Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to a Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) rule that authorized state licenses for two residential facilities where the federal government detained mothers and children after their illegal entry into the United States. The plaintiffs, including detained mothers and Grassroots Leadership, Inc., sought to prohibit the detention of children at these facilities, arguing that the rule was invalid under state law. However, by the time the case reached the court of appeals, all the mothers and children had been released from the facilities.The trial court denied the pleas to the jurisdiction filed by the department and the facility operators, eventually ruling in favor of the plaintiffs by declaring the rule invalid and enjoining the department from granting licenses under it. The Third Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were moot since they were no longer detained. However, the court of appeals proceeded to address the merits of the case by invoking the "public-interest exception" to mootness and held the rule invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Texas courts are not constitutionally authorized to adjudicate moot cases, even if they raise questions of considerable public importance. The court emphasized that mootness is a constitutional limitation on judicial power, and there is no "public-interest exception" to mootness in Texas. Consequently, the court reversed the court of appeals' judgment regarding its jurisdiction, vacated the judgment on the merits, and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES v. GRASSROOTS LEADERSHIP, INC" on Justia Law

David W. Cromwell and Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC are co-tenants in an oil-and-gas lease on land in Loving County, Texas. Cromwell obtained his interests in 2009 through two leases, one with Carmen Ferrer and one with the Tantalo Trust. Both leases contained habendum clauses that extended the lease terms as long as minerals were produced from the land. Anadarko, which already had a working interest and had drilled wells on the land, continued to produce minerals. Cromwell repeatedly sought to participate in production and enter a joint operating agreement with Anadarko, but Anadarko did not respond. Despite this, Anadarko sent Cromwell joint interest invoices and treated him as a working interest owner.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Anadarko, ruling that Cromwell's leases terminated at the end of their primary terms because he did not personally cause production. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas affirmed, holding that Cromwell was required to take action to cause production to keep his leases alive, based on the court's previous decision in Cimarex Energy Co. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the plain language of the habendum clauses did not require Cromwell to personally produce minerals to maintain his interests. The court emphasized that the leases did not specify who must produce the minerals and that production in commercial paying quantities had continuously occurred on the land. Therefore, Cromwell's leases did not terminate. The court disapproved of previous decisions that required lessees to personally produce minerals when the lease language did not explicitly state such a requirement. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court to address the parties' remaining arguments. View "CROMWELL v. ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE, LLC" on Justia Law

Pamela McKenzie was shopping at a Walgreens in Houston in 2019 when she was detained on suspicion of shoplifting. A Walgreens employee called the police, suspecting McKenzie was the same person who had stolen from the store earlier that day. After reviewing surveillance footage, the police determined McKenzie was not the thief and released her. McKenzie claimed that other Walgreens employees had agreed she was not the thief, but the employee called the police anyway. She sued Walgreens for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, respondeat superior liability for employee negligence, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision (NHTS).The trial court denied Walgreens' motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which allows for early dismissal of legal actions based on the exercise of free speech. A divided Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the trial court erred by not dismissing McKenzie’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, and vicarious liability for employee negligence. However, it held that the NHTS claim was not subject to dismissal under the TCPA because it was not entirely based on the employee’s exercise of free speech rights.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the TCPA does apply to McKenzie’s NHTS claim. The court concluded that McKenzie failed to meet her evidentiary burden to avoid dismissal, as she did not provide clear and specific evidence for each essential element of her NHTS claim. Consequently, the court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in part and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, specifically for the dismissal of McKenzie’s NHTS claim. The remainder of the Court of Appeals' judgment was left undisturbed. View "WALGREENS v. MCKENZIE" on Justia Law

Cindy Thompson, individually and as heir of Charles Thompson, and CC & T Investments, LLC, sought to void a default judgment and a subsequent purchaser’s deed, claiming the taxing authorities failed to properly serve her with suit papers, leading to foreclosure of tax liens. The subsequent purchaser, Mae Landry, argued that Thompson had notice of the property’s sale years before the collateral attack.The trial court sustained the collateral attack, setting aside the default judgment and tax sale. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed, holding that fact issues exist regarding the adequacy of service in the underlying tax suit. The subsequent purchaser petitioned for review, asserting that the owner’s notice of the property’s sale years earlier defeats her claim as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of Texas held that a property owner may not set aside a subsequent property purchase on due process grounds if the owner obtained notice of the default judgment or the property’s sale during the statutory limitations and redemption period. Such an owner has notice of any due process violation in time to assert a legal remedy. Additionally, a subsequent purchaser may advance equitable defenses against a collateral attack if a prior owner unreasonably delays, to the current owner’s detriment, in suing to quiet title after obtaining notice of the judgment or the property’s sale. However, the evidence in this case fails to conclusively demonstrate the date of such notice.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "THOMPSON v. LANDRY" on Justia Law

Two property owners in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of College Station, Texas, challenged city ordinances regulating off-premise signage and driveway construction. They argued that these regulations, imposed without granting them the right to vote in city elections, violated the Texas Constitution's requirement for a "republican form of government." The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the ordinances were void and unenforceable.The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, agreeing with the City that the form of local government is a political question for the legislature, not the courts. The plaintiffs appealed, but while the appeal was pending, the legislature amended the law to allow ETJ residents to unilaterally opt out of a city's ETJ. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's dismissal, not addressing the new statutory opt-out provision.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that the legislative change provided a nonjudicial remedy that could moot the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. The court vacated the lower court judgments and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to abate the proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to complete the opt-out process. The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and constitutional avoidance, noting that the new law offered a means of relief that should be pursued before addressing broader constitutional questions. View "ELLIOTT v. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS" on Justia Law

A suspected shoplifter with an outstanding arrest warrant shot two police officers at a retail store, killing one and injuring the other. The officers were attempting to arrest the suspect at the request of an off-duty officer working as a security guard for the retailer. The deceased officer's parents and the injured officer sued the security guard, the retailer, and the security company.The trial court dismissed the claims against the security guard under the Tort Claims Act, finding his actions were within the scope of his employment as a police officer. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the retailer and the security company. The plaintiffs appealed.The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed in part, holding that a jury could find the security guard's conduct before the warrant check was outside the scope of his police duties. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims based on the warrant check and subsequent conduct but found fact issues precluded summary judgment on other claims against the retailer.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the security guard's conduct was within the scope of his employment as a police officer, entitling him to dismissal under the Tort Claims Act. The court also adopted the public-safety officer's rule, limiting the duties owed to officers injured by the negligence that necessitated their response. Applying this rule, the court found no evidence that the retailer breached its duty to warn the officers of a known, dangerous condition. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment dismissing the claims against the security guard and granting summary judgment for the other defendants. View "SEWARD v. SANTANDER" on Justia Law

Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado were involved in a motor vehicle collision with Crystal Krueger, who was driving a vehicle owned by Whataburger Restaurants LLC. Ferchichi sued Krueger and Whataburger for negligence. During mediation, Whataburger's counsel revealed the existence of a surveillance video of the plaintiffs, which they refused to share outside of mediation. Ferchichi filed a motion to compel the video and for sanctions. Whataburger responded with a motion to dismiss the sanctions request under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).The trial court denied Whataburger's TCPA motion, but the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the motion for sanctions was a "legal action" under the TCPA and that Ferchichi failed to establish a prima facie case for the sanctions request. The court remanded the case to the trial court to award Whataburger its costs and attorney’s fees and to consider sanctions against Ferchichi.In a separate case, Haven at Thorpe Lane, a student-housing complex, was sued by students for fraud and deceptive trade practices. Haven filed a motion to compel discovery from two mothers of the plaintiffs, who had created a Facebook group criticizing Haven. The mothers filed a TCPA motion to dismiss Haven's motion to compel. The trial court denied the TCPA motion, but the Third Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the motion to compel was a "legal action" under the TCPA and that Haven failed to establish a prima facie case.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed both cases and held that motions to compel and for sanctions are not "legal actions" under the TCPA. Therefore, the TCPA does not apply. The court reversed the judgments of the courts of appeals and remanded both cases to the respective trial courts for further proceedings. View "HAVEN AT THORPE LANE, LLC v. PATE" on Justia Law

Two Texas lawyers, Michael A. Pohl and Robert Ammons, represented out-of-state clients in personal injury cases filed outside Texas. The clients, from Louisiana and Arkansas, alleged that they were solicited by individuals on behalf of the lawyers, which led to the signing of legal-services contracts. The clients later sued the lawyers in Texas, seeking to void the contracts under Texas Government Code Section 82.0651(a), which allows clients to void contracts procured through barratry, and to recover fees and penalties.The trial court dismissed all claims, granting summary judgment in favor of the lawyers. The clients appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Section 82.0651(a) applied because part of the lawyers' conduct occurred in Texas. The court also rejected the lawyers' arguments regarding limitations and res judicata and allowed Reese's intervention in the case.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Section 82.0651(a) does not extend to the nonresident clients' claims because the core conduct targeted by the statute—solicitation of a legal-services contract through barratry—occurred outside Texas. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment to the extent it allowed the clients to proceed with their claims under Section 82.0651(a) and rendered judgment that they take nothing on those claims. However, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment regarding the breach of fiduciary duty claims and remanded those claims to the trial court for further proceedings. View "POHL v. CHEATHAM" on Justia Law

Tom and Becky Carlson filed a contested case against the Texas Comptroller under the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act (PRPRPA), alleging that the Comptroller’s approval of a wind turbine project resulted in a taking of their property. The case was referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), where the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed it as untimely filed, stating that neither the Comptroller nor SOAH had jurisdiction. The Carlsons sought clarification from SOAH, which indicated that the case would return to the Comptroller for a final decision. However, the Comptroller later asserted that the ALJ’s order was final and appealable, leading to the Carlsons' mandamus petition.The Carlsons filed a mandamus petition directly in the Supreme Court of Texas, seeking to compel the Comptroller to issue a final order so they could appeal to district court. The State initially defended the Comptroller’s position that the ALJ’s order was final. However, after the Supreme Court requested clarification on the State’s unified position, the Comptroller issued a final decision, rendering the Carlsons' petition moot.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Comptroller’s issuance of a final decision extinguished the dispute, making the mandamus petition moot. The Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, as there was no longer a justiciable controversy between the parties. The Carlsons agreed with this outcome, as they would now receive the judicial review they sought. View "IN RE CARLSON" on Justia Law

Mara Lindsey was involved in a car accident where she was rear-ended by Carlos Pantoja, resulting in personal injuries. Lindsey sought compensation for her medical expenses and, after settling with Pantoja’s insurer for his policy limit of $50,000, she filed a claim with her own insurer, State Farm, under her underinsured motorist (UIM) policy. Dissatisfied with State Farm’s settlement offer of $689.58, Lindsey sued State Farm under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) for declarations regarding Pantoja’s liability, her damages, and her entitlement to UIM benefits. She also sued State Farm and its claims adjuster for Insurance Code violations, alleging bad faith in handling her claim.The trial court denied State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual claims and to quash the deposition notice of its corporate representative. The court of appeals denied State Farm’s mandamus petitions without substantive explanation. State Farm then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for mandamus relief.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying State Farm’s motions. The court ruled that extracontractual claims must be abated until the insured obtains a favorable judgment on the UIM coverage, as these claims are dependent on the right to receive UIM benefits. The court also held that discovery on extracontractual matters is improper before establishing entitlement to UIM benefits. Additionally, the court found that State Farm had demonstrated that the deposition of its corporate representative was not proportional to the needs of the case, given the lack of personal knowledge and the burden of the proposed discovery.The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted State Farm’s petition for writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its previous orders and grant State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual claims and to quash the deposition notice. View "IN RE STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law