## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
NU M BER

13 -08 -00 501- CV A LV INO CH A CON , A pp ellan t, v. A NDREWS DISTRI BUTING COM PA NY LT D. A ND R OBE RTSA NC HEZ , A pp ellees . NUM BER 13-08- 0055 8-CV A LV INO CH A CON , A pp ellan t, v. WA L- M A RTST ORE S, IN C., A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 10 5t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of K leb erg Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

O pin ion b y

C hie f J us tice Vald ezBecause t he f i r st i s s ue p res ent ed o n ap peal i s i dent i cal i n bo t h case s, we, on our own m ot i on, 1 c o n s o l i d a te th e a p p e a l s . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1 ( “ T he cour t of appea l s m ust han d do wn a wr i t t en o pi ni on t hat i s as br i efas pr act i cabl e bu t t hat add r esses e v er y i ssue r ai sed a nd n ecessar y t o f i nal di sposi t i on o ft he ap pe al

. ”)

.

Sect i on 25. 1802 oft he gov er nm ent code def i nes t he j ur i sdi ct i on o fcoun t y cour t s at l aw i n Nueces 2 C o u n ty , n o t K l e b e rg C o u n ty

. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 2 5.10 82 (Ve rno n 2 00 4). 2 App ell ant, Al v ino C hacon , app eal s from summar y j udg ments g ra nted in fav or of appel lee s, W al- Ma rtStores , Inc. (c ause number 13- 08- 00558- CV ), Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng Com pa ny , Lt d. , an d R ob er t Sa nc he z( c au s e nu mb er 1 3- 08
- 00 50 1- C V)

. I n tw o issues, Cha con cont ends th a t th e di str ic t c our t er re d i n g ra nti ng su mmary j udg ments in the appel lee s’ favorb e ca u se : (1 ) the e v ide nce did not est abl is h as a mat ter of law thathe int enti onal ly

di sreg arded a county co urt atl aw ’s j ur is dicti on w here a s imi lar su itw as pr ev iou sl y

fil ed; and (2) the county courtat law

had jur is dic ti on to grant W al- Ma rt ’s moti on to designat e a respo nsible third party and th e de signation to lled limitat ions. W e af f irm in 1 par t and rev erse and remand i n par t. I. B A CKGRO UND On Octobe r 6, 2003 , Chaco n allegedly slipped and fell on a w et f loor in a W al-Mart sto re l o ca te d i n Ki ng sv il le, Tex as. Sh ortl y thereafter, C hacon retai ned t he l aw fir m of Her rman & H er rman, L.L. P. t o recov er damag es for the injur ies that he all eg edl y su sta ine d, and a sui t w as filed w it hin the tw o- y ear l imi tati ons per iod

. A . Co un ty

C ou rtSu it On Octobe r 4, 2005 , Chaco n brou ght a prem ises liability claim against W al-Mart in the K le b erg C ounty

C our t atLaw ( herein after “c ounty

co urt” ). C hacon ’s or ig ina l peti ti on all eg ed th at t he c ounty co urt had j ur is dic ti on unde r sec ti on 25. 1 8 0 2 o f the g ov er nment code, and itd id not spec ify the amount i n c ontrov ersy . W al- Ma rtans w ered and filed 2 spec ial ex cept ion s req uest ing thatC hacon amend his peti ti on to sp eci fy the max imum3

amount o f damage s s oug ht. On De cember 15 , 200 5, C hacon amended his peti ti on to spec ify thatthe max imum amoun t of damag es soug ht w as $1,000, 000. On September 1, 2006, W al- Ma rt soug ht and re cei v ed lea v e of cour t t o des ig nate Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng , a beer di str ibu ti ng co mpany , and Sanc hez , an Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng em ployee (he re in af

ter collectively

referred to as “Andrews D istributing”), as responsib le thi rd par ti es. See T EX . C IV . P R AC
. & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 33. 004 ( Ver n o n 2 0 08)

. On September

22, 2006, Cha con filed hi s s e cond amended p eti ti on, w hic h i ncl uded negligence claims a gainst And rew s Distri but ing, allegi ng that Sa nche zw as a s k e d b y a W al- Ma rtempl o yee t o c auti on c ust omers abouta w et area of the sto re ’s floor , t hat h e faile d to do s o, an d tha t C hacon w as inj ured, i n par t, by Sanc hez ’s neg li g ence. On M ay 8, 2007, Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng mov ed to di smi ss C hacon ’s su itfor l ack of jur is dic ti on on the g ro und t hat t he amountin c o n tr ov ersy w as bey ond t he j ur is dicti onal li mits of the c ounty

co urt. Andrew s Di str ibu ti ng arg ued that: (1 ) the county co urt c oul d not hear any matt e r in w hic h the amount in cont ro v ersy ex ceede d $100, 000; (2 ) Cha con ple aded for

$1,0 00,000 in damages in his firs t and second amended petit ion s; and ( 3) he knew w hen s uitw as filed thathi s d a m a ges w ere ov er $100, 000. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 25.1392 ( Ver non 2004) ( prov idi ng thatj ur is dic ti on for the K leb erg C ounty C our t at Law is set by , among othe r sta tutes , s ect ion 25.0 03 of the g ov er nment c ode) ; id . § 25.003 (V er non Su pp. 2008) (p ro v idi ng thatthe max imum amoun t i n c ontrov ersy for c ounty

co urts at l aw i s $ 100,000 ). In s uppor

t of i ts moti on, A ndrew s D is tr ibu tin g a ttached a tabu lat ion of medic al
ex pense s a nd s ev eral medic al bil ls thatC hacon had dis cl osed to W al-Ma rt throug h the dis cov er y proces s. The tab ula ti on, w hic h i s u ndated, l is ts bil ls from s ev eral medic alC h a c o n w a s b ille d a to ta l o f$ 1 ,3 9 6 .0 0 f o r “ g lu c o s b ld m e te r ,” “ m a g n e s iu m b ld ,” a n d “ b a s ic m e ta b o lic 3 p a n e l .” H e w a s a l s o b i l l e d $ 1 ,3 2 0 .0 0 fo r a n “o p e n h e a rt s u rg e ry u n i t.”

At t ached t o Chacon’ s r esponse was an aff i dav i t by G ar ci a. T he co nt ent s of t he a ff i dav i t wi l l be 4 di scussed i n sub sect i on I I I of t hi s opi ni on. 4 prov ide rs and all eges thatC hacon ’s tot al medic al ex pense s w ere $182, 112.72. The attac hed bi ll s t hat w ere us ed in the tabulat ion show thatC hacon w as, inter alia , treate d in a Ki ng sv il le emerg ency ro om the day of t he acc ide nt ata c ostof $6,549. 37, h ospi tal iz ed at C or pus Chr is ti M edi cal C enter from June 9 to 12, 2 004, at a cos t of $100, 949.00, and
re cei v ed s ev eral ra dio log ic al sc a n s o f his lumbar

reg ion throug hout 2004. The C or pus Chr is ti M edi cal C enter

bi ll i ncl udes charg es for c are tha t app ear rela ted t o di abetes and a hear t c ondi ti on. 3 Chaco n respo nde d to the dism issal mo tion by arguing tha t the suit w as mista kenly filed i n c ounty

co u rt b e ca use Deb ra Garci a, a li ti g ati on l eg al ass is tant w ho drafted the pet ition, b elieved tha t the coun ty court had concurrent jurisdiction wi th district cou rts, w hich is g enerall y

the pract ic e i n N ueces C ounty ’s co unty co urts at l aw . Ad dit ion all y , C hacon 4 plea ded in his response t hatCind y Trigo, a pre-litig ation legal assistant, a ttem pte d to set tle the suit for almo st tw o y ears, bu t w hen no settlem ent w as reach ed, suit w as f iled sho rtly before t he tw o- y ear

l imi tati ons per iod ran. Cha con cont ended t hat a t t he time s uitw as filed , nei ther

Ky z my ck

By er ly , the assoc iat e handli ng hi s c ase, nor Garci a “ [w as] aw are of the f ull ex tent of [C hacon ’s ] inj ur ies .” In the ev ent of dis mis sal , Chac on req uest ed a findi ng that his fil ing w as an “ uni ntent ion al” di sreg ard of the county co urt’ s j ur is dic ti onal l imi ts. On J une 19, 2007, the county co urt di smi ss ed Cha con’ s sui t w it hout preju dic e and d e n i e d a l l o t h e r

re l i e f. B. Di st rictC ou rtSu it On A ug ust1, 2007, Cha co n f ile d hi s p re mis e l iab il ity cl aim in the 1 05th Judi ci alS ec t i on 16

. 06 4 t ol l s t he runn i ng of l i m i t ati on s from the d ate a pl ai nti ff fi l es a n ac t i on i n o ne t ri al co urt 5 unt i l t he f i l i ng o ft he sa m e act i on i n a di ff er ent cour t i f(1 ) t he f i r st act i on i s di sm i ssed, set asi de, orann ul l ed f or l ack ofj ur i sdi ct i on, and ( 2) t he second sui t i s f i l ed wi t hi n si xt y day s of t he d i sm i ssal or di sposi t i on o ft he firs t a c ti o n . T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 6 .0 6 4 ( a ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 8 )

. S e c tio n 1 6 .0 6 4 ( a ) d o e s n o t a p p ly i f t he fi rst ac t i on w as fi l ed w i t h “i nten t i on al di s reg ard of pro pe r j uri s di c t i on . ” Id

. § 1 6.06 4(b ).

Andr ews D i st r i but i ng a l so m ov ed f or sum m ar y j udgm ent on t he gr ound t hat t he count y cour t di d no t 6 h a v e ju ris d i c ti o n to g ra n t W a l -M a rt’ s m o ti o n fo r l e a v e to d e s i g n a te i t a s a re s p o n s i b l e th i rd p a rty. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 3 3 .0 0 4 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 8 ) . T h e s e c tio n 3 3 .0 0 4 g r o u n d w ill b e d e ta ile d in s u b s e c ti o n IV o f th i s o p i n i o n . 5 Di str ic t C our

t of Kl eberg C ounty

aga in st W al- Ma rtand Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng . The defendants answ ered w it h a g eneral deni al. I n addi tio n, W al- Ma rtas ser ted n umero us aff ir mati v e defenses , i ncl udi ng l imi tati ons. See T EX . C IV . P R AC
. & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 16.003 (V er non Su pp. 2 008) ( presc ribi ng a tw o- y ear st atute of li mita ti ons for personal inj ur y cl aims ). On May

15, 2008, Cha con amended his petiti on to req uesta t oll ing of the li mita ti ons per iod under sec ti on 16.064 of t he ci v il pract ic e and re medies co de. See i d. § 16. 064 (Vernon 200 8). 5 In t h e s pr ing of 2008, W al- Ma rtand Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng fil ed s imi lar moti ons for
summar y j udg ment on, inter alia , tw o g ro unds ass erti ng that secti on 16. 064 w as ina ppl ic abl e bec ause Cha con’s f iling of the s uiti n c ounty co urt w as not a n ac ci dent or mis tak e, bu t i nst ead, w as an “ int enti onal di sreg ard of prope r jur is dicti on.” In s uppor t of 6 thei r moti o n s, t h e defendants att ached su bst anti al por ti ons of the c ler k’ s record i n the county co urt s uit , w h ich i ncl uded s ev eral ple adi ng s, the t abul ati on of C hacon ’s medi cal bil ls , and the medic al bil ls thatw er e s ummari z ed i n the tabu lat ion

. T he d efend ant s, ant icipating Chaco n w ould blam e any mista ke on legal assistan ts,
asser t ed a s their f irst summ aryjudgmen t groun d tha t any miscalculat ion of Chacon ’s damag es was irre lev ant b ecaus e the l aw fir m “ int enti onal ly ” filed su iti n c ounty co urt, bel iev ing the county

co urt had co ncurre n t jur is dicti on w it h di str ic t c our t. The l eg al
ass is tant’ s mi sunde rs tandi ng of the c ounty co urt’ s j ur is dic ti onal l i mi t s , A n d re ws D i str ibu ti ng6

po s i te d, w ou l d ha v e l ed to fi l i ng th e s ui t i n c ou nty c ou rt r eg ardl es s of k no w ing the f ull
extent of Chac on’ s i nju ri es, and suc h a mi sta ke w as a mi sta ke of law thatse cti on 16. 064
w as not i ntended to re medy

. As to th e secon d sum ma ry judgmen t groun d, th e de fend ant s argued tha t the record esta blished as a ma tter of law tha t Chaco n knew his dam ages exceede d $1 00, 000 before suit w as fi l ed b y

p oi nt i ng t o th e ta bu l at i on a nd t he d at es t ha t th e me di c al b i l l s w er e inv oic ed, w hic h s how

treatments and bil li ng date s i n 2003 and 2004. Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng specif ically

argued tha t “[i]t stand s to reaso n tha t [Chaco n], h is attorne y s, and his attor ney [s’ ] s taff

w oul d notatt empt t o s ettl e hi s c ase, pr ior to fili ng su it , w it hout ev en a basic asse ssme nt of

[Chaco n’s] me dical bills or o t h e r d a m ages for w hich he seeks recovery .” Cha con re spond ed byarg uin g thatthe re cord aff ir mati v ely demons trated that the county co urt had j ur is dicti on w hen t he s uitw as or ig ina ll y fil ed becau se his or ig ina l peti ti on did not spec ify

an a mount i n c ontrov ersy . The “ demonst ra ti on of j ur is dic ti on” i n his or ig ina l peti ti on, Cha con arg ued, neg ated the i ntent ion al dis re g ard ex cept ion to the t oll ing st atute

. Cha con als o arg ued t hat t he defendants fail ed to es tabl is h tha t G ar ci a and By er ly kn ew the ful l extent of his i nju ri es w hen t hey drafted and s ig ned t he pet it ion

. As ev ide nti ar

y suppo rt ag ain st summar y jud g ment, Cha con attac hed affidav it s from Tri g o, G ar ci a, an d By er ly

. Tri g o av er re d: I first met w it h M r. Al v ino C hacon on o r about Oct ober 13, 2003. Mr . C hacon had b e e n i n j u r e d o n t h e p r e mi s e s o f W a l
- M a rt

. I w a s t h e L e g a l As si sta nt w ho w as ass ig ned t o w or k o n M r. C hacon ’s ca se. I t w as I, and my as si sta nt G ra c ie C is n e ro s , wh o c o rr e s p o n d e d wi t h Mr

. Ch a c o n a n d t h e re p re s e n t a t ive of W al-Mart. For nea rly

tw o y ears I ma de se v eral atte mp ts to sett le the case w it h W al- Ma rt

. W hen i t bec ame apparent t hat t he c ase w as not goi n g to set tl e before the ru nni ng of the s tatut e of li mita ti ons on Octobe r 6 , 2003, I ask ed M s. Deb ra Garci a to draft a petit ion so thata l aw sui t c oul d be filed

.7

After that re q uest , I had no further deal ing w it h Mr . C hacon ’s ca se. I di d not w or k o n the peti ti on, n or di d I see a draft of the pet it ion

. Garci a av er re d: I am the legal secreta ry for Mr. Gregory

H. Herr ma n. I han dle all calls for him and per form l eg al sec re tar ial duti es. I am als o in charg e of prepar ing drafts for th e maj or ity

of lawsui ts in t his fir m. I remember prepar ing a draft for rev iew on be half

of Alv ino Chaco n in Kleb erg C oun ty. Th e styl e of the case w as C a u s e N o . 0 5
- 4 9 6
- C ; A l v i n o C h a c o n v . W a l
- M a rt S t o r e s , I n c . I w as g iv en M r. C hacon ’s ca se by Leg al Ass is tant Ci ndy

Tri g o w ho had w or ked on t h e f il e in p re -l it ig a t io n . T h e f il e wa s gi ve n t o m e t o d ra f t a la wsu itt h re e d a ys pr ior to the ru nni ng of t he sta tute of l imi tati ons. I prepared a draft of the lawsui t bas ed on the i nformati on I had atthe ti me. I then g av e the p eti ti on to M s. Kyz my ck

By er ly to re v iew

and si g n on behal f o f

M r. H er rman. After Ms. By erly

sig ned the pet ition, I filed Mr . Chaco n’s case in th e Coun ty Court at Law in Kleb erg Coun ty not knowing the f ull exten t of Mr . Chaco n’s injuries. Mr . H er rman ass ig ned t he cas e to Ms . By er ly after D efendant W al- Ma rtfil ed an An sw er. By er ly av er re d: I am a n att or ney

at Her rman and H er rman , L .L .P

. O n or aboutOc tober

3, 2003, I w as handed a draft of a peti ti on per tai nin g to Al v ino C hacon to re v iew from M r. Greg or

y H er rman’ s l eg al sec re tar y Deb ra R. Garci a. I rev iew ed th e p e titi on and si g ned t he pet it ion w it h per mis si on. At t he ti me I s ig ned t he peti ti on I w as not a w are of th e e xtent of M r. C hacon ’s i nju ri es hav ing not w or ked on th e c ase pr ior to thi s. After the c ase w as in li ti g ati on, M r. H er rman assigned th e case to me . Upon respo n d in g t o Defend antW al-Mart’s Request for Disclosures, I discovered the exten t of Mr . Chaco n’s injuries. Chaco n claime d tha t the tabu lation and me dical bills w ere discov eryprodu cts, an d Byerly did not know

aboutthem unti l w ell after su itw as filed

. T h e trial court granted summ aryjudgmen t in favor of W al-Mart and An d re ws Di str ibu ti ng , w it hout spec ify ing w hic h g ro und( s ) i t re l i e d u p on, a nd di smi ss ed C hacon ’s su it

. Cha con’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial w as deni ed by

w ri tten order

. This appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s g ra nt or

deni al of a tradi ti onal m oti on for su mmary

j udg ment8

under a de nov o s tandard of rev iew

. Cr editwatch, Inc. v. Ja ck

son , 157 S.W .3d 8 14, 8 16
n .7 (T e x. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Schn eider Nat’ l Car ri er s, Inc . v. B ates , 147 S.W .3d 2 64, 2 90 n. 137 (Tex. 2004)) ; Alan iz

v. Hoyt , 105 S.W .3d 3 30, 3 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet.)

. The functi on of s ummary jud g ment is to eli minat e patent ly unmer it or iou s c lai ms and defenses, not to de pr iv e l it ig ants of the r ig ht t o a t ri al by j ur y . Tex. Dep’

t of Par ks & Wildli fe
v. Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d 2 17, 2 28 ( Tex . 200 4) ; Alan iz , 105 S.W .3d a t 345

. T o ob tain relief

v ia a tr a d it iona l motio n for sum ma ry judgmen t, the movant m ust est abl is h tha t no mater ial fact i ss ue ex is ts and that iti s e nti tl ed to j udg ment as a mat ter of law

. T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 66a( c) ; Sw. Elec. Power C o. v . G ra nt , 7 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (T e x. 2002) ; Mow

bray v. Avery , 76 S.W .3d 6 63, 6 90 (T ex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. den ied). Af

ter the movant p rodu ces evidence suf f icient to show it is e ntitled t o sum ma ry jud g ment, the n on- mov ant must then pres ent ev ide nce ra is ing a fact iss ue. See Walk er v. Harris , 924 S.W .2d 375 , 377 (Te x . 199 6). In deciding w het her there is a dispute d fact is sue that pr ecl u d e s su m mary j udg ment, ev ide nce fav orabl e to the n on- mov ant w il l be tak en as tr ue. Ni

xon v. Mr. P ro p . Mg mt. C o. , 690 S.W .2d 546 , 548 -49 (Te x . 198 5). Evi den ce favorable to th e mo v ant , h o w ever, w ill notbe con sidered unless it is
uncon trov erted. Gr

eat A m . R eser

ve Ins . C o. v. Sa n AntonioPlum bin g Supp ly C o. , 391 S.W .2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1965 ). M oreo v er, every reason a b le i nferen ce mu st be ind ulged in fav or of t he nonmov ant and any doubt s resol v ed i n hi s fav or . Ni xon , 690 S.W .2d a t 549

. In t his ca se, C hacon pl eaded fort h e appl ic ati on of the tol li ng prov is ion i n s ect ion 16. 064 of

the c ivi l p ra c t ic e and reme dies cod e. T he a pplicab ility of section 16.0 64 is a q uest ion of law , w hic h w e rev iew de n ov o. Br

own v. Fullenweide r

, 135 S.W .3d 3 40, 3 42 (T e x. Ap p .– T e xark a n a 20 0 4 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Tex. Dep ’ t of T ra nsp. v. Needham , 829

S.W .3d 3 14, 3 18 ( Tex . 200 2) ). Li mita ti ons is an a ff ir mati v e defense, and a defendant
ass erti ng l imi tati ons must ple ad, p ro v e, an d s ecure findi ng s o n that is sue. T EX . R. C IV . P. 94; W oods v. W

il li amM. Mer

cer , Inc ., 769 S.W .2d 515, 517 (Tex . 1988). Limi tati ons may be address ed by

w ay of s p e cia l e xc epti ons or

othe r preli minar

y hear ing onl y

i f it is cl ear from the face of

the pla int iff’s plead ing s that li mita ti ons hav e run. See A rm str ong v . Sn app , 1 8 6 S .W .2d 3 80, 3 83 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–F ort W orth 19 45, n o w ri t) ; S te e le v . G le nn , 57 S.W .2d 9 08, 9 13 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–Eas tl and 193 3, w ri t di sm’ d w .o.j .)

. III . I NTENTI ONA L D I S RE GA RD In his f irst issue, Chaco n argues the district c o u rt ’s ruling thathe inte ntion ally dis re g arded t he c ounty co urt’ s j ur is dic ti onal l imi ts w hen he file d hi s first sui t, and s ect ion 16.064’ s t oll ing prov is ion w as thereby i nappl ic abl e, i s n ot s uppor ted b y the ev ide nce. The defendants cont end t hat Ch a co n ’s i ntent ion al dis re g ard i s e v ide nt fro m the face of the ple adi ng s i n the first sui t and can be “reason abl y infer re d” from the a ff ida v it s t hat C hacon tendered. A . A pp licab le L aw Sect ion 16.0 64 of the ci v il pract ic e and re medies co de prov ide s a tol li ng prov is ion for li ti g ati on ini ti all y

f il ed in a cour

t w it hout jur is dicti on if, w it hin sixty day s of the d is mis sal for l ack of j ur is dicti on, s uiti s fil ed i n a c our t of proper

j ur is dic ti on and if the ini ti al fili ng w as not d one w it h i n te n ti onal di sreg ard of proper j ur is dic ti on. T EX . C IV . P R AC
. & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 1 6 .06 4(a). Sectio n 16 .06 4 is to be libera lly construe d to ef

fectu ate its man ifest obj ect iv e—reli ef f ro m penal ty of l imi tati on bar to one w ho has mis tak enl y broug ht hi s a cti on in the w ro ng co urt—b ut i ts re ach is not li mitl ess . Cl ar y C or p. v . Sm it h , 949 S.W .2d 4 52, 461 ( Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 1997, w ri t den ied ); see als o Bur for d v . Su n Oi l Co. , 186 S.W .2d10

306 , 310 (T e x. C iv . App .–A ustin 1 944 , w rit ref ’d w .o.m .). The “li mit” tha t is tested in this appeal i s w hether

C hacon i ntent ion all y

disreg arded t he proper j ur is dic ti on of the county cour t by first fili ng su itthere.

“ I n t e n t io n a l d is re ga rd ” i s n o td e f in e d in t h e st a t u t e o r o u r c a s e la w; t h e re fo re , we must loo k to the phrase’ s common usag e and acc ord it a pl ain meani ng . See T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 33. 011 ( Ver non 200 5) ; see e.g., Mc Inty re v. Ram ir

ez , 109 S.W .3d 741, 74 5 (Tex . 200 3)

. Bl ack ’s L a w Dic ti o nar y defines i ntentas , among othe r thi ng s, “d esi g n, resolve, or determ inatio n w ith w hich [a ] person acts.” B L A CK ’ S L AW D I C T I O N A R Y 8 1 0 ( 6th ed. 1 990)

. It als o defines di sreg ard as “t o treat a s u nw orthy of re g ard or

noti ce; to tak e no not ice of ; to leave outof conside ration ; to ignore; to o v erlook; to fail to obse rv e.” Id . at472. T hus, f or

t he t r i al c ou rt to h av e g ran te d th e de fen da nt s ’ mo ti on for s um ma ry jud g ment on li mita ti ons, i t w oul d hav e to find as a matt er of law thatC hacon , ac ti ng w it h design, resolve, or det ermin ation , treat ed as unworthy of regard or notice the coun ty court’s amount- in- cont ro v ersy

l imi ts on i ts jur is dicti on. B. A nal ysis In mov ing for s ummary

j udg ment, each defend a n t u rg ed th e di str ic t c our

t t o c onsi der Cha con’ s f il ing of

the sui t i n c ounty

co urt as a mi sta ke of law thatse cti on 16. 064 w as not int ended to re dress , and that suc h a mis tak e of l aw coul d notbe o v er come b y the aff ida v it s from l aw fir m personne l. The defendants reli ed on Par ker v. C um m ing

for t he proposi ti on that sec ti on 16. 064 remedie s o nly mista ke s o f fact

. See 2 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d 9 0 5 , 9 0 8 (T e x. App.–E ast lan d 2007, pet. deni ed) ; see a lso Fren c h v. Gill , 2 5 2 S

. W

. 3 d 7 4 8 , 7 5 7 (T e x. App.

– T ex ar kana 2008, pet. deni ed) ( conc lud ing thatthe pla int iff is “c harg ed w it h knowledge of

the law” in analyz ing the app licability of section 16.0 64).11

In Par ker , t he pl ain ti ff ’s counsel f il ed a personal inju ry suitj ustbefore the tw o- y ear limita t io n s p e rio d ran in ba nkrup tcy court. 216 S.W .3d at 908 . Th e ba nkrup tcy court dis mis sed the pla int iff’s cl aim and so did the federal dis tr ic t cour t w hen the c lai m w as re f ile d the re . Id

. Th e p l a i n t i ff t h e n fi l e d h e r p e rs o n a l i n j u r y c l a i m i n s t a t e d i s t r i c tco urt and ple aded s ect ion 16. 0 6 4 ’s to ll ing prov is ion s, but t he s tate dis tr ic t c our t g ra nted the defendant s ummary

j udg me n t o n l imi tati ons. Id

. On ap peal , t he Eas tl and C our t of Appeal s, charg ing the pla int iff w it h know led g e of stat utor y prov is ion s, hel d tha t t he federal sta tute the p lai nti ff

reli ed on did not prov ide f ederal ju ri sdi cti on for her cla im, and that t he def end ant s “carri ed th eir burde n of proof .” Id . a t 9 1 1 (cit in g Vi rtual Healthc ar

e Ser vs ., Ltd.
v. Labor de , 193 S.W .3d 636 , 644 (Tex. App. –Ea stland 200 6, no pet. )). The Parker court, howev er, not ed th at th e plaint if f h ad notcreated a question o f fact li ke the p lai nti ff

i n W illiam son v. John Deere Company had don e. Id . (c it in g W illiam son v. John Dee re C o. , 708 S.W .2d 3 8, 40 (Tex . App.–Ty ler 1986, no w ri t) ). I n W

il li am son , t he pla int iff’s o ri g ina l federal cour t ple adi ng cl ear ly est abl is hed lac k of di v ersi ty j ur is dicti on on it s face, ev en th oug h s he pl eaded d iv ersi ty as a ba si s for

f ederal jur is dic ti on. W il li am son , 708 S. W .2d a t 38. The federal cour t di smi ss ed th e pl ain ti ff ’s su itfor lack of su bje ct- matter jur is dic ti on, a nd w hen s he fil ed i n state cour t, the defendants mov ed for summary

j udg ment on l imi tati ons and contes ted the appli cabi li ty of secti on 16.064’ s prec ursor . Id . at39. The plaint if f ’s counse l, respon ding to the summ aryjudgmen t mo tions, tend e re d an af f idavit
ex pla ini ng thatthe defect i n the federal co urt pl eadi ng w as the resul t of hi s mi sta ke. The W il li am son court he ld tha t the af f idavit creat ed a fact issue that p re c lu d e d summ ary jud g ment. W

il li am son , 708 S.W .2d a t 40. In thi s cas e, C hacon tend er ed affidav it s from Tri g o, G ar ci a, an d By er ly , w hic h tak en12

togeth er, illustrat e t h e in ner w orkings of the law f irm and its personn el’s misu nde rstand ings. The defend ant s’ tw o sum ma ry judgmen tg ro u nds lat ched onto this illustration , and they essentia lly equate d the law

f irm’s in ept itude to inten tiona l disregard beca use int entmay be p ro ven b y circumsta ntial evidence . Section 16.0 64, howev er, requires some f inding of “inten tiona l disregard,” and specif ic inten t is dif f icult to esta blish
as a matt er

of law

. See, e.g., Gar

ci a v . John Hancock V

ar iab le Lif e Ins . C o. , 859 S.W .2d 427 , 431 (Tex. App. –S a n Ant onio 199 3, w rit denied ) ( “W e thin k it to be a rare insta nce
w here subj ect iv e int ent coul d be est abl is hed as a matter of la w.”) (c it ing Harlow v. Fitz gera ld , 457 U.S. 800 , 816 -17(19 82)). As suppo rtfor t he defendants ’ firs t summary -j udg ment ground, w hic h as ser ts that Garci a w oul d hav e fil ed s uit in county co urt reg ardle ss of the e xtent of Chac on’ s i nju ri es becau se she mis understo od th e j ur is dic ti onal l imi ts of the c our ts, the defendants poi nt t o Garcia’s af

f idavit that w as f iled in the coun ty court. Th e cou nty court af f idavit substan tially compor ts w it h Garci a’s dis tr ic t cour t aff ida v it , w it h the ex cept ion of t he follo w ing addi ti onal sta tement: After Ms . By er ly si g ned the peti ti on, I filed Mr

. Cha con’ s cas e in the C ounty Cou rtat Law , notkn ow ing thatM r. C hacon ’s d a m a ges w ere bey ond t he jur is dicti onal l im it s o f the C ounty C our t. I ass umed tha t t he j ur is dicti onal limits for the Coun ty Court at Law in Kleb erg Coun ty ran con current wi th th eir Di str ic t C our

t as they do i n N ueces C ounty , Tex as, w here I file the maj or ity of Her rman & H er rman’ s l aw sui ts. F il ing thi s l aw sui t i n the C ounty C our t at Law w here i t l ack ed jur is dicti on w as not int enti onal but w as due t o nothav ing all the cor re ct infor mati on. T he d efend ant s p osit tha t Garcia w ould h ave filed Chacon ’s suit in count y court regardless of the amount in cont ro v ersy bec ause she mis understo od th e c ounty co urt’ s j ur is dic ti onal li mits , and they

i mpli ci tl y co ntend that “w oul d hav e” i s t antamountto int enti onal di sreg ard.See M i c h e l l e A n d re w s , 4 W a y s to S a v e o n Yo u r M e d ic a l B ills , U. S. N EW S & W OR L D R EPORTS ( Aug. 7 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 ), av ail ab l e at : h t t p : // h e a l t h

. u s n e ws . c o m / b l o g s / o n - h e a l t h
- a n d
- m oney/ 2008/ 08/ 21/ 4- way s- t o- sav e- ony our - m edi cal
- bi l l s. ht m l ( l ast v i si t ed on Jun. 23, 2009) ( “ Let t i ng t he [ m edi cal ] bi l l s pi l e up unope ned i s a popul ar bu t i ne ffec t i ve w ay t o a dd res s t he prob l em [ of m ou nti ng he al t hc are de bt]

. ”) 13 ButG a rcia doe s not sta te w hatshe “w ould have done ,” and we are to indu lge ev ery re asona ble i nferenc e i n C hacon ’s fav or rather than in the defendants’ fav or . See N ixon , 690 S. W .2d a t 549

. Garci a merely recoun ted h er m is understa ndi ng of the j ur is dic ti onal li mits of the c ounty

co urt and her ty pic al pract ic e in Nuec es Cou nty

. There is , t herefore, a fact q uest ion as to w hether su itw as filed i n c ounty co urt i ntent ion all y

or mis tak enl y . As to t he s econd g ro und, w hic h as ser ts that the record c oncl usi v ely es tabl is hes that Cha con knew

of his damag es before s uit w as firs t file d , t he defendants poi nt t o the tab ulatio n an d c o rresp ond ing medica l bills as con clusiv e evidence . W hile the presen ce of pre-suit me dical bill s , w hen presen ted to a fact f inde r, might w eigh in the de fend ant s’ fav or , i t i s c ounter-b ala nced by Garci a’s and By er ly ’s aff ida v ittes ti mony thattheyw ere not
aw are of the full extent of Chac on’ s i nju ri es w hen the peti ti on w as drafted and si g ned. But
see T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 3 ( “The si g natures of at torney s o r par ti es cons ti tute a c erti ficat e by the m th at th ey have read th e plea ding, mo tion, o r o t h e r p a p e r; thatto the best of their know led g e, i nfo rmat ion , and bel ief formed after re asona ble i nq uir y the ins tr ument i s n ot g ro undl ess and broug ht i n bad faith o r g ro undl ess and broug ht for the p u rp o se of hara ssme nt.”). By er ly furth er st ated that she became aw are of Ch acon’ s i njurie s w hen s he
re spond ed to W al- Mart ’s re q uest s for di sc los ure. Addi ti onal ly , t here i s n o ev ide nce that Cha con hims elf i mmediat ely re cei v ed and opened the b il ls on t he i nv oic ed dat e, no r that he cal cul ated the total amount of da mag es and infor med Garci a of a n y cal cul ati on. 7 Moreover, in response to our question s at oral argume nt, Byerly n o t e d t h a tshe initiallyT h e d i s s e n t c o n te n d s th a t t h e fa c ts in th i s c a s e a re u n d i s p u te d

. W e b e l i e v e th a t m o s t o f th e fa c ts 8 i n t hi s ca s e a re s ett l ed , w i t h t he ex c ep t i on of w he t he r t he l aw fi rm ’ s co nd uc t a m ou nted t o i nten t i on al di s reg ard as a m att er of l aw . T he d i s s en t rat i on al i z es i t s l eg al co nc l us i on by (1) i m pl i c i t l y de fi ni ng i nten t i on al di s reg ard as som e sor t ofnegl i gence, and (2 ) usi ng t he r ul es of pr of essi onal cond uct t o i m put e T r i go’ s knowl edge of C hacon’ s i nj ur i es t o B y er l y . W e bel i ev e t hat w e hav e expl i ci t l y and appr opr i at el y def i ned i nt ent i onal di sr egar d. Addi t i onal l y , W al
- M ar t has not ur ged any i m put at i on of k nowl edge bet ween l aw f i r m per sonnel based on t he r ul es of pr of essi on al c on du c t , and ouradv er sar i al sy st em of j ust i ce an d pr udent i al r ul es m i l i t at e ag ai nst c o n s i d e rin g s u c h a n u n b rie fe d i s s u e . M a k e n o m i s ta k e , w e a re n o f a n s o f n e g l i g e n t re p re s e n ta ti o n . S ee infr a not e 9. However , we ar e bo und by a def i ned st andar d of r ev i ew, t he l egi sl at ur e’ s choi ce of wor ds, and t he br i ef i ng b ef or e us.

O ur sust ai ni ng Chacon’ s f i r st i s s ue s houl d i n no way be i nt er pr et ed a s us condon i ng t he way 9 C hacon’ s sui t was ha ndl ed b y t he l aw f i r m . T he r ul es of pr of essi onal cond uct pr ohi bi t a l awy er f r om assi st i ng a pe r son who i s not a m em ber of t he b ar i n t he p er f or m ance of a c t i vi t y tha t const i t ut es t he u naut hor i z ed p ra c ti c e o f l a w . T EX
. D I S C I P L I N A R Y R. P ROF ’ L C O N D U C T 5. 05( b) , r epr i nt ed i n T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN ., ti t. 2 , s u b ti t. G app . A ( Ver non 2005) ( T ex. St at e Bar R

. ar t

. X , § 9)

. Com m ent 4 t o Rul e 5. 05 st at es, “Pa ragr aph ( b) of R ul e 5. 05 d oes n ot pr ohi bi t a l awy er f r om em pl oy i ng t he se r v i ces of par apr ofe s s i onal s and del egat i ng f unct i ons t o t hem

. So l ong as t he l awy er supe r v i ses t he del egat ed wor k , and r et ai ns r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he w ork , an d m ai ntai ns a d i rec t rel ati on s hi p w i t h t he cl i en t

. . . . ” Id

. at cm t

. 4. 14 bel iev ed C hacon had suffered o n ly a “ sof t t is sue inj ur

y ” at W al- Ma rtand pre- ex is ti ng cond itions m ay have agg rav ate d his injury . Inde ed, the Corpu s Christi Medical Cent er’s bil l detai ls ca re thata p p e a rs rela ted t o di abetes and a hear t c ondi ti on. There is , t hus, a fact issue as to w het her C haco n or Garcia and Byerly knew of the am oun t in contro v ersy
w hen he filed su iti n c ounty co urt. 8 Cha con’ s first is sue is su sta ine d. 9

IV. D ES I GNA TI ON OF R ESPON SI B LE T HI RD P A RTY And rew s Distri but ing w as no t ma de a party to th e suit in coun ty court un til September

2006, w hen t he tr ial co urt g ra nted W al- Ma rt ’s moti on to des ig nate a re spons ibl e thi rd par

ty ( the “ desi g nati on order”) a n d Chacon fil ed hi s s econd amended pet ition asse rting negli gence claim s against it. Under its third gr oun d for sum ma ry jud g ment, Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng es sent ial ly urg ed th e dist ri ct cour t t o dec lare the desi g nati on order

v oid and, bec ause the c ounty co urt l ack ed s ubj ect -mat ter j ur is dicti on to si g n the desi g nati on order , adj udi cat e it s i nv ali dity . See T EX . C IV . P R AC
. & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 33. 004( e) ( Ver non 2008). Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng co ntended thatbec ause the d esi g nati on15

order w as v oid , t here w as no ti mely -fil ed s uitag ain st itand there w as no s tatut or y prov is ion to to ll l imita tions. In hi s s econd i ss ue, C hacon arg ues that the e videnc e does not suppo rtthe tr ial
cour t’ s i mpli ci t r uli ng thatthe county co urt di d not hav e jur is dicti on to grant the des ig nati on order

. Spec ific all y , C hacon arg ues that becau se the face of his Oc tober 4, 2005 or ig ina l peti ti on i n c ounty

co urt di d notal leg e an amount in controv ersy , such an omi ss ion , w hen li berall y v iew ed, c onferred j ur is dicti on o n the county co urt and al low ed i t t o “ br ing i n” Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng after l imi tati ons had r un ac cordin g to the p ro v is ion s o f sect ion 33.004( e)

. On appeal , An drew s D is tr ibu ti ng co ntends thatC hacon di d notpreser v e hi s s econd is sue becau se he di d notarg ue to the county co urt that it had proper j ur is dicti on ov er

the
or ig ina l sui t. Ins tead, acc ordin g to Andrew s Di str ibu ti ng , Cha con jud ic ial ly admit ted t o the
coun ty court th at it lacked p rope r jurisdiction byclaiming thathe f iled suit in cou nty court
w it hout know ing thathi s d amag es ex ceede d the co urt’ s j ur is dic ti onal l imi ts. A . A pp licab le L aw W e be gin w ith a revi ew of basic plea ding re qu ir e me nts. T exas Rule of Civ il Procedu re 47( b) req uires that an or ig ina l ple adi ng “ cont ain

. . . the sta tement that damag es sought are w ithin the jurisdictiona l limits of the cou rt.” T EX . R. C IV . P

. 4 7 (b ). Ad d it io n a ll y, “[t]h e g ene ral rule is tha t the allegations of the pla intif

f ’s petition muststate facts w hich af f irmatively

show the jurisdiction of the court in w hich th e actio n is brought.” Richar dson
v. Fi rs t Nat’ l Lif e Ins . C o. , 419 S.W .2d 8 36, 8 39 ( Tex . 196 7)

. Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng arg ues that the c ounty co urt l ack ed s ubj ect -mat ter j ur is dicti on
w hen t he des ig nati on order w as si g ned and that, before the dist ri ct cour t on a moti on for16

summar y j udg ment, itadjudi cat ed the county court ’s lack

of jur is dic ti on and inv ali dity of the designat ion orde r. A v oi d j u d gm entor order ma y be collate rally

atta cked o nly w hen it is
a p p a re n tt h a t t h e c o u rt re n d e ri n g ju d gm e n t “h a d n o ju ri s d ic t io n o f t h e p a rt ie s o r p ro p e rt y, no j ur is dic ti on of

the subj ectmatte r, no j ur is dicti on to ente r the p arti cul ar j udg ment, or

no capac ity to a ct.” See Br owning v. Pr

ostok , 165 S.W .3d 3 36, 3 46 ( Tex . 200 5) ( ci ti ng Brow ningv. Placke , 698 S.W .2d 3 62, 3 63 ( Tex . 198 5) ). And rew s Distri but ing fu rther con ten ds tha t section s 16.0 64 a nd 3 3.0 04 d o no t toll li mita ti ons for C hacon ’s cl aim ag ain st it

. Spec ific all y , An drew s Dis tr ibu ti ng arg ues that section 33.0 04’s exceptio n to limita tions d oes n ot ap ply to Cha con’s claim s a ga in s t it becau se the c ounty

co urt t hat s ig ned th e desig nati on order l ack ed s ubj ect -mat ter j u r i s d i c t i o n . S e c t i o n 3 3

. 0 0 4 ( e ) p ro v i d e s t h a ti f: a person is d e sign a te d under thi s s ect ion as a respon si ble thi rd par ty , a cl aimanti s n ot ba rred by l imi tation s f ro m seek ing to joi n tha t person, ev en thoug h s uch joi nder

w oul d otherw is e be bar re d by l imi tati ons, i f the c lai mant seeks to join thatperson no tl a ter tha n 60 days aft er thatperson is d e s ig n a t e d a s a re s p o n s ib le t h ir d p a rt y. T EX . C IV . P R AC
. & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 33.004( e)

. Andrew s D is trib u ti ng al so arg ues that
sec ti on 16. 064 does not toll limi tati ons for Chac on’ s cl aim ag ain st itbec ause Cha con sued itafter l imi tati ons had r un. Sect ion 16.0 64 prov ide s t hat: [t] he per iod betw een t he dat e of fil ing an ac ti on i n a t ri al cour t and the date of a sec ond fil ing of the s ame ac ti on i n a d ifferent cour t sus pends the r unni ng of the appl ic abl e s tatut e of li mita ti ons . . . . Id . at§ 16 .064. B. A nal ysis Chaco n’s origi nal pe tition in cou nty court, w hich w as f iled on Octobe r 6, 2005 , only day s b efore t he tw o- y ear l imi tati ons per iod had ex pired, d id not a ff ir mati v ely demons trate17

the j ur is dicti on of thatco urt bec ause itdi d notst ate a n amounti n c ontro vers y a n d i ts jur is dic ti onal al leg ati ons re ferred to the g ov er nment code prov is ion gov er nin g the county cour ts at l aw of Nue ces County

. It w as, therefore, up to W al- Ma rt , the only defendant at the t ime, to ra is e a s p e cia l ex cept ion reg ardin g C hacon ’s defecti v e pet it ion

. Cf. Pee k v. Equi p. S er v. Co. ,77 9 S.W .2d 802 , 804 (Tex. 1989 ) ( “Eve n i f t h e j urisdiction al am oun t is
nev er es tabl is hed by

pl eadi ng , i n fact, a pl ain ti ff may recov er i f jur is d ic ti on i s p ro v ed at trial.”). W al-Mart specially excepted , and on Decem ber 15 , 200 5, Cha con a me nde d his peti ti on to sp eci fy damag es of $1,000,0 00. T hus, Chacon ’s o ri gi n a l p etition did notaf f irmatively

estab lish the cou nty court’s jur is dic ti on and his first amended pe ti ti o n n e gat e d i ts jur is dicti on bec ause itpl eaded for damag es bey ond t he c ounty co urt’ s j ur is dic ti onal li mits

. Thus, Cha con’ s a ss erti on th at t he
co u n t y c o u rt mo me n t a r i l y ma i n t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h i s s u i t i s n o t s u p p o rt ed bythe
re cord

. A ddi ti onal ly , C hacon di d notpl ead t hat t he c ounty co urt ac q uired j ur is dicti on b e c a u s e h i s d a ma g e s h a d i n c r e a s e d b e c a u s e o f t h e p a s s ag e of time. See C onti

nental Cof fee Pro ds. C o. v

. C azar ez , 9 3 7 S. W .2 d 44 4 , 4 4 9 (T e x. 19 9 6 ) (ci ti n g Mr. W . Firewo rks, Inc. v. Mi t chell , 622 S.W .2d 5 76, 5 77 ( Tex . 198 1) ( hol din g that“ [i ]f a pl ain ti ff ’s or ig ina l peti ti on i s p ro per ly

broug ht i n a par

ti cul ar cour

t, but an amendment inc re ases the a mount in co n t ro ve rs y a b o ve t h e co u rt ’ s j u r i s d ic t io n a l l im it s , t h e co u rtwil l c o n t in u e t o h a ve jur is dic ti on i f the addi ti onal damag es acc ru ed bec ause of the pas sag e of ti me.” ))

. Cha con’ s c ontent ion that s e ctions 33.0 04 and 16.064 of the c iv il pract ic e and
reme dies cod e tolled limita t io n s f or his claim against An drews Distributing is equally meri tl ess . Sect ion 33.004( e) ’s ex cept ion to li mita ti ons appl ies only upon a des ig nati on of
a respon si ble third p a rt y u nder thatse cti on. T EX . C IV . P R AC
. & R EM . C OD E A NN . §B e fo re th e d i s tri c t c o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t, W a l -M a rt fil e d a m o ti o n fo r l e a v e to d e s i g n a te 10 A n d re w s D i s tri b u ti n g a s a re s p o n s i b l e th i rd p a rty. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN .§ 33. 004. T he p ro p rie ty o f W a l -M a rt’ s m o ti o n w a s n o t a t i s s u e i n th i s c a s e a n d w e e x p re s s n o vie w o n i t. 18 33.004( e)

. The r e co rd , how ev er , c oncl usi v ely es tabl is hes that the c ounty co urt l ack ed
s u bj e c t
- m a t t e r j u ri s d ic t io n wh e n itsi gn e d t h e d e s ig n a t io n o rd e r. T h e re fo re , A n d re ws Di str ibu ti ng es tabl is hed t hat t he des ig nati on order w as v oid

. Addi ti onal ly , s ect ion 16.0 64 tol ls l imi tati ons for th e peri od betw een t he first and s econd -fil ed s uit s. See id . at§ 16 .064. The first ti me C hacon pl eaded a cl aim ag ain st Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng in the county co urt w as on Sep tember

22, 200 6 , af

ter the desi g nati on order

had been s ig ned and near ly a y ear after the tw o- y ear

l imi ta t i o n s p er iod had ex pired. W e hol d Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng es tabl is hed it s a f f ir m a t ive d e fe n s e o f

li m it a t io n s a s a m a t t e r o f la w. Cha con’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. 10 V. C ONCL US I ON W e af f irm th e di st ric t c o u rt ’s s u m m a ry j u d gm e n t in fa vor o f An d re ws Dist rib u ti n g. Addi ti onal ly , w e rev erse the s ummary j udg ment i n fav or

of W al- Ma rtand re mand for further proce edin gs.
RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Con cur ri ng and Di ss enti ng Opi nio n b y Ju s t ic e L in d a Re yn a Ya ñ e z. Opi nio n del iv ered and filed on thi s t he 13t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.