The Texas Supreme Court recently narrowed the right to attorney’s fees based on uncontroverted evidence. The Court held that compentent, uncontroverted, unchallenged evidence of attorney’s fees does not entitle a party to an award of attorney’s fees as a matter of law. Distinguishing its opinion in Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, the Court held
Texas Supreme Court Addresses Attorney’s Fees as Damages
The Texas Supreme Court recently held that a malpractice plaintiff may recover attorney’s fees incurred in a prior suit if those fees were proximately caused by counsel’s negligence. In this long and complex malpractice case, the plaintiff, NDR, sued Akin Gump for malpractice. The jury rendered a verdict for NDR and awarded damages, including damages
When does evidence of intent equate with causation?
In Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court appears to have equated intent with causation in a fraud case. Aquaplex sued Rancho for fraud. Aquaplex asserted that it lost the sale of a piece of real property due to Rancho having filed a lis pendens on the property. On appeal
Electronic Discovery: Duty to Preserve and Produce Electronic Documents
A recent Dallas Court of Appeals case, MRT, Inc. v. Vounckx, provides some insights on electronic discovery in Texas.
The case essentially involves two main entities: MRT, Inc. and Inter-University Micro-Electronics Center ("IMEC"), though several other related parties and entities were involved. Basically, IMEC through its agent, Roger Vounckx, persuaded MRT and the several related individuals and entities to invest in a new technology, PhotonLink, which purportedly provided faster and more efficient computer chip communication.
When the investment proved unsuccessful, MRT sued IMEC for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. During the litigation, MRT served IMEC with requests for production, but did not confer with IMEC beforehand to ascertain how it stored its information electronically. The requests sought any computer generated or stored information relevant to the lawsuit.
At depositions, MRT’s counsel learned that IMEC had some computer back up tapes it had not produced. These tapes were apparently used for retrieval if the data base became corrupted and not for archival preservation. Because IMEC delayed producing the tapes, MRT filed a motion to compel. IMEC objected to production because: (1) extracting information from the tapes was too burdensome given there was no indication relevant information was stored on the back up tapes, which would take hours to search; and (2) IMEC had destroyed the back up tapes related to the relevant time period after MRT had sued it.
The trial court denied MRT’s request for a continuance to review the backup tapes and it denied its spoliation motion. MRT lost at trial and appealed.
Did IMEC improperly withhold the backup tapes? Did IMEC spoliate evidence when it destroyed the backup tapes after MRT filed the lawsuit? Read the extended entry to learn what the court decided. Or if you would rather read the opinion, you can get it HERE.
Continue Reading Electronic Discovery: Duty to Preserve and Produce Electronic Documents
Discovery of Net Worth Continues to Simmer
At least since the Texas Supreme Court’s 1994 opinion in Transportation Insurance Company v. Moriel, questions of the right to discovery of a defendant’s net worth information, the definition of "net worth", and the scope of information relating to net worth have been simmering in the district courts and in the courts of appeals. The latest opinion on the subject has been issued by the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals and the concurring opinion makes case for why it’s time for the Texas Supreme Court to address these thorny issues. The majority’s opinion in In re Jacobs may be found here. The concurring opinion may be found here.Continue Reading Discovery of Net Worth Continues to Simmer
Probate court jurisdiction and void judgments
The Amarillo Court of Appeals recently concluded that when a probate proceeding is filed in a court that does not have jurisdiction, a judgment from the court is void, rather than voidable. In Winfield v. Pietsch, Dale Winfield, Gloria Johnson, and James Winfield filed suit in district court in Randall County seeking to challenge
Agreed Venue in a Major Transaction–Not So Fast
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that the major transaction exception to the prohibition on venue agreements only applies if the value of the transaction is contained in the agreement itself. In this original proceeding, the parties entered into a settlement agreement involving real estate in which the parties agreed that venue of any dispute
Discovery in challenges to the exercise of personal jurisdiction
The Houston First District Court of Appeals has held that a trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs discovery of jurisdictional facts pertaining to the defendants’ personal appearance. In Lamar v. Poncon, John and Nanci Lamar sued Eric Poncon, Morgan’s Rock Hacienda, and Ecolodge for negligence in causing injuries arising out of
Oh Court Reporter, Where Art thou?
What should you do if you show up for a bench trial and there is no court reporter?
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals recently decided an appeal raising this issue. In Kohler v. M & M Truck Conversions, M & M contractually hired Kohler to install a wheelchair lift and related hydraulic equipment
Targeting Mandamus
The Amarillo Court of Appeals recently issue an opinion in In re Lagaite, in which the Court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner complained of medical treatment he received while incarcerated in a Texas prison and evidently named the medical doctor as the respondent. Noting that Texas