The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) gives federal courts jurisdiction of class actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of whether a named class representative can avoid application of CAFA by stipulating that he will not seek damages that exceed $5 million in Standard Fire Ins.
Opinions & Judgments
Appeal dismissed for violating trial court’s orders
The El Paso Court of Appeals recently dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to comply with a trial court’s post-judgment orders. Here, a final judgment was entered against the appellant and the appellant did not pay the judgment or file a supersedeas bond. The appellee sought post-judgment discovery. The appellant failed to answer the…
No Presentment, No Attorney’s Fees
The Dallas Court of Appeals reaffirmed the requirement that a claim be presented to the opposing party in order to recover attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Here, the party seeking fees argued that the offers exchanged at mediation constituted presentment for purposes of CPRC Section 38.002. The Court…
News flash — Attorney’s fees are not damages
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently confirmed that attorney’s fees are not economic damages. In this case, a party objected to testimony regarding attorney’s fees because the opposing party failed to include the attorney’s fees information in its response to a TRCP194.2(d) request to disclosure the amount and method of calculating economic damages. The court…
Mandatory Trial Amendment
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently decided a case in which it held that it was mandatory for the trial court to grant a trial amendment. The opinion is interesting because its procedural facts suggest other scenarios in which a mandatory trial amendment might be required.
The basic dispute was a contract dispute between Dallas City…
Texas Supreme Court to decide whether attorney’s fees must be superseded pending appeal
The Texas Supreme Court recently set In Re Nalle Plastics Limited Partnership for oral argument indicating that it will decide whether attorney’s fees must be superseded pending appeal. The Court will resolve a split of authority that has developed in Texas courts of appeals as to whether attorney’s fees consitute "compensatory damages" under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2 and…
Post-judgment injunction upheld
Appellate Rule 24.4(a) sets out the matters that an appellate court may review with respect to posting of supersedeas. Review of a post-judgment injunction order under Rule 24.2(d) is not among those items. Appellant Hydroscience Technologies, Inc. obtained review of an order granting a post-judgment injunction in Hydroscience Technologies, Inc. v. Hydroscience, Inc.
The…
Is a Judgment Included in a Net Worth Calculation?
The El Paso Court of Appeals has become the most recent appellate court to weigh in on the issue of whether the judgment that is being appealed should be included on a balance sheet insofar as determining an appellant’s net worth for supersedeas bond purposes.
In Business Staffing Inc. v. Jackson Hot Oil Service, Jackson…
Attorneys’ fees must be reasonable under Rule 1.04
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently decided an interesting issue involving whether evidence that attorney’s fees are reasonable under the Arthur Anderson v. Perry factors is required in a breach of contract case between attorney and former client. Here, a law firm brought suit against its former client for non-payment of fees pursuant to a contract…
Offer of Settlement: No extension of deadlines to respond
The Tyler Court of Appeals has held that a trial court has no authority to extend the deadline for a party to respond to an offer of settlement made under Texas Civil Procedure Rule 167. In In re Complete Rx, Ltd., Good Shepherd Hospital sued Complete Rx for an accounting. Complete RX invoked…