Court Rulings

Granting in part and denying in par Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 91a because the pleadings fail to state a legally cognizable claim for breach of contract or for veil piercing, and the fraud claim is adequately pleaded.. This opinion addresses Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction which challenged the Court's jurisdiction over Plaintiff's third-party claims filed against multiple subcontractors who performed work on a construction project. The Court denied Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding the third-party claims met the definition of an "action arising out of a qualified transaction" under Section 25A.004(d)(1). Further, the Court found the third-party claims were neither "conjectural, hypothetical or remote" and therefore ripe. Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment contending that Plaintiff's tortious interference with contract, defamation, and business disparagement claims are barred by the limitation-of-liability provision in the parties' 2022 agreement. Granting a third-party defendant's special appearance arguing no personal jurisdiction over him because he did not commit any tortious acts while in Texas. Because the respondents did not plead or prove that this defendant has sufficient Texas contacts giving rise to the claims against him to support personal jurisdiction over him for any pled cause of action, the court granted the non-resident's special appearances and dismissed the claims against him without prejudice. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g), the Court issues this decision holding that (1) fact issues preclude the Court from determining whether the liquidated-damages clause in the parties' contract is an unenforceable penalty and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's cost-basis theory is not the correct measure of the plaintiff's actual damages. In this force-majeure dispute arising out of Winter Storm Uri, parties to a contract for the sale of

plain language of lease, early termination clause validly employed by landlord, lease provided landlord right to cause vacation with 90-day notice (and tenant had right to vacate with 30-day notice).

summary ejectment, writ of possession, holdover tenant, counterclaim, affirmative defenses, retaliatory eviction, interlocutory appeal, substantial right, jurisdiction, dismiss

Interlocutory appeal; Rule 65 bond determination; petition for writ of certiorari.

Workers' Compensation Act; Pleasant claim; Rule 12(b) dismissal; subject-matter jurisdiction; special-employee doctrine

Appellee filed this action, as next of kin of Decedent, against Appellant nursing facility alleging that Appellant was negligent in its care of Decedent. Appellee also asserted a wrongful death claim. Appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration on its allegation that Decedent signed a binding arbitration agreement before being admitted into its facility. The trial court found that Appellant failed to authenticate the alleged arbitration agreement and concluded that there was no evidence of a binding arbitration agreement between Appellant and Decedent. As such, the trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Mandamus—Public-records requests—S.Ct.Prac.R 12.06(B) did not permit untimely filing of additional evidence that respondent inadvertently failed to file—Public office's conclusory statements failed to prove that investigation report was subject to public-records exemption—Public office failed to submit evidence proving that security-video footage was subject to public-records exemption for infrastructure records—Records custodian improperly responded to public-records request by telling requestor to request record of grievance disposition from someone else—Inmate did not have cognizable claim in mandamus regarding information provided before mandamus complaint was filed—Inmate failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that records custodian had received inmate's remaining public-records requests, and thus, there was no duty for custodian to respond—Writ granted in part and denied in part, inmate awarded $1,000 in statutory damages, and inmate's request for court costs denied.

This is an appeal from an eviction judgment for respondent landlord based on nonpayment of rent by appellant tenant. In challenging that judgment, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion because (1) respondent's counsel engaged in misconduct and (2) the eviction was retaliatory. Appellant also (3) asserts that respondent's purported failure to address certain affidavits that appellant filed in the district court amounts to concessions and (4) makes several arguments challenging decisions by the district court after appellant filed the notice of appeal. We affirm.

This opinion addresses Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction which challenged the Court's jurisdiction over Plaintiff's third-party claims filed against multiple subcontractors who performed work on a construction project. The Court denied Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding the third-party claims met the definition of an "action arising out of a qualified transaction" under Section 25A.004(d)(1). Further, the Court found the third-party claims were neither "conjectural, hypothetical or remote" and therefore ripe. Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment contending that Plaintiff's tortious interference with contract, defamation, and business disparagement claims are barred by the limitation-of-liability provision in the parties' 2022 agreement. Granting a third-party defendant's special appearance arguing no personal jurisdiction over him because he did not commit any tortious acts while in Texas. Because the respondents did not plead or prove that this defendant has sufficient Texas contacts giving rise to the claims against him to support personal jurisdiction over him for any pled cause of action, the court granted the non-resident's special appearances and dismissed the claims against him without prejudice. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g), the Court issues this decision holding that (1) fact issues preclude the Court from determining whether the liquidated-damages clause in the parties' contract is an unenforceable penalty and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's cost-basis theory is not the correct measure of the plaintiff's actual damages. In this force-majeure dispute arising out of Winter Storm Uri, parties to a contract for the sale of natural gas dispute whether the seller should have (i) purchased gas on the spot market to cover any production shortfall or (ii) bought back its delivery obligation. The Court holds that the parties' contract did not obligate the s