1 Time War ner Cable- New s 8 Au st in, a D ivisi on o f T im e War ner Ent er t ainment Advance/Newhouse Pa

rtner sh i p i s a l so a n appe l l ee . We r ef

er to the appelle es coll

ectivel y a s “T ime Wa rne r.” 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00578-CV Jenny Hans son, Appel

lant v. Time Warne r En tertai nment Adva nce/Newhouse P artne rs hip and Tim e Wa rner C ab le- New s 8 A ust in , a Div isi on of Ti me W arne r Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Par tnership, Appelle es

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. GN-001747, HONORABLE PAUL DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appel le e Tim e Warn er Entertai n m en

t Ad va nc e/ Ne wh o us e P ar t ne r ship 1 sue d Je nny Ha ns son cl ai mi ng that she b

reached an em pl oy men t agree men t, an d H an ss on

co unt er claimed see king
a de cl ar ator y j udgm en t. Ti me W ar n er mov ed to n on su i t i ts c l ai m s a n d th e d i str i ct c our t, aft er sus t aining Time W arner’s special

excepti ons, struck Hansson’s counterclai

m a nd di sm is sed all c laims wi th pr eju dic e. Ha nss o n a pp ea ls conten di ng tha t, b ec au se

sh e ra i se d i nd ep en de nt c l ai m s f or affirmative re lief, the dist rict co ur t er re d in dismissingher countercla im . Addi tional ly , she contends that t he di strict

courter re d i n di sm i ss i n g h er cou n tercl ai m wi th out prov

i di n g h er an opp ortu n i ty to am en d th e c l ai m . We a f f i rm th e d i str i ct c our t’s j udgm en t.2 BACKGROUND T ime Warne r a nd Ha nsso n exec ut ed a n e mpl oy men t agree men t i n w hi ch Ha ns son agreed to work as a v i de oj our

n al i st f or N ew s 8 A

us ti n f or th i rty mon th s. Un der the a gr eemen t, Ha ns son co uld t er minat e h er emp l oy men t only if she (1) gave thirty

day s’ wri

tt en n ot ic e and (2) accepted employment wit h a t elevision st at ion in atop-thi rty te l evi sion m

arket. Approxi

ma tely ten months in to the thirty

-month term , Hansson l

eft News 8 A

ustin after acc ept ing emplo yment

wit h a tel ev i si on s tation i n S an A nton i o, a station

no t in a t o p- t hir t y mar ke t . T ime W arn er s ue d H an ss on claiming that sh e b rea ch ed i ts em pl oy men t agree men t. Ha ns son co unt er claimed, see king d eclar at ions that (i) T ime Warner was see king t o e nfor ce a n unenfo rc eable c ove nant not t o c omp et e and (ii) she pr o pe r ly termi nated her employment unde r t he ag re ement an d had no f urth er ob l i ga ti on to work f

or T ime Wa rne r . Sh e s o ug ht at t o r ne ys’ fee s in c o nne ct io n w it h t his c o un t er cla im.

T ime Warne

r fi le d special

excepti ons contendi

ng that , t hou gh t it led a d ec lar at o r yjudg ment act ion, subs t ant ively Hansso n’s co unt er claim was a d efense t o it s claims and t hat t he dec larat or y-judg ment action was an i mpe rmissi ble attempt to recover

at t or neys’ fees . At t he hea ring onthe speci al

excepti ons, Tim

e Warn er requested a nonsui

t o f i ts clai ms . Hansson argued that , de sp i te T ime Wa r ne r ’s int en t t o no nsu it it s c laims , be ca us e T ime Wa rne rco uld in the future sue her f orbre ach of the agre em

en t if she ch anged e m ploye rs b ef ore the th i rty- month ter

m ex pi red, th e court sho uld det er mine her r ight s und er t he agreem ent. In response, Ti

me Warne r stipulated that it wo uld not sue H anss on

i f sh e s oug h t f utu reem pl oy men t. Ba se d on

i ts st ipu lat io n a nd r eq ue st fo ra n o nsu it of its cl ai ms , the d is tr ict co urt grant ed Time Warner’s special exceptions, s tr uck Hansso n’s co un t er cla im, denied Hansson’s r eq ue st fo rat t o rne ys’ fee s, an d d ismis se d a ll cla ims with prej udic e.3 DISCUSSI ON Hans so n gene ra lly

co nt ends in her first issue t hat t he dis trict co ur t er re d in gr ant ing Tim e Warn er’s speci al excepti ons and dism

is si ng he rcounterclai

m. In h er second and third issues, Hansson ass erts th at he

r coun terclai m rai sed two in depe nde nt cl ai m s f or af f i rm ati ve rel i ef
. We reviewde novo a trial court ’s dis missal of a case on a sp eci al ex cepti on f or fa i l ure to sta te a ca use of a cti on. Butler Weldments Cor p. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 3 S.W.3d 654 , 6 58 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us t in

199 9, no pet .) ; see also Sanchez v. Huntsville Indep. Sch. Dist. , 844 S.W.2d 286, 288 (T ex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no wr it). When revi ewi ng a d ismis sal

based on a s

peci al exce pt ion, we “a cce pt as t ru e all mate rial fact ual allega t ions a nd al l fac t ua l st at eme nt s r ea so na bly in ferred from the allegations” in the resp ondent ’s pl eadi ngs . Sorokolit v. Rhodes , 889 S.W.2d 239, 240 (Tex. 19 94).

If a d ef en da nt d oesnot ma ke an i ndepen dent cl ai m f or aff irm ative reli ef, a pl ai ntif f h as an un qual if ie d and ab solute righ

t t o nonsui

t its cl ai ms . Tex. R. Civ . P. 162; BHP Petroleum Co. v. Millard , 800 S. W.2 d 83 8, 840 -4 1 ( Te x. 1 990 ). To st at e a c laim f or affirmative r elief, a d efensive plead ingm

us t as sert a c au se

of ac ti on independe nt o f the claims already asser te d by the p laintif f; i.e. , t he de fen da nt co uld recover benefi ts, co mpensation, or relief, even i f the pl ain tiff abandoned its cause of action. SeeHowell v. Mauzy , 8 99 S .W. 2d 6 90, 706 (T ex. App. —Aus t in 199 4, wr it d enied) (c iting BHP Petroleum , 80 0 S . W. 2d at 84 1)
. T he fac t s a lleg ed in t he de fen da nt ’s ple ad ing de t er mi n e whether the defe ndan t has asserted an

i nde pen den t cl ai m f or af f i rm ati ve rel i ef
. Baca v. Hoover, Bax & Shearer , 823 S.W .2d 734 , 737-3 8 (Tex . App.—Houston [14th Di st.] 199 2, wr it d enied) (c iting Progres sive Ins. Co. v. Hartman , 788 S.W.2 d 424, 426 (Tex. A pp.—D al l as 1 990, n

o wri t)).4

Restat in g a defense i

n the form of a request for a de clara t or y judgment doe s not defeat a plain tiff ’s right to n on su

i t. New man Oil v. Alkek , 614 S. W. 2d 65 3, 65 5 ( T ex . Ap p. —C o r pu s C hr ist i 19 81 , wr it ref’d n.r.e.). We revi ew wh ether Ha ns son ’s cou nte rcl ai m es tab l i sh ed an i nd ep en de nt c l ai m f or affir mat ive r elief de novo
. See Butler Weldm ents , 3 S.W.3d at 658; Sanchez , 844 S.W.2d at 288. Interpretation of the Employment Agreement Provision

Ha ns son co nt ends in her sec ond i ss uetha t sh e m ad e a n i nd ep en de nt c l ai m f or affirmative re l i ef

b y re qu esti n g a de cl ar ati on th at the t erm-of-em

ploy me nt provisi on Tim e Warn er so ught to enf

orce was an une

nf orceabl e covenan

t not to compete. SeeTe x. B us. & Co m. Co de Ann. §§ 15.05, .5 0 (W est Sup p. 2002 ). Hansson

argue s tha

t her d ecl aratory -jud gment ac t io n sh o uld sur viveTim

e Warn er’s nons uit bec ause T ime Warner co uld su e her in the fu t ur e fo r br eac h of t he agr eement if

sh e ch an ge d em pl oy er s b ef oreth e th i rty -m on th term expi red. Tim e Warn er denies that t he pr ovisio n of t he emplo yment agreem ent at issue

is a covenan

t not to compete, assertin g that t he prov i si on sets out the term of the contract pe r io d. Fu r t he r , T ime Wa rne rco nt en ds Ha nss o n’s cla im i s m oot becau se i

t has agree d not to sue H an sson regar di ng h er f uture em ploym en t. Cov enant s not t o compete are future restrictions tha t become ef

fecti ve onl y a fter term i na ti on of e m pl oym en t; the y do not operate d

uri ng th e em ploym en t term. See, e.g. , Light v. Centel Cellular Co. , 883 S.W .2 d 642, 6 45-46n.8 ( Tex . 1994) (restri cti on f or one y ear after employment te rminated ); Peat Marwic k Main & Co. v. Haass , 818 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Tex. 1991) (r est rict ing emplo yment

for two years after employment t erminatio n); Travel Masters, Inc. v. Star Tours, Inc. , 827 S.W .2d 830 , 831 (Tex. 19 91) (s ame). The prov i si on a t i ss uehe re s etsa te rm

of2 The em pl oy men t a gr ee me nt contain

ed a covenan

t not to compete provis ion that restricted Ha ns son fro m wor king fo r a not her t elevision st at ion in t he Austi n ar ea for si

x m onths af ter term i na ti on of he r e mployment with Ne ws 8 Austin. Hansson, however, di d not compla

in about that pr ov i si on of th e a gr eemen t. 5 t h i rty m on th s f or H anss on ’s

em pl oy men t. 2 It al so c ond i ti ons Ha ns son ’s ac ce pta nc e of ot he r empl oym ent during the thirty-month tim e period by requi

ring h er to giv e Tim e Warner thirty day

s’ notice upon

r ec eiv ing an o ffer fr o m a t ele visio n st at io n in a t o p- t hir t y mar ke t . T he pr o visio n , however, does not restr ict Hansson’s em ploym ent op por tunities after

she leave s Time War ner , a nd thus cann ot be a c ov en an

t n ot t o c omp et e. We ho ld t hat t he dist rict co ur t did no t er r in st riking Hansson’s cou

n tercl ai m re ga rd i n g a cov en an t n ot to c om

pe te. Fu rther, b ecause Ti

me Warne r nonsui ted and stipul

ated tha t i t woul d n ot su e H an ss on

re gar ding fut ur e emplo yment, t her e wa s no need f or a declaration regardi

ng the provi si on. Hansson’ s second i ssue i s overruled. Attorneys’ Fees

Ha ns son co nt ends in her t hird issu e t hat she ra ised a n indepe ndent claim for a ffi rmat ive reli ef by re que st ing at t or neys’ fees re sult ingfrom her def ense aga in st Tim e Warn er’s acti on to enf

orce a cove na nt not to com

pete. SeeTex. Bus. & Com . Code Ann . § 15 .51 (W est Sup p. 2002) (p er mitt ing

re cov er y of attor n ey s’ f ee s f or d ef en di n g a cti on to enf orce c oven

an t not to compe

te). She argues that she i s enti tled to atto rne

y s’ f ees pursuan t to t he Uni f orm D ecl aratory Judgmen t A ct. SeeTe x. Civ . Prac. & Rem . Cod e Ann . § 37. 009 (West 1997) (permi tt in g recovery of

atto rney s’ f ees in declarator y-j udgment action, regar dless of outco me ). We revi

ewth e tr i al cou rt’ s dec i si on n ot to awar d att orneys’ f

ees und er an abuse of d i scre tion stan dard. See Bocquet v. Herring , 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 ( Tex . 1998)
.6 Hansson’s req

ue st f orat t o rne ys’ fee s is wit ho ut mer it be ca us e t he pr o visio n t ha t T ime War ner sou gh t to en f orc e w as a c on tra ct p rov i si on re ga rd i n g th e te rm of h er em pl oy men t, not a co venant not t o co mpete. Even assumi ng Hanss on was def

ending against Tim

e Warner’s enfo rc ement of a

cove na nt not to com

pete, Ha ns son’ s de claratory

j udg men t ac ti on was m oot ed when T ime Warne

r stipulated that it would not sue Hansson regarding her f utur e empl

oym ent. Att orneys’ fees under secti on 15.51 of the Texas Bus in ess an d Comm erce Code were

th er ef oreun av ai l ab l e to Hans so n. The dis t r ict co ur t did no t ab us e it s d isc r et io n in deny in g an award of a

tt orneys ’ f

ees under this statut e. Hansson’s rem ai ni ng c l ai m i s tha t her d ecl aratory -judgm ent cou nterclaim

was a re quest for att orneys’ f

ees pursuant t o t he Decl arato ry Judgm ent Act. T im

e Warner asserts t h e general ru l e th at a de f en da n t m ay n ot s eek a

de cl ar ator y j udgm en t si m pl y to recover

att orneys’ f

ees. SeeHECI Exploration Co. v. Clajon Gas Co. , 843 S.W.2d 622, 63 9 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in 1 99 2, wr it deni ed) (citi ng John Chezik Buick Co. v. Friendly C hevrolet Co. , 749 S.W.2d 591, 595 (T ex. App.—Dal

la s 19 88 , wr it den i ed

)). Ha n ss on con ten dsth at Falls County v. Per kins supports her cla im that a r eq ue st fo r

at t o r ne ys’ fee s is an

af f i rm ati ve clai m f or reli ef
. See798 S.W.2d 868, 871 (T ex. App.—F ort W orth

19 90 , no wr

i t). W e f i n d th e f ac ts in Falls C

ounty di sti n gui sh ab l e f rom th e f ac ts i n the ca se b ef

ore us. Falls C

ounty in volv ed a defendan t who so ught at to rneys’ fees in defense of
a pl ai ntif f ’sdecl aratory -j udgm en t acti on. Id. The co ur t in Fa lls Cou nty explicitly held t hat t he ge ne r al r ule o nly

ap plie s w he n a de fen da nt files a d ec lar at o ry-ju dg men t co un t er cla im th at p re se

n ts no new i ssues ex

cept to recover attorney s’ f ees . Id. Th e c ourt w en

t on to h ol d that the ru

l e doesnot ap ply when a defen da nt i s de f

endi ng a gai nst a pl ai ntif f ’sdecl aratory -j udgm en t acti on. Id. Unl

ike7

Falls County , Hansso n’s co unt er claim pres ent s no new issu es a nd only asserts a claim

for att orneys’ fees. We ho ld

t ha t t he ge ne r al r ul e a pp lies an d H an ss o n is no t en t it led t o main t ain a d ec lar at o r yjudg ment action solel

y to recover

att orneys’ f

ees. See Che

zik , 749 S.W.2d at 594-95. Ac co r di ng ly, we ho ld the d i stri ct courtdid n

ot abuse i ts discreti on in

deny in g Hanss on’s request f

or at to rney

s’ f ees under the Uni

form Decl arator y J

udgme nt Act. We overrul e Hanss on’s thi rd iss ue. In co nc lus io n, t he dis t r ict co ur t did no t er rin gr antin g Tim e Warn er’s speci al exce pt ions an d d ismi ssi

ng Han sson’s c ounterclai m, gi ven that t he countercl ai

m di d not raise an indepe ndent claim for a ffi rmat iverel

i ef
. See Butler

Weldm ents , 3 S.W.3d at 658. Hansson’s i ssues contendi ng that she raised a cl

ai m f or aff irm ative reli ef i n he r counterclai

m a re overruled. Opportunity to Amend Pleadings

Hansson conten ds i n h er f ourth i ssue tha

t eve n i f the d i stri ct courtpr o pe r ly

granted Time War ner ’s sp ecial exc ept ions, t he co ur t er re d by fai li ng to pro vi

de Hanss on an

opp ortu n i ty to amend her plead ings befo re dismissing her co unt er claim. When a t rial co ur t gr ant s a special exce pt ion, it must give t he re spo ndent an opportuni

ty to am end i ts pleadi ng. Friesenhahn v. Ryan , 960 S.W.2d 656, 658 (T ex. 1 998 ); Texas Dep’t o f Corr. v. Herring , 513 S.W .2d 6, 9- 10 (Tex . 1974)
. Howev er, b ef ore a p ar t y may c o mpla in o n a pp ea l t ha t it wa s i m pr ope rl y den i ed th e op por tun i ty to am en d it s p lea din g, it mus t de mo nst r at e t ha t it r eq ue st ed t ha t o pp o r t un it y and t ha t t he t r ial c our t deni ed the request . Tex. R. Ap p. P. 33 . 1( a) ( 1)
. I f t he r e is no rulin g in the record, a motion for new trial wil l pres erv e error. Inglish v. Prudential Ins . Co. of Am. , 9 28 S .W. 2d 7 02, 705 (T ex. A pp. —H ous ton

[1st Di st.] 199 6, w

ri t de ni ed ). A l thou gh Ha ns son requested that herco un t er cla im not be stri cken b ecause sh

e had n ot been giv en an op po rt unit y to amend, she failed t o o bt ain a ru ling8

and fai le d to fi le a m ot i on f or n ew trial . H anss on

f ai l ed to pres er v e th i s c on ten ti on f or a pp el l ate review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). Hanss on’s f ourt h i ssue i s overruled. CONCLU SION Ha v i n g ov er ru l ed Ha n ss on ’s i ss ue s, we af f i rm th e d i str i ct c our t’s j udgm en t.

Jan P. Patterson, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, Patterson and Puryear Af fi rmed File d: March 21, 2002 Do No t Publis

h