Inc.
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-18-01227-CV (August 5, 2019)
Justices Whitehill (Opinion, linked here), Partida-Kipness (Dissent, linked here), and Pedersen

Neil R. Burger

In a split panel decision, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a “petition alleging that a defendant has repeatedly harassed and threatened the plaintiff because he refuses to accede to the defendant’s unlawful demands presents” a judiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgments Act.

The Court considered this issue in an appeal of the trial court’s dismissal under Rule 91a. In previous lengthy litigation, Greg Gutman had obtained a judgment against one defendant, Real Estate Arbitrage Partners, LLC (“Arbitrage”) but not against the other defendant, Richard Wayne Wells. After the judgment was affirmed, Arbitrage paid the judgment, and Gutman delivered to Arbitrage a fully executed release of judgment. But Defendants wanted more. According to the petition, they repeatedly demanded an executed release of judgment against Wells, and harassed and threatened Gutman for his refusal to do so.

The majority held there was a real and substantial dispute under the Declaratory Judgments Act: “This sets out a controversy—whether Gutman must provide the requested release—that is real and not hypothetical.” And a declaratory judgment resolving that issue “will serve a useful purpose of terminating the parties’ controversy and ending the harassment and threats.” The dismissal was therefore reversed.

Justice Partida-Kipness dissented. Gutman did not seek construction of a contract or any other written instrument. Justice Partida-Kipness construed Gutman’s petition as asserting a claim for civil harassment, which sounds in tort, and does not fall within the parameters of the Declaratory Judgments Act. She disagreed “with the majority’s expansion of the statute,” and would have affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.

So, this case is precedent that a dec action can be used to resolve all sorts of disputes, not just those involving contracts, deeds, wills, and other writings.

THE “WISPINESS”—OR NOT—OF THE TCPA

Erdner v. Highland Park Emergency Center, LLC
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-18-00654-CV (May 22, 2019)
Justices Whitehill (Concurrence/Dissent, linked here), Molberg (Opinion, linked here), and Reichek

Ken Carroll

Highland Park Emergency Center, LLC (“HPEC”) sued one of its doctor-members for breach of fiduciary duty. HPEC claimed Erdner usurped an opportunity to expand its freestanding-emergency-room (“FSER”) business to new locations. Contending HPEC’s claim was based on or related to his exercise of his rights of association and free speech—specifically, his communications with other investors about forming a new company to pursue FSER locations—Erdner moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The trial court denied the motion and, in a split decision, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the TCPA does not apply to the communications at issue.

The panel majority explained that prior Dallas Court decisions had held that, for a communication to qualify as an exercise of the right of association protected by the TCPA, that communication must be “between individuals who join together” and “must involve public or citizen’s participation.” And a TCPA-protected exercise of free speech requires a “communication made in connection with a matter of public concern.” The majority then held the communications in issue satisfied neither test. They were “private communications relating to establishing a business,” not “public [communications] or citizens’ participation,” and therefore not protected exercises of the right of association. The majority acknowledged that, under Texas Supreme Court precedent, a communication need have no more than a “tangential relationship” to a matter of public concern to be protected as free speech under the TCPA. But, the majority said, “A private communication made in connection with a business dispute is not a matter of public concern under the TCPA.” Relying heavily on a federal district court opinion from the Southern District of Texas, the majority held that “a communication cannot have a ‘tangential relationship’ to a matter of public concern that does not yet exist”—in this case, the FSER facilities that might, or might not, be built in the future.

Writing separately, Justice Whitehill concurred in—but disagreed with—the holding on the right of association, but dissented on free speech. Whitehill acknowledged that prior decisions from the Dallas Court had imposed a “public or citizen’s participation” requirement for protection of the right of association under the TCPA, and that this panel was bound to follow them. But, he said, “those controlling precedents were wrongly decided,” because the statute itself says nothing about such an additional requirement. Dissenting on the free-speech issue, Justice Whitehill noted that a “tangential” relationship to a matter of public concern, all the Supreme Court has found to be required under the TCPA, “is a very broad” standard, one that “conjures wispiness.” He would have found the communications at issue, regarding potential FSERs, to be sufficiently “tangentially related to” a matter of public concern—health and community well-being—to be covered by the TCPA.

ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN NDA DID NOT EXTEND TO SEXUAL ASSAULT CLAIM

Alliance Family of Companies v. Nevarez
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-18-00622-CV (April 4, 2019)
Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Reichek (opinion linked here)

Kelli Hinson

The Alliance Family of Companies and its CEO moved to compel arbitration of an employee’s claims that the CEO sexually assaulted her. In connection with her employment, the employee had signed two non-disclosure agreements, agreeing to keep confidential the information she learned about the company and the CEO. Each NDA included an agreement to arbitrate “[a]ny dispute under this Agreement.” The defendants argued that, because the alleged assault occurred in the course and scope of both the employee’s and the CEO’s employment, the claims were covered under the “broad language” of the arbitration agreements. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and the defendants appealed.

The Dallas Court of Appeals sided with the employee, holding that her claims for sexual assault did not arise “under the [NDA] Agreement,” and so were outside the scope of the agreement to arbitrate. It concluded that “under the Agreement” requires a direct relationship between the agreement and the dispute and limits application to actions that arise as a result of the agreement. The Court distinguished other cases involving “broad provisions,” including an agreement to arbitrate “all disputes related to the employment relationship.” Here, there was no such broad language. And because the NDAs address the non-disclosure of confidential information, and not the type of intentional tort alleged by the employee, the dispute did not arise under the NDAs.

The Court also refused to consider arguably broader language contained in the recitals or “whereas clauses” of the NDAs, noting that contract recitals “are not strictly part of a contract and will not control a contract’s operative clauses unless those clauses are ambiguous.”