Texas, like many other states, enacted legislation to curb meritless lawsuits whose purpose lies solely in chilling a person’s right to free speech and/or to petition his or her government. Under Texas’ Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) law, a party may file a motion to dismiss a legal action which is “based on, relates
sanctions
Conference Requirements and Consideration of Lesser Sanctions
After Union Carbide served a treating physician with a subpoena duces tecum that encompassed records spanning over 30 years, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for sanctions, asserting that the discovery requests were overbroad, harassing, and annoying, and he sought costs expended in defending against the subpoena duces tecum. Union Carbide first learned of the motion…
Court’s inherent authority doesn’t extend to arbitrations
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a district court overstepped the bounds of a court’s inherent authority by sanctioning conduct that occurred in connection with an arbitration proceeding.
In Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp., the district court invoked its inherent authority to sanction and sanctioned the attorney…
Sanctions Payable Prior to Final Judgment Abuse of Discretion
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…
The inherent power to sanction…
Practitioners will want to take note of this recent opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals.
In a split decision in Davis v. Rupe, the court affirmed a sanctions order against an attorney based upon the trial court’s inherent power to sanction. Because the trial court did not issue findings of fact to support its order (an omission that the dissenting judge looked on with disfavor), the court had to consider all grounds on which the trial court might have based its decision. The majority recited three grounds, each of which provides some interesting dynamics.Continue Reading The inherent power to sanction…
Pay for Play An Abuse of Discretion
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…
En Banc San Antonio Court of Appeals Affirms Chapter 10 Sanction
A divided en banc Fourth Court of Appeals held that a court may award sanctions for both expenses and attorney’s fees as well as for inconvenience and harassment and order them paid to the moving party. Applying the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Low v. Henry, the majority held the trial court had broad…