GTE Communications Systems Corp. v. Curry
| Decision Date | 13 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-91-00465-CV,04-91-00465-CV |
| Citation | 819 S.W.2d 652 |
| Parties | GTE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS CORP., Relator, v. The Honorable Peter Michael CURRY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ruth Greenfield Malinas, J. Michael Ezzell, Ball and Weed, Thomas H. Crofts, Jr., Crofts, Callaway & Jefferson, San Antonio, for relator.
Pat Maloney, Jr., Law Offices of Pat Maloney, P.C., Rene R. Barrientos, Law Offices of Rene R. Barrientos, Timothy Patton, Pozza & Patton, San Antonio, for respondent.
Before REEVES, C.J., and BIERY and CARR, JJ.
This is an original proceeding in which relator, defendant below (GTE), asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rescind its sanctions order which struck GTE's pleadings and imposed a fine of $150,000 as attorney fees to be paid on entry of final judgment.
The suit arises out of a fatal accident. A pay telephone was affixed to the outside wall of Bud's Foodliner. Larry Bluethman allegedly stretched the metal cord of the telephone handset, normally about eighteen inches long, to over three feet across a sidewalk and tied the handset end to a pole holding up an awning. Shortly thereafter, two young boys on bicycles rode down the sidewalk. One boy was nearly decapitated when he ran into the stretched cord and died. The other boy avoided the cord but was injured. The parents of both boys brought suit against the store owner, ATS Pay Phone Supply, Inc., Quest Development, Larry Bluethman's estate, and GTE.
Plaintiffs alleged that GTE manufactured the handset and was negligent by designing and manufacturing a telephone handset that was easily disassembled and could be stretched; in failing to adequately warn of the danger of the misuse of this item; and in providing a defective telephone handset on commercial premises where third persons were at an unreasonable risk of harm. GTE filed a general denial and later sought summary judgment based on its denial that GTE manufactured, designed, or distributed the handset.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, GTE attached the affidavits of Robert Zimmermann, an employee of GTE, and of Oscar Jimenez, plant manager of General Cable Corporation. The gist of the affidavits is that the telephone cord was not a GTE product. Plaintiffs responded to the motion with a controverting affidavit, asserting that the cord was a GTE product.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment and denied GTE's motion. Plaintiffs then requested that the trial court impose sanctions against GTE under TEX.R.CIV.P. 215 and 13. Plaintiffs claimed that GTE violated rule 13 by filing false pleadings that are groundless and brought to avoid responsibility for a defective product, that GTE's affidavits were "misleading to the Court," and that its actions were done in bad faith. They also claimed that GTE abused the discovery process by resisting and failing to produce documents relevant to the defective nature of its product and its knowledge of its dangerous propensities.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion for sanctions and granted the motion. It ordered GTE's pleadings to be stricken and ordered GTE to pay $150,000 as reasonable attorney fees "upon entry of final judgment in this cause." Relator invoked our jurisdiction pursuant to TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 1988) and TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 920 (Tex.1991).
Rule 13 provides in part:
The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment. Attorneys or parties who shall ... make statements in pleading which they know to be groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a delay of the trial of the cause, shall be held guilty of a contempt. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry v. Low
...that the trial court state the particulars of the good cause for imposing sanctions is mandatory. Id. (citing GTE Communications Sys. Corp. v. Curry, 819 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1991, no writ)). A mere statement in the order that good cause was shown is insufficient to sustain......
-
Texas-Ohio Gas v. Mecom
...by agr.); Zarsky v. Zurich Management, Inc., 829 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ); GTE Communications Sys. Corp. v. Curry, 819 S.W.2d 652, 653-54 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, no writ); Kahn v. Garcia, 816 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ). The......
-
Guerra v. L&F Distribs., LLC
...in the sanction order." Id. The language of the rule is clear and unambiguous and its requirements are mandatory. In re GTE Commc'ns Sys. Corp. , 819 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991, orig. proceeding). The trial court may not impose Rule 13 sanctions without enumerating the part......
-
Dyson Descendant Corp. v. Sonat Exploration Co.
...order. Zarsky v. Zurich Management, Inc., 829 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ); GTE Communications Sys. Corp. v. Curry, 819 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1991, orig. proceeding); Kahn v. Garcia, 816 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, ......