Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Johari Powell suffered serious injuries when her 2009 Hyundai Elantra stalled in traffic and was rear-ended. Powell alleged that the car stalled due to a fuel pump failure. Paul Swacina, on behalf of Powell and her minor children, sued multiple defendants in Texas state court, including Hyundam Industrial Company, Ltd., the manufacturer of the fuel pump. Hyundam, a South Korean company, filed a special appearance under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a, requesting dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Hyundam argued it had no business operations or direct sales in Texas and no control over where its products were sold.The trial court overruled Swacina’s objections to an affidavit by Hyundam’s Managing Director and denied Hyundam’s special appearance. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Hyundam purposefully availed itself of the Texas market by designing fuel pumps for the North American region, which includes Texas. The court of appeals found that Hyundam’s actions were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and reversed the court of appeals' decision. The court held that there was no evidence Hyundam specifically targeted Texas. Designing a product for the North American region, which includes Texas, does not constitute purposeful availment of the Texas market. The court emphasized that mere foreseeability of a product ending up in Texas is insufficient for personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that Hyundam did not engage in any conduct specifically targeting Texas and thus did not purposefully avail itself of the Texas market. The Supreme Court of Texas rendered judgment dismissing the case against Hyundam. View "Hyundam Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Swacina" on Justia Law

Cesar Posada sued Osvanis Lozada and his employer, TELS, Inc., after a collision between their tractor-trailers. Posada claimed negligence and negligence per se against Lozada and sought to hold TELS vicariously liable. Lozada's tire unexpectedly lost air, causing his truck to jackknife and block the highway, leading to Posada crashing into it. Lozada and TELS filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.The trial court in El Paso County granted the no-evidence motions for summary judgment filed by Lozada and TELS, dismissing Posada's claims. Posada's motions for a new trial were denied. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, holding that a reasonable jury could find that Lozada breached his duty of care and that his actions were the proximate cause of the collision. The court of appeals also reversed the summary judgment in favor of TELS, as their liability was predicated on Lozada's liability.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that Posada failed to produce summary-judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Lozada breached his duty of care. The court noted that the evidence showed Lozada was driving under the speed limit when his tire rapidly lost air, causing the accident. There was no evidence Lozada acted negligently in response to the tire failure. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment, dismissing Posada's claims against Lozada and TELS with prejudice. View "Lozada v. Posada" on Justia Law

A Piper Light Sport Aircraft lost engine power and crashed on a runway in Addison, Texas, causing severe injuries to Sheema Shaik, a passenger, and emotional distress to her husband, Touseef Siddiqui. The Shaiks, Texas residents, filed a lawsuit in Dallas County against multiple parties, including BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG (Rotax), the Austrian manufacturer of the aircraft engine. They claimed that Texas courts had specific personal jurisdiction over Rotax because it intentionally placed the defective engine into the stream of commerce, leading to its arrival in Texas.The trial court denied Rotax's special appearance motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas affirmed this decision, concluding that Rotax purposefully availed itself of the Texas market under the "stream-of-commerce-plus" test. The court of appeals cited Rotax's distribution agreement with Kodiak, its website, a repair center in Texas, and the number of Rotax engines registered in Texas as evidence of purposeful availment.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that Rotax did not purposefully avail itself of the Texas market. The evidence showed that Rotax's engines reached Texas through the unilateral actions of third parties, not through any direct targeting or control by Rotax. The court emphasized that mere foreseeability of a product ending up in Texas is insufficient for establishing specific personal jurisdiction. Therefore, the case against Rotax was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG v. Shaik" on Justia Law

A landowner recorded a plat dividing its property into seventy-three tracts, each between one and two acres. A restriction in the recorded deeds stated that no more than two residences could be built on any five-acre tract. Neighbors sued to enforce this restriction, arguing it limited development to no more than two residences per five acres.The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the neighbors, holding the restriction unambiguously limited development to two residences per five-acre tract. The court dismissed the landowner's defenses and counterclaims, except for changed conditions, and issued a temporary injunction. The jury found no changed conditions, and the court permanently enjoined the landowner from building more than two residences per five-acre tract. The court of appeals affirmed, holding the restriction unambiguously limited development and rejecting the landowner's defenses.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the restriction did not prevent the landowner from building one residence on each sub-five-acre tract. The court concluded that the restriction limited density, not tract size, and did not expressly address tracts smaller than five acres. The court reversed the judgment awarding the neighbors declaratory and injunctive relief and remanded for a new trial on the landowner's changed-conditions counterclaim, finding the jury was improperly instructed to consider only post-purchase changes. The court also held that nonparty adjoining landowners and the State were not necessary parties to the suit. View "EIS DEVELOPMENT II, LLC v. BUENA VISTA AREA ASSOCIATION" on Justia Law

In April 2022, six-year-old Emory Sayre was killed by her school bus in Parker County, Texas. The bus was manufactured by Blue Bird Body Company and sold by Rush Truck Centers of Texas to Brock Independent School District. Emory's parents, Sean and Tori Sayre, filed a lawsuit in Dallas County against Rush Truck and Blue Bird, asserting various claims including strict liability and negligence. They argued that venue was proper in Dallas County due to several activities related to the bus sale occurring there.The trial court denied the defendants' motion to transfer venue to Parker or Comal County. Rush Truck and Blue Bird filed an interlocutory appeal, which the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas affirmed, holding that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Dallas County.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and focused on whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory appeal. The Court held that Section 15.003(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code permits interlocutory appeals only in cases where a plaintiff’s independent claim to venue is at issue. Since the Sayres asserted identical claims based on identical facts with identical venue grounds, the trial court did not need to determine whether each plaintiff independently established proper venue. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in taking jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Texas vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P. v. Sayre" on Justia Law

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