## 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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
NUM BER 13-08- 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- 558- 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 ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t h Dist rict C ou rt o f K leb erg Co un ty , T exas . 

## C ON C U R R I N G A N D D I S S E N T I N G OP I N I ON 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 Co nc urrin g an d Diss en tin g Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe zA p p e lle e n o te s th a t its p r o p e r d e s ig n a tio n is “ W a l- M a r t S to r e s T e x a s , L L C ,” a n d th a t i t is in c o r r e c tly 1 na m ed i n t hi s ca s e a s “W al -M art S t ore s , I nc
. ” I w i l l refer t o a pp el l ee as “W al -M art

. ”

See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 6 .0 6 4 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ). 2
D iazv. W est

phal , 941 S. W

. 2d 9 6, 97- 98 ( T ex. 199 7) ( ci t i ng Jenni ngs v. Bur

gess , 917 S. W

. 2d 7 90, 3 7 9 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ); D el

gado v. Bur

ns , 6 5 6 S .W .2 d 4 2 8 , 4 2 9 (T e x . 1 9 8 3 )) ; F re n c h v . G ill , 252 S. W

. 3d 748, 751 (T e x . A p p .– T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ) .

D ia z, 9 4 1 S .W .2 d a t 9 8 ; Fre nch , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 7 5 1

. 4
S ec t i on 16

. 06 4 provi de s a t ol l i ng pro vi s i on for l i t i ga t i on i ni t i al l y fi l ed i n a co urt w i t ho ut j uri s di c t i on i f, 5 wi t hi n si xt y day s of

t he d i sm i ssal f or l ack ofj ur i sdi ct i on, sui t i s f i l ed i n a cour t of pr oper j ur i sdi ct i on a nd i ft he i n i ti a l f i l i n g w a s n o t d o n e w i th i n te n ti o n a l d i s re g a rd o f p ro p e r ju ris d i c ti o n
. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E 2 I ag re e w it h the majori ty ’s hol din g i n appel lat e c ause number 13- 08- 501- CV , aff ir ming su mmary

j udg ment i n fav or

of appel lee s, Andrew s D is tr ib u ti n g C ompany and Robe rt Sanch ez, on the b asis of limitation s. I disagree , h o wever, w ith the majo rity ’s hol din g i n appel lat e caus e number 13- 08- 558- CV , rev ersi ng su mmary j udg ment i n fav or of app ellee, W al-Mart. I w ould hold th at th e trial court prop erly g ran t ed su mm ary 1 jud g ment i n W al- Ma rt ’s fav or bec ause: (1 ) appel lan t Al v ino Cha con’ s firs t peti ti on w as filed
w ith inte ntion al disregard of prope r jurisdiction, and section 16.0 64’s to lling provisi ons a re thus i nappl ic abl e; ( 2) C hacon fail ed to create a fact q uest ion re g ardin g thi s is sue; and (3 ) 2 abse nt ap plication of

the to lling provisi on, Chacon ’s suit is barred bylimitation s. Wa l-Mart’s Motion for Summary Judgment A def end antw ho m oves fo r summ aryjudgmen t base d on li mita tions m ust est ablish the defense as a ma tter of law

. T o satisf y this burde n, th e de fend antmustconclusively 3 neg ate a ny

rele v ant t oll ing doc tr ine s t he pl ain ti ff as ser ted i n the tr ial co urt. 4 It is undi sput ed th at C hacon ’s ca use of act ion accr ued on or aboutOc tober

6, 2003, and t hat t he present s u it wa s filed i n Kl eberg C ounty D is tr ic t C our

t on Aug ust1, 2007. T hus, Chacon ’s suit is barred by limitat ions unless, as Chaco n cont end s, section 16.0 64’s tolling prov ision ap plies. 5A NN
. § 1 6 .0 6 4

. Par ker v. C um m ing , 216 S. W

. 3d 905, 910 ( T ex. App. –East l and 2007, pet

. deni ed) ( “ Absent som e 6 ev i dence ofacci dent o r m i s t ak e, f i l i ng su i t wi t h a pl eadi ng t hat on i t s f ace e st abl i shes t he co ur t ’ s l ack of ju ris d i c ti o n d o e s n o t i n v o k e S e c ti o n 1 6 .0 6 4 ’ s to l l i n g p ro v i s i o n .”).

See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 25. 1802 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 7
S e e i d

. §§ 25

. 00 3(c ), 25

. 13 92 (Ve rno n 2 00 4). 8
T h e re c o rd c o n ta i n s tw o a ff i d a v i ts b y M s . G a rc i a — o n e d a te d J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , f i l e d in th e c o u n ty c o u rt- 9 at
- l aw, and a second dat ed Augu st 14, 200 8, f i l ed i n t he d i st r i ct cour t

. W al
- M ar t r ef er s t o t he Ju ne 1 9, 200 7 a ff i d a v i t. 3 In its mo tion, W al-Mart arg ues th at sect ion 16 .06 4 is inapp licable be cause Chacon ’s f irs t f ili n g w a s m a d e w i th in te n ti o n a l d isr e gar d of pro p e r ju ris d ict io n . Cit in g Parker v. Cum m ing , W al- Ma rtarg ues that each of Chac on’ s f irst three pet it ion s— his Or ig ina l

6 Peti ti on, A mended Or ig ina l Peti ti on, and Seco nd Amende d Or ig ina l Peti ti on—as ser t t hat “[ t]he cour

t” ( the K leb erg C ounty

C our t- at- Law ) has jur is dic ti on pursuantto sec ti on 25. 1802 of the g ov er nment c ode. Sect ion 25 .1 8 0 2 , h o wev er , per tai ns to j ur is dic ti on of cou nty 7
cour ts- at- law i n Nue ces

C ounty, notKle b e rg Count y . Klebe rg Count y Court-at-La w

is limited in its j urisd ic t io nal m aximum amo untin controversy to $10 0,0 00. Chacon’s 8 Amended O ri g ina l Peti ti on and Sec ond Amend ed Or ig ina l Peti ti on i n Kl eberg C ounty Court-at-L aw specif ied da ma ge s o f $ 1,0 00, 000 .00 —far in ex cess of the cou rt’s jur is dic ti onal l imi ts. W al- Ma rt ad d re ss e s Ch a co n ’s a rgu m e nts reg ardin g two di fferent a ll eg ed “ mis tak es: ” (1 ) thatth e l a wy e rs a n d s t a ff r e s p o n s i b l e fo r fi l i n g t h e s u i tw e r e n o ta w a r e o f t h e c o unty
cour t’ s max imum j ur is dicti onal l imi ts, and (2) that the lawy ers and s taff w ere notaw are of the ful l extent of Cha con’ s damag es. W it h respect t o the first “mi sta ke, ” W al- Ma rtnote s that in her

aff ida v it , D ebra R . G ar ci a, leg al sec re tar y for G re g or

y H . H er rman, st ates that

9
s h e f il e d t h e ca s e in t h e co u n t y co u rt -a t -l a wPar ker , 2 1 6 S .W .3 d a t 9 0 9 -1 0

. 10
Id

. at 911 ( ci t i ng Virt ual H eal thcare Ser vs. , Lt d. v. Lab orde , 193 S. W

. 3d 6 36, 644 ( T ex. 11 A p p .– E a s tl a n d 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.)).

I n hi s r esponse t o W al
- M ar t ’ s m ot i on, C hacon i ncl uded t he a ff i dav i t of C i ndy T ri go , t he l egal 12 a s s i s ta n t w i th th e H e rr m a n l a w fi rm , w h o a tte m p te d to s e ttl e th e c a s e w i th W a l -M a rt “[f]o r n e a rly tw o y e a rs .” 4 notknowi ng that the jurisdictiona l limits w ere over and be y ond Mr . Chaco n’s damag es. I as sumed that the j ur is dicti onal l imi ts for th e County Cour t atLaw in Klebe rg Count y

r a n c oncu rrent w ith the ir D istrict Court as they do in Nuece s Count y , Te x as, w here I file th e m ajo rity of Herrman & Herrma n’s lawsui ts. F il ing thi s l aw sui t i n the C ounty C our t atLaw w here i t l ack ed jurisdiction was n ot inte ntion al butw as du e to no t having all of the correct infor mati on. W al-Mart conte nds th at th is alleged “mistake ” is n o tt he type of “g ood faith m istake
conc er nin g a defendant’ s re si dence or pr inc ipa l pla ce of busi ness or w hen c alc ula ti ng the
amou nt i n c ontrov ersy ” that inv okes the appl ic ati on of secti on 16. 064. I ag re e. As the 10 Par ker co urt not ed, “ [a]l l persons are presumed to k now the law and are c harg ed w it h know led g e of st atuto ry prov is ion s.” H ere, by in cludi ng a j ur is dicti onal parag ra ph th at 11 referen ced Nue ces Coun ty, Chaco n’s origi nal pe tition o n its face e stab lished th e Kleb erg Cou nty C our t’ s l ack of jur is dicti on. Cha con ’s Amende d Or ig ina l Peti ti on and Seco nd Amended O ri g ina l Peti ti on als o e st abl is hed t he c ounty co urt’ s l ack

of jur is dicti on on the face of t he ple adi ng s by inc lud ing the jur is dic ti onal parag ra ph referenc ing N ueces C ounty and s peci fyi ng damag es in ex ces s o f the c ounty co urt’ s j ur is dicti onal l imi ts. W ith respe ct to the secon d alleged “ mista ke”—Chaco n’s argume nt th at his lawy ers
w er e unaw are of the extent of h is in ju rie s—W al- Ma rtnote s t hat C ind y Tri g o, a leg al
ass is tant w it h the Her rman fir m, attempted to s ettl e C hacon ’s ca se before s uitw as filed , and t hat s he c oul d nothav e att empted t o d o s o i n go o d f ait h w it hout know led g e of the
e xte n t o f Ch a co n ’s d a m a ges
. More o ver, r e gar d le ss o f w h o di d or d id no t h a ve kn o wled ge 12 of the exten t of

Chacon ’s dam ages, Garcia’s af f idavit establishe s thatshe f iled the case7 0 8 S .W .2 d 3 8 , 4 0 (T e x . A p p .– T y l e r 1 9 8 6 , n o w rit ). 13
S e e i d

. 14 5 w ithou t knowledge of

the cou nty court-at-law ’s jurisdictional limits. T hus, Garcia’s af f idavit sug g est s that she w oul d hav e fil ed th e s uiti n c ounty -c our t- at- law , rega rdless of t he extent of Chacon ’s injuries, beca use sh e “assum ed” the co unt y co urt’s ju risdictiona l li mits were
conc ur re nt w it h the di str ic t c our t’ s l imi ts, as i n N ueces C ounty

. In s uppor

t of i ts moti on for

su mmary

j udg ment, W al- Ma rtatt ached the follo w ing : (1 ) Cha con’ s O ri g ina l Peti ti on i n Cou nty Cou rt -a t- Law ; (2 ) an ex cer pt of C hacon ’s depos it ion testi m o ny

es tabl is hin g he h ad s urg er y i n J une 200 4; ( 3) C hacon ’s Amended Or ig ina l Peti ti on; ( 4) C hacon ’s Sec ond Amend ed Or ig ina l Peti ti on; ( 5) C hacon ’s respo nse to And rew s Distri but ing and Sa nche z ’s Motion to D ismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; (6) Garcia’s June 19, 20 07 a f

f idavit; (7) And rew s Distri but ing and Sa nche z ’s Motio n to Dismiss for Lack of Jur is dic ti on; a nd ( 8) the order g ra nti ng Andrew s D is tr ibu ti ng and Sanc hez’s M o ti o n to Di smi ss for L ack

of Jur is dicti on. Ch acon ’s R espo nse In his respo nse to W al-Mart’s mo tion, Chaco n argued that there w as “a genuine fact is sue” as to w hether

he fil ed hi s o ri g ina l peti ti on w it h i ntent ion al disrega rd f o r proper ju ri s d iction. Chaco n cites W il li am son v. John Dee re C om pany, for t he proposi ti on th at

13
an a ttorn ey’s af

f idavit, stating that th e lack of comp le t e d iv ersity“did not sink into [his] mind” unti l after the co m p la in t w as filed , w as suffici ent t o rais e a factq uest ion as to
w hether the pla int iff’s i nit ial fil ing w as in int enti o n a l d isreg ard of ju ri sdi cti on. I di sag re e 14
w it h C hacon thatthi s cas e “ is cl ear ly si mil ar to the W il li am son cas e and unl ik e the Par ker
case. ” I also disagree th at Cha con’s evidence raised a fact questio n as to wh e t her hisAt t he hear i ng on W al
- M ar t ’ s m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent on August 28, 200 8, By er l y ar gued t hat 15 t he aff i dav i t s r ai sed a f act i ssue t hat t he p er sons who f i l ed t he su i t i n cou nt y cour t
- at
- l aw wer e un awar e of t he e x te n t o fC h a c o n ’s in j u r ie s . In g r a n tin g s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t f o r W a l- M a r t, th e tr ia l c o u r t n o te d th a t i t “ s e e s th is m o ti o n [a s ] vi rtu a l l y i d e n ti c a l to th e o n e p re v i o u s l y g ra n te d fo r t h e o th e r D e fe n d a n ts , s a m e fa c ts , s a m e i s s u e s .” 6 cas e w as ini ti all y

fil ed i n c ounty

co urt as a resul t of a g ood fait h mi st a ke or i n i ntent ion al dis re g ard of ju ri sdi cti on. Cha con poi nts to three aff ida v it s w hic h he cont ends ra is e a fact is sue as to w hether th e f ili n g w a s d o n e w it h in te n t i o n a l di sre gar d of ju ris d ict io n . T h e af

f id a vit o f Cin d y Tri go est abl is hes nothi ng abouther k n o w led g e—or

l ack thereof—re g ardin g the jur is dic ti onal lim it s o f the c ounty

co urt- at- law

. Garci a’s aff ida v ites tabl is hes that she filed the peti ti on “not kno w ing the f ull exten t of Mr. Chacon ’s injuries.” It do es no t explain w hy T rig o’s know led g e of the extent of Chac on’ s i nju ri es canno t be imput ed to her

. Itdoes not sta te
w he th er s he ma de an y at te mp t w ha ts oe v er t o as c er ta i n ( from h er

c ol l ea g ue s a t th e fi r m) the e xtent of Chac on’s i nju ri es. The affidav itof the a ttor ney w ho s ig ned t he pet it ion , Kyz my ck D . By er ly , s tates onl y

thatw hen s he s ig ned t he peti ti on, she w as not aw are of the
extent of Chac on’ s i nju ri es. Discus sion At the hea ring on An drews Distr ib u t in g and Sanch ez’s mo tion for sum ma ry jud g ment, By er ly

tol d the co urt: 15 Nei ther my sel f, nor

D ebra Garci a w ho i s a l eg al sec re tar y there w ho drafted the a c t u a l p e t i t i o n , h a d w o r k e d o n t h e fi l e p r i o r t o t h a t

. S o w e—I w as not aware w hen I sig ned the pe tition th at—th e ext e n to f the pla intif

f ’s injuries. I w as g iv en th e pet it ion

. I l ooked ov er i t real q uic kl y . I s ig ned i t. And then it w as f iled in orde r to try to beat the statu te of limitation s, w hich w as w ithin a cou ple of

days. It w as filed in county cour t, at t hat t ime, unk now ns [si c] to ei ther of us the e xtent of inj ur ies

. And i f y ou l ook at t he or ig ina l peti ti on, g ra nted the or ig ina l peti ti on does hav e N ueces Cou nty —w e hav e the st atute for N ueces Coun ty. Th at just goes to the th inking at the tim e tha t it w as con current inT he m aj or i t y st at es t hat “ m ost of t he f act s i n t hi s case ar e set t l ed, wi t h t he e xcept i on o fwhet her 16 t he l aw f i r m ’ s c onduct am ount ed t o i nt ent i onal di sr egar d as a m at t er of l aw. ” I r espect f ul l y di sagr ee t hat

“ whet her t he l aw f i r m ’ s cond uct am ount ed t o i nt ent i onal di sr egar d as a m at t er of l aw” r ai ses a f

act i ssue. R at her , i t i s a l egal

issue , re q u i rin g a p p l i c a ti o n o f th e u n d i s p u te d fa c ts to th e m e a n i n g o f s e c ti o n 1 6 .0 6 4

. 7 jurisdic t io n , u n li k e — u n fo rt u n a t e ly, we we re wro n g i n t h a t

. Ho we ve r, n o wh ere in that peti ti on i s t here an amount i n c ontrov ersye ven a lle g ed th at [ si c]. I t wasn ’ttil l [s ic] afte r a sp e cia l e xce p ti o n s [sic ] w a s f ile d b y W a l-Ma rt to al le ge a k now n c ontrov ersy , and onl y after the cas e w as a ss ign e d to me w hen I w as do ing discov ery , did—d id I beco me aw are of the extentof

the pla intif

f ’s injuries. And , at tha t time , I then ame nde d my pet ition and alleg ed to putin an ac tual amount. [Court] : Did anyone in your firm kn ow the exten t of plaintif f ’s injuries? [By er ly]: I— I don ’tkn ow
. I t hin k may be C ind y mig ht ha v e k now n, t he—t he initial legal assist a n t

. H ow mu ch she knew, I’m not—Your Hono r, I don’t know how much she knew

. I c an onl y sa y that as f ar

as m y sel f, and I si g ned t h e p e t it io n , a s we ll a s t h e l e ga l s e c re t a ry, a n d a ll t h e a f f id a vit s a re t h e re , we w er e notaw are tha t he had had s u rge ry, or had to ha v e s urg er

y . An d I bel iev e at that ti me, my understa ndi ng is, he had so me i nit ial —s ome probl em prior to the acciden t— [C our t]: N ow , C ind y

i s w hat? [By er ly]: C in d y’s a l eg al ass is tant.

. . . l ik e I sai d, I don’ t k now ex act ly w hat Ci n d y kn e w o r d id n ’tk n o w a tt h e t im e
. . . . W h a tCi n d y kn e w o r d id n ’tkn o w, I—I ca n’tsp eak on her

behal f. I d o k now

thatI did not w or k o n the ca se, nor did M s. Garci a w or k o n the ca se. [C our t]: W ell , butaren’ t y ou suppos ed to know , as the l awy er on t he c ase? [By er ly]: Y es, and li ke I s aid , i t mi g ht ha v e been a s tupi d mi sta ke,

. . . . Cha con ass erts t h a t “[t ]he e rror reg ardin g the spec ificamount of controv ersy for Pl ain ti ff C hacon i s a mis tak e of fact, not one of law .” Si mil ar ly , t he maj or ity co ncl udes that the re is “ a fac ti s s u e a s to w het her Chaco n or Garcia an d Byerly knew of the am oun t in cont ro v ersy

w hen he filed su iti n c ounty co urt.” I dis ag re e. The facts in thi s cas e are not in dis pute. H ere, B y er ly ’s tes ti mony es tabl is hes that as th e l awy er respon si ble for t he 16 ple adi ng s, she si mply

l ooked ov er

the document “real q uic kl y ,” and s ig ned i t— w it hout anySee Par ker , 216 S. W

. 3d a t 909
- 10. 17
See 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) cm t

. 4, r epr i nt ed i n T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN ., ti t. 18 2 , s u b ti t. G a p p . A (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ) (T e x . S ta te B a r R . a rt. X , § 9 ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ).

See i d. 5. 03 cm t

. 1 ( “ Lawy er s gen er al l y em pl oy assi st ant s i n t hei r pr act i ce, i ncl udi ng se cr et ar i es, 19 i nv est i gat or s, l aw st udent i nt er ns, and par apr of essi onal s. Such assi st ant s act f or t he l awy er i n r endi t i on o f t he l awy er ’ s pr of essi onal ser v i ces. A l awy er shou l d gi v e such assi st ant s app r opr i at e i nst r uct i on a nd s u p e rv i s i o n c o n c e rn i n g th e e th i c a l a s p e c ts o f th e i r e m p l o y m e n t, p a rti c u l a rly r e g a rd i n g th e o b l i g a ti o n n o t t o di scl ose i nf or m at i on r el at i ng t o r epr esent at i on o ft he cl i ent , and shoul d be responsi bl e f or thei r w or k pr oduct

. T he m easur es em pl oy ed i n sup er v i si ng n on- l awy er s shou l d t ake account of t he f act t hat t hey do not hav e l egal t rai ni ng an d a re no t su bjec t t o p rofes s i on al di s c i pl i ne
. ”) (em ph as i s ad de d). 8 know led g e of the extent of Chac on’s in juri es, w it hout any kn ow led g e of the cas e, an d
w it hout any

att empt t o obtai n any infor mati on that others in the firm may hav e had. Gi v en thes e facts , I do not bel iev e tha t t he i nit ial fil ing of Cha con’ s p eti ti on i n c ounty co urt i s t he ty pe of “ g ood fait h mi sta ke” thati nv okes the app lic a ti on of secti on 16. 064. W hatev er 17 “g ood fait h” means , s ur ely i t means thatbefore si g nin g a pl eadi ng , an attor ney w ho has del eg ated duti es to non-l awy ers w il l make some ef fort t o obt ain per

ti nent infor mati on abou t the c ase that may

be k now n by

the non- lawy ers. The r ule s o f profess ion al condu ct sta te that a l awy er

m a y d ele g ate funct ion s t o paraprofessi onal s o nly i nsofar as “ the l awy er
s uper vi ses the del eg ated w or k, and retain s respon sibility for the work, and m ainta ins a direct re lat ion shi p w it h the cl ien t,

. . . .” Here, the lawy er w ho si gne d th e pl eadi ng 18 attempt s to av oid respo nsi bil ity bym aki ng it cle ar

that neither

she nor t he l eg al ass is tant
w ho drafted and fil ed th e pl eadi ng ac tual ly “wo rk[ e d ] on the cas e.” By st ati ng thatthe lawy er “reta ins respon sibility ” fo r delegated w ork, the profession al rules prohib it such
a t t e m p t s t o e va d e re s p o n s ib il it y. In t h e co n t e xto f t h is ca s e , “r e t a in [ in g] re s p o n s ib il it y” 19
means that the p erti nent infor mati on obt ain ed by a non-l awy er

is impute d to the l awy er
. The major ity sta tes that the aff ida v it s of Tri g o, Garci a, and By er ly merel y “ il lus trate the i nner w or ki ngs o f

t h e law fir m and i ts personne l’ s mi sunde rs tandi ng s.” I di sag re e.9

These fact s d o notref le ct a “ mis understa ndi ng .” I ag re e w it h the tr ial co urt t hat “ as the lawy er on the cas e,” By er ly

w as “s uppos ed to know ” the rel ev ant fact s reg ardin g the cas e. Base d on the a f

f idav it s a nd te sti mony before us, the condu ct here fell sh ort of the profession al rules. Conclusion I w oul d aff ir m the tr ial cour t’ s order g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment i n W al- Ma rt ’s fav or in cause num ber 13 -08-55 8-CV. I w ould a ls o a f f ir m the sum ma ry

judgmen t in cause number 13- 08- 501- CV

. LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e
Con cur ri ng and Di ss enti ng Opi nio n del iv ered and fil ed th is the 13th day of Aug ust , 200 9.