Hernandez v. Abraham
| Decision Date | 21 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | NO. 14-13-00567-CV,14-13-00567-CV |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | LINDA HERNANDEZ, JOSE HERNANDEZ, JAVIER VASQUEZ, CLAUDIA GIL, RAUL VASQUEZ AND VIRGINIA VASQUEZ, Appellants v. ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS & FRIEND, A TEXAS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, RANDALL SORRELS, AND BERNARDINO AGOSTO, JR., Appellees |
On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas
This is a legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty suit filed by appellants Jose Hernandez, Linda Hernandez, Javier Vasquez, Claudia Gil, Raul Vasquez, and Virginia Vasquez against appellees Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels & Friend, a Texas General Partnership, Randall Sorrels, and BernardinoAgosto, Jr. (collectively the Law Firm), their former attorneys. Appellants alleged the Law Firm committed malpractice and breached fiduciary duties when it settled appellants' claims arising out of the 2005 BP plant explosion (BP Explosion) for insufficient amounts of money. The Law Firm filed its own petition against appellants in another court, seeking a declaratory judgment. After the cases were consolidated by transfer, the trial court granted nine separate motions for partial summary judgment filed by the Law Firm, denied appellants' motion for partial summary judgment, and then signed a final take-nothing judgment.
Appellants raise four issues on appeal. In their first issue, appellants contend the trial court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to dismiss, which argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Law Firm's suit because it sought a declaration of non-liability to appellants in tort. In their second and third issues, appellants contend Texas recognizes a cause of action for an attorney's negligent settlement of a client's claims, and the trial court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to compel the Law Firm to respond to discovery they contend was relevant to that cause of action. Because appellants have not established the trial court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to dismiss or their motion to compel discovery, we overrule their first three issues.
In their fourth issue, appellants assert the trial court erred when it granted nine motions for partial summary judgment filed by the Law Firm and denied their own motion for partial summary judgment. We overrule this issue because (1) appellants did not produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact in response to the Law Firm's no-evidence motions for partial summary judgment on appellants' tort causes of action; (2) the Law Firm proved its entitlement to summary judgment on appellants' breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action; (3) the Law Firm established as a matter of law that it wasentitled to release of the funds it had placed in the court registry; and (4) we cannot reach the denial of appellants' own motion for partial summary judgment. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.
Appellants Jose Hernandez, Javier Vasquez, and Raul Vasquez were working at the BP plant in Texas City on March 23, 2005, when the explosion occurred.1 All three retained the Law Firm to represent them in pursuing any claims they may have had arising out of the explosion. Each alleged he was injured by the explosion, but it is undisputed that none required immediate emergency medical care in the aftermath of the explosion. It is also undisputed that all three returned to work soon after the explosion, and that the incomes of at least two of the three workers have risen above their pre-explosion level.
The Law Firm never initiated litigation in pursuit of appellants' claims, but included them in the mediation and negotiations to settle all of the Law Firm's BP Explosion clients' claims. The Law Firm negotiated settlements of each of the three claims at separate mediations. Raul accepted a settlement of $55,000; Javier and Jose each accepted a settlement of $40,000. Each settlement included a release of all claims the spouses may have had.
Following the acceptance of the settlements, appellants became dissatisfied with the amounts and retained their current legal counsel to pursue any claims theymay have had against the Law Firm.2 Their new attorney sent a DTPA demand letter to the Law Firm claiming appellants suffered at least $6 million in damages as a result of the Law Firm's alleged malpractice. The demand letter included a request that the Law Firm turn over the appellants' "entire original file," including "all of the documents and other material in your constructive possession regarding" the BP Explosion litigation that had been filed in Galveston County district court.3
After receiving the demand letter, the Law Firm filed a petition in intervention in the Galveston County case seeking a declaratory judgment; its petition also included an interpleader action seeking to determine who had the right to possess the fees and expenses the Law Firm had earned in representing appellants, which the Law Firm deposited into the registry of the trial court. The Law Firm sought six declarations. Four of the declarations concerned the documents requested by appellants in their DTPA demand letter, which the Law Firm believed might be covered by a protective order in the underlying litigation, covered by a confidentiality agreement, and protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege and as attorney work product. The Law Firm also sought declarations that: the Law Firm had complied with its responsibilities in handling appellants' claims and obtained fair settlements for them; and appellants had already received all of the money they were entitled to receive, or alternatively they were entitled to no more than the amount in the registry of the court.
Appellants filed a motion to dismiss, followed by an amended answer and plea to the jurisdiction, asking the trial court to dismiss the Law Firm's suit The trial court denied the motion.
Appellants filed suit in Harris County once the DTPA notice period had expired. Appellants alleged the Law Firm committed malpractice and breached their fiduciary duties by settling their cases for too little money. The Harris County case was transferred to Galveston County and consolidated with the Law Firm's declaratory judgment action. The parties were realigned and appellants were designated the plaintiffs in the consolidated action.
Appellants eventually sought discovery of documents relating to the claims of the Law Firm's other BP Explosion clients, particularly the amounts for which the claims settled and the types of injuries the other clients experienced as a result of the explosion. The Law Firm resisted the discovery, and appellants moved to compel. The trial court denied the motion to compel and appellants sought mandamus relief, which another panel of this Court denied in a written opinion. See In re Hernandez, No. 14-11-00408-CV, 2011 WL 4600706 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 6, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We held, in part, that appellants' discovery requests were overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. at *3.
Appellants sought discovery again in their Third Request for Production, this time with respect to the Law Firm's similarly situated clients.4 The Law Firmlodged objections to the requests and appellants filed another motion to compel, which the trial court once again denied. Appellants filed a second mandamus proceeding, which this Court denied without explanation. See In re Hernandez, 14-12-00935-CV, 2013 WL 85176 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 8, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). In this appeal, appellants renew their challenge to the trial court's denial of their motion.
Back in the trial court, the Law Firm filed eight separate motions for partial summary judgment attacking appellants' causes of action. The Law Firm also filed a traditional motion for partial summary judgment on its claim to the proceeds that had been placed in the trial court's registry; the Law Firm nonsuited its remaining claims. The trial court granted all nine motions, sustained all of the objections the Law Firm had lodged against appellants' summary judgment evidence, and signed an "Order Granting Final Summary Judgment." This appeal followed.
Appellants raised four issues on appeal but briefed them as three, consolidating their second and third issues. We address appellants' issues in the same manner.
In their first issue, appellants assert that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to dismiss the Law Firm's declaratory judgment action. Appellants initially argue that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to declare non-liability in a tort action, and thus it should have dismissed the LawFirm's suit in its entirety. In their reply brief, appellants further contend that even if the trial court had jurisdiction over the Law Firm's declaratory judgment action, it still had discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction because the Law Firm sought a declaration of non-liability in a tort action. Appellants conclude the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to dismiss the Law Firm's declaratory judgment action, citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. 1985).
We disagree that A...
To continue reading
Request your trial