The Fort Worth Court of Appeals recently held that an order directing that sanctions be paid prior to final judgment is an abuse of discretion unless the court makes express findings as to why the sanctions do not preclude the sanctioned party from continuing the lawsuit. In this case, the trial court awarded over $19,000
mandamus
Restrictions on the Use of Special Masters
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Mandamus
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 171 allows a court to appoint a master in chancery "in exceptional cases, for good cause." In its In re Behringer Harvard Tic Management Services LP opinion, the Dallas Court of Appeals reminded us of what the Texas Supreme Court said about "exceptional cases" almost 20 years ago. A court’s…
Final Judgments: Be Careful What You Ask For
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
Sometimes when a party gets a default judgment against another party, there’s a rush to make the judgment final. But as American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank found out in In re Daredia, you’ve got to be careful about what you ask for because there are consequences.
In the trial court, the…
Another Mandamus on Net Worth
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that a trial court abused its discretion by ordering production of irrelevant net worth information. The Court first acknowledged that "net worth is relevant and discoverable when punitive damages may be awarded." The Court noted the "corollary to that rule is that when punitive damages are not recoverable, information…
Discovery of Trade Secrets – Mandamus Granted in Dallas COA
Posted on
Posted in Mandamus
Few writs of mandamus are granted in Dallas, so when I see one in the daily case updates I like to check the opinion out. I was glad I did so today! The Dallas Court of Appeals issued an informative opinion today conditionally granting a writ of mandamus to vacate an order that compelled the production…
Attorneys may be deposed as fact witnesses
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
In a brief memorandum opinion, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed that attorneys may be deposed as fact witnesses while counsel in the underlying litigation. Here, the trial court denied a party’s motion to compel the deposition of the opposing party’s lawyer. The court of appeals stated that "[t]he mere fact that a fact witness…
Mandamus to prevent exercise of jurisdiction where there is none
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
Appellate practitioners know that winning an appeal is not always the end of litigation. Sometimes it’s just a new beginning of disputes, as my blog entry regarding the Supreme Court’s opinion in the In re Columbia Medical Center case indicates. But other times, it really is supposed to be the end. What happens if the trial judge doesn’t see it that way?
Last month, I blogged about a case called In re Victor Enterprises, Inc., in which the Dallas Court of Appeals granted a petition for writ of mandamus against Dallas County Court at Law No. 1 after the judge of that court granted a petition for writ of mandamus without requesting a response from the Relator, Victor Enterprises. The court of appeals held that such an act was clear error and granted mandamus. Now there’s more to the story…Continue Reading Mandamus to prevent exercise of jurisdiction where there is none
Using mandamus to fix errors in judgments
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The case I blog about today reminds us of why it’s so critical to pay attention to appellate judgments. As appellate practitioners, too often the first and only thing we study closely is the opinion, and errors in the appellate judgment go unnoticed. To understand what happened here, I will start with a bit of history of the case.
In August of 2008, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, in which the Court "affirm[ed] the award of actual damages and gross negligence damages", but "reverse[ed] the portion of the judgment awarding loss of inheritance damages." The court’s majority opinion may be found at this link. Apparently, the judgment issued the same day simply stated that the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment awarding loss of inheritance damages is reversed and the remaining portions of the court of appeals’ judgment were affirmed. In short, the court rendered judgment and did not remand the case. The Court’s online docket shows Columbia filed a motion for rehearing, but there’s no indication what complaints were made.
After the court of appeals mandate issued, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the (now affirmed) award of gross negligence damages. Columbia argued that because the actual damages had been reduced, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.008(b) required reduction of the punitive damages as well.
In February of 2009, Columbia filed a motion with the Texas Supreme Court asking that the Court modify the mandate to reflect that punitive damages must be reduced (per statute). The court denied the motion over a dissent authored by Justice Wainright (joined by Justices Hecht and Brister). The dissent may be found at this link.
Due Process requires an opportunity to be heard
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that "due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to present its arguments to a court before the court makes a ruling." (citing TRAP 52.4).
In In re Victor Enterprises, Inc., the trial court (Dallas County Court at Law No. 1) granted a petition for…
Pay for Play An Abuse of Discretion
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Houston (Fourteenth) Court of Appeals recently held that a trial court abuses its discretion if it conditions a trial setting on the payment of sanctions. Here, after a plaintiff and his attorney were sanctioned $45,000 and $5,000, respectively, they challenged the sanctions order by mandamus. In its memorandum opinion, the court of appeals began…