law sanctions cases | Rule 13 | Tex. R. Civ. P. | death penalty sanctions | CPRC Chapter 10 Sanctions |
discovery abuse | frivolous appeal sanctions |

Sanctions Case Law

RECENT TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS       

Regent Care Center of San Antonio II, LP vs. Hargrave, No. 06-0717 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008)(per curiam) (HCLC,
medical malpractice, effect on nonsuit on health care provider's pending appeal of order denying sanctions)

Villafani vs. Trejo, M.D., No. 06-0501 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008)(Wainwright) (HCLC, ILA, denial of sanctions, effect
of nonsuit on defendant's right to appeal denial of motion for sanctions)  


PETITIONS DENIED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
IN APPEALS INVOLVING SANCTIONS ISSUE

08-0460  
JOSE THOTTUMKAL AND SARAMMA THOTTUMKAL v. LARRY MCDOUGAL; from Fort Bend County; 14th
district (14-06-00364-CV, 251 SW3d 715, 01-15-08)(frivolous suit sanctions in favor of defendant attorney
affirmed)While the award of attorney's fees based on McDougal's motion for summary judgment for defending
against the lawsuit is improper, the fee award for the Thottumkals' sanctionable conduct under section 10 is
proper.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. '' 10.001, 10.002, 10.004.  The trial court's order does not
clearly state that it awarded attorney's fees only for the sanctionable conduct; it potentially awards attorney's
fees based on the summary judgment motion.  To the extent that the order does grant attorney's fees on the
summary judgment motion, we sustain the Thottumkals' second issue.   
Accordingly, we modify the judgment to delete the award of attorney's fees as requested in defendant=s
motion for summary judgment for defending against this lawsuit and reflect that the award in the amount of
$5,536.50 is awarded to McDougal for sanctions under section 10.
We affirm the judgment as so modified.

07-1072  
BLACKBURNE & BROWN MORTGAGE FUND I AND DAVID, GOODMAN & MADOLE, A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION v. ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-06-00393-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 11-15-07, pet. denied May 2008) (no duty, sanctions, good faith
presumption, plenary power)

07-0628          
BONNIE L. JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF CHELSEA ELIZABETH JOHNSON, BENEFICIARY v. CHARLES
CHESTNUTT; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-05-01341-CV, 225 SW3d 737, 04-27-07,
pet. denied Jan 2008) (award of death penalty sanctions following nonsuit affirmed)
Bonnie Johnson, next friend for Chelsea Johnson, appeals the trial court's award of death penalty sanctions
and attorney's fees against her following her nonsuit of the case. In eight issues, categorized according to the
particular rule or statute under which the sanctions are challenged, Bonnie argues that the trial court erred
when it awarded sanctions under Tex. R. Civ. P. 215, Tex. R. Civ. P. 13, and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 10.004(b) (Vernon 2002). A motion requesting case-determinative sanctions was pending at the time
of the nonsuit. Because the award of sanctions was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unjust, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion when it sanctioned Bonnie under Tex. R. Civ. P. 215. Because we conclude that the
sanctions were properly awarded under Tex. R. Civ. P. 215, we need not consider whether the award was also
appropriate under Rule 13 and the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Because we conclude that the dismissal with prejudice and award of costs and attorney's fees was an
appropriate sanction under Tex. R. Civ. P. 215, we need not reach appellant's remaining issues challenging
the award under Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 and Chapter 10 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code.

07-0973          
IN THE INTEREST OF J.F., J.J. AND J.J., CHILDREN; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-07-00007-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-11-07, pet. denied Jan 2008)
(termination of parental rights, death penalty sanctions)