### NUM BER 13-09- 0017 2-CV 

## 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
A &A EXP RES S, A pp ellan t,
v. T R IU M PH T RA N SP OR T A T IO N , L L C D /B /A CONTA INER SE RVICE S A ND GENE HILL, IND IVIDU A LL Y, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 21 6t h D is tr ic t C o u rt o f K err C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez In this rest ri cte d appeal, appell ant, A & A Ex pr ess , c hal len g es the t ri al cour t’ s n oansw er defaultj udg ment i n fav or of appel lee s, T riumph Trans por tati on, L LC d/b/aN e ith e r R a n d a z z o n o r D o n a ld W a yn e H ill a r e p a r tie s to th is a p p e a l. 1 T r i um ph’ s or i gi nal pet i t i on st at ed t hat A & A Expr ess cou l d be ser v ed wi t h pr ocess b y serv i ng 2

“ H er ender H andal , 2147 M orni ngdew Cour t , T ur l ock, C al i f or ni a 95 382, by cer t i f i ed m ai l , r et ur n r ecei pt re q u e s te d .”

I n fa c t , on t he si gn ature l i ne o f t he re t urn re c ei pt, the re c i pi en t s i gn ed h i s na m e a s “B.K. H un da l ”; 3 howev er , on t he p or t i on o ft he r ecei pt r equi r i ng t he r eci pi ent t o pr i nt t hei r nam e, t he r eci pi ent pr i nt ed h i s nam e a s “B .H . H a n d a l .” 2 Con tai ner

Ser v ic es and G ene H il l, i ndi v idu all y ( col lec ti v ely

“Tri umph” ). By

thr ee i ss ues, A & A Ex pr ess arg ues that: ( 1) the tr ial co urt er ro neous ly g ra nted default jud g ment i n fav or of Trium ph b e c a u s e T riump h f ailed to prope rly serv e A & A Express; (2) the evidence supp orting the da ma ges aw arde d in the def ault jud gmen t is leg ally and factu ally i n s u f f i c i e n t ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r r e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g p r e - a n d p o s t
- j u d g m e n ti n t e r e s t

. W e
re v er se the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt and r emand for further proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On N ov ember

17, 2006, a t ra ct or -t ra il er ow ned by

A & A E x pr ess and dr iv en by Andr ew Sal v ator e R andaz z o c oll ide d w it h a tr act or -t ra il er ow ned byT ri umph and dr iv en by Don ald W ay ne H il l. O n J uly 7, 2008, Tri umph broug ht s uitag ain st A & A Exp ress and 1 Ran daz z o for damag es re sul ti ng from t he c oll is ion

. T riump h ma iled a cop y of a citation for serv ice to A & A Express v ia certif ie d ma il
on Jul y 8, 20 08. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 106 (a)(2). The citation w as sen t to “A & A Express, Herender

Handal , 212247 Mor nin g dew Ct., T ur loc k, CA

95382,” w hic h appears to be th e
w rong addre ss. It w as de liv ered on July 14, 200 8, and w as signed for by “B.K. Hun dal” 2 and “ B.H . H undal .” 3 A & A Ex pr ess did not f il e an answ er in the tri al cour

t. On Dec ember

16, 2008, the tr ial co urt s ig ned an or der se v er ing Tri umph’s cl aims ag ain st A & A Ex pr ess from t heR ul e 26

. 1( a) of t he T exas Rul es of

Appel l at e Pr ocedur e pr ov i des t hat a not i ce of appea l m ust be 4 f ile d w ith in n in e ty d a ys a f te r th e j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n s ig n e d if a n y p a r ty tim e ly f ile d : ( 1 ) a m o tio n f o r a n e w tr ia l; ( 2) a m ot i on t o m odi f y t he j udgm ent ; ( 3) a m ot i on t o r ei nst at e under T exas R ul e ofC i v i l Pr ocedur e 16 5( a) ; or ( 4 ) a r e q u e s t f o r fin d i n g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w i f s u c h a re q u e s t w a s re q u i re d b y th e ru l e s o f c i v il p ro c e d u re o r c o u l d b e p ro p e rly c o n s i d e re d b y th e a p p e l l a te c o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26

. 1 ( a)

. H er e, A & A E x p re s s d i d n o t fi l e a n y m o ti o n s o r m a k e a n y re q u e s t o u tl i n e d i n ru l e 2 6 .1 (a ). See i d. 3 cause s of

action against Rand azz o an d ent ered a def ault judgmen t against A & A Express. The default jud g ment aw ar ded $82 ,950 and $15,150.8 1 in actual damages to Tri umph and Gene Hi ll , r espec ti v ely

. In addit ion , the court aw ar ded pre- and post -j udg ment i nter estand all co urt c ost s t o appel lee s. II. R E S TR I CT E D A P P E AL To attac k a tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment by r est ri cte d ap p e a l, A & A Ex pr ess mustsh ow that: ( 1) a no ti ce of appeal w as filed w it hin six m onths of

the date of w hen t he c omplai nedof judg ment w as si g ned; (2 ) A & A Ex pr ess w as a par ty to the sui t w ho did not par ti ci pate in the h earing t hat resu lted in the ju dgme nt or orde r; (3) A & A Express did not tim ely f ile a post- jud g ment motion, req uestf ind ing s of fact and conc lus ion s of law , or fil e a n oti ce of appeal w it hin the ti me per mitt ed unde r Tex as Rul e of A ppel lat e Pr ocedu re 26.1( a) ; and 4 (4) th e c o m p la ined-o f error i s a ppar ent o n the face of the re cord. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1( c) , 30; see als o Alexander v. Ly nda’ s B outi que , 134 S.W .3d 845 , 8 4 8 (Tex. 2004 ); Tex. Dep’

t of Pu b. Sa fety v. Fredricks , 235 S.W .3d 2 75, 2 78 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 200 7, no pet. ). A& A E x press, a n am ed p arty to th e law suit, f iled its notice of app eal w ithin six months of the date that the tr ial cour t si g ned the or der g ra nti ng Tri umph’s defaultj udg ment. Furthe r, the record doe s not ref lect tha t A & A Express filed any post-judgme nt m otion s,
re q uest s for

findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s of l aw , or a ti mely noti ce of appeal w it hin the cont ex t of r ule 26.1 (a ). See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2 6 .1( a)

. Fi nal ly , as addr ess ed bel ow , t he4

compl ain ed- of error , a defect i n th e s e rvice of ci tati on, i s a ppar ent fr om the face of the
re cord. See Nor

m an Com m c’

ns v. Tex . Ea stm an C o. , 955 S.W .2d 269, 27 0 ( Tex . 199 7) (p er cu ri am) (s tati ng that , f or purpos es of res tr ic ted a ppeal s, the face of the r ecord c onsi sts of all the papers o n fil e i n the appeal ). Thus , A & A Exp re ss has sa ti sfied each of the ele ments for obt ain ing r eli ef thr oug h thi s rest ri cte d appea l. III
. T H E S ERVI C E D E FE CT In its f irst issue, A & A Express argues tha t the trial court erred in grant ing def ault judgme nt be cause the reco rd doe s n o t dem onst rate th at A & A Express w as prop erly
serv ed. Specif ically , A & A Express asserts tha t t h e r e c o rd doe s not ref lect tha t it could law fully be s er v ed th ro ug h H er ender

H andal

. In ad dit ion , A & A Ex pr ess ar g ues that the record do es no t dem onst rate th at Han dal w as actu ally serv ed, as evi den ced b y the retu rn
re cei pt s ig ned by

an u nknow n “ B.K. H undal ” or “ B.H . H undal .” A
. A pp licab le L aw “S tr ic t c ompli ance w it h the r ule s for se rv ic e of ci tati on [mus t] aff ir mati v ely appear on the record i n orde r for a def ault jud gmen t to w ithsta nd d irect atta ck.” Prim ate Constr., In c.
v. Si lv er , 884 S.W .2d 1 51, 1 52 ( Tex . 199 4)

. Fai lure to compl y with the ru les g ov er nin g
ser v ic e of ci tati on c onst it utes er ro r on th e face of the r ecord. Id. at 15 3 (“Proper serv ice not b ein g aff ir mati v ely

sh ow n, t her e i s e rror

on t he face o f t h e r e co rd , and the cour t of appeal s e rred i n hol din g othe rw is e.” ); see Ins . Co. of S tate of Pa. v . Lej eune , 297 S.W .3d 254, 256 (Tex

. 2009) (p er cur iam)

. “Ther e ar e no pr esumpt ion s i n fav or of v ali d i ss uance , ser v ic e, an d r etur n of ci tati on i n the face of a w ri t of er ro r attac k o n a d efault jud g ment.” Si lv er , 884 S.W .2d a t 152 ; se e H ubick i v. Fes ti na , 226 S.W .3d 405, 407 (Tex

. 2007) ( per
cur iam) ; see a lso Maib v. Maib , No. 13- 08- 00413- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 135, at * 45

(T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s C h r i s t i J u n e 11 , 2 0 0 9 , n o pe t. ) (m e m . o p .) (cit in g W achov ia Bank of Del., Nat ’

l Ass ’ n v . G il li am , 215 S.W .3d 848, 850 (Tex . 2007) (p er cu ri am))

. Rat her , w hen a de f ault jud gmen t is ent ered , w e w ill “rig idly enf orce the rules g overning serv ice,” beca use “t he only ground suppor

ti ng the jud g ment is thatthe defendant has fail ed to re spond to the a cti on i n c onformi ty w it h the appl ic abl e procedu re for d oin g so. I f the defendant can then show that the p er son commenc ing the act ion w as guilty

of comp arab le non conf ormity w ith proce d u re rules, und er a principle of

equalitythe de relictions of fset ea ch oth er . . . .” Fes ti na , 2 2 6 S .W .3 d a t 4 0 8 (quo ti n g W il son v. Dun n , 800 S.W .2d 833 , 837 (Te x . 199 0)). “Moreover, fa ilure to af

f irmatively

show strict comp liance wi th th e Rules of Civ il Procedu re rend ers the a ttem pte d servi ce of p rocess invalid and of no ef f ect.” Uv

alde C ountr

y Club
v. Ma rt in Lin en Supply

C o. , 690 S.W .2d 884 , 885 (Tex. 1985 ). Und er r ule 107, w hen a ci tati on is s e rved byr eg is ter ed or ce rt ified mai l as author iz ed unde r ru le 106, the ret ur n bythe off ic er or author iz ed pers on mus t c ontai n the
re tur n re cei pt w it h the addr ess ee’ s s ig natur e. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 106, 107; se e al s o Sw

. Sec. Ser

v., Inc . v

. G am boa, 172 S .W .3 d 9 0 , 93 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2005, no p et.) (conclud ing that servi ce directe d to a registered agent nam ed “Jesu s Morales” w as invalid whe n si g ned for by

“ Gui ll er mo M ontes ”) ; All Com m ercial Floors, Inc. , 9 7 S

. W

. 3 d a t727 (h old ing thata r etur n r ecei pt s ig ned by“ Ma rk ,” w it h an il leg ibl e l astname, w as inv ali d, g iv en th at K ell y

Ly nn Ar re ola w as the i ndi v idu al desi g nated to r ecei v e s er v ic e for the defendant) ; Phar

m aki netics Labs ., Inc . v. K

atz , 717 S.W .2d 7 04, 7 06 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 2001, pet. deni ed) ( hol din g se rv ic e of pr o ce ss defecti v e w hen t he r etur n r ecei pt
w as not si g ned by the a ddr ess ee) ; Br onze & Beauti

ful , Inc. v. M

ahone , 750 S.W .2d 2 8, 29 (Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1988, no w ri t) ( hol din g thatse rv ic e of pr oces s defecti v e w hen t he receipt card w as signed by someo ne who w as no t the regi stered agent).6

B. Discus sion W hil e the r etur n of ser v ic e w as si g ned by

“ B.K. H u n d a l” and “ B.H . H undal ,” the record do es no t esta blish w ho th e recipien t is or his or her relation ship w ith A & A Express. W e can not presu me tha t “B.K. Hundal” or “B. H. Hundal” w ere au tho riz ed to accep t serv ice on A & A Ex pr ess ’s behalf w it hout ev ide nce in the record s uppor ti ng su ch a pr esumpt ion

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 07; Si lv er , 884 S.W .2d a t 152 ; Fes ti na , 226 S. W .3d a t 407 ; see a lso Maib , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 135, at * 4. Mo re ov er , Tr iumph, i n it s or ig ina l peti ti on, s tated tha t A & A Express’s autho riz ed a gent is “He re n d e r Ha nda l,” not “B.K. Hun dal” or “B. H. Hun dal .” F urther more, the ser v ic e addres s indi cat ed on the ci tati on does not c or re spond to th e ad dress for A& AE x press’s aut horized a gent for se rv ice, as cont aine d in T riump h’s
or ig ina l peti ti on. Thus, the record fail s t o s how thatTri ump h s e rved an a uthor iz ed ag ent o f A & A Ex pr ess
. Tri ump h d id not str ic tl y co mply w it h the r ule s for

se rv ic e of ci tati on; t her efore, T riump h’s atte mp t to serv e A & A Express was “invalid and of no ef f ect.” See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 07; see als o U va ld e C o untr y Club , 690 S.W .2d a t 855 ; Gam boa , 172 S.W .3d a t 93; All Com m ercial Floors, Inc. , 97 S.W .3d a t 7 2 7; Keeton , 53 S.W .3d a t 19; Br onze & Be au ti ful, In c. , 750 S.W .2d a t 29; Katz , 717 S.W .2d at 706 . W e ho ld tha t the trial court
er re d in gr anti ng a default jud g ment i n fav or of Tri umph. See Le

jeu ne , 297 S.W .3d a t 256 ; Si lv er , 884 S.W .2d a t 153 ; see als o Alexander , 134 S.W .3d at 84 8; Fredricks , 235 S.W .3d at 27 8. A & A Ex pr ess ’s first is sue on appe al is su sta ine d.

IV. C ONCL US I ON Be c a u s e w e h a v e s u s t a i n e d A & A E x p r e s s ’ s fi r s t i s s u e , w e n e e d n o t a d dr ess i ts7

other iss ues on appe al. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.1. W e the re fore r ev er se and r emand for pr oceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

. RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice
Del iv er ed and filed the 15th day of Jul y , 201 0.