NO. 07-07 -013 4-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A OC TOBER2, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ KIRK LA BOR, APP ELL ANT

v. RO BER T W AR RE N, M .D ., JOH AN NA JO NE S, D AVID HE ND RI CK S, M .D ., AN D TED M AR GO, M .D ., APPEL LEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 48 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T AR RA NT COU NT Y; TH NO. 048 -199 461 -03; HON. DAVID EVA NS, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. Opinion Appel lan t, Ki rk

Labor , app eal s a summar y jud g ment ru li ng di smi ss ing hi s c lai ms for tortiou s interferen ce w it h p rospe ctiv e bu siness relatio nship against app ellees, Dav id Hend ricks and T ed Margo. Lab or add itiona lly app eals th e t ria l court’s aw ard of costs in fav or o f ap pe l l ee s , H en dr i c k s , M arg o, a nd R ob er t W ar ren . W e affi r m.2 Back g ro und In 199 9, Dr. Kirk Lab or p racticed with Op hth alm ology A ssociate s (he reafter “OA”). Tow ard the end of 1999, La bor l eft the e mploy

of OA to t e nd to a s ic k rela ti v e. In 20 01, Labor so ug ht t o retur n to OA. The s harehol ders o f OA hel d a meet ing to dis cus s w hether to rehi re Labor

. At t his meeti ng , J ohanna Jones , t he office manag er for OA, disc los ed to the s harehol ders t hat t here had been r umors that , dur ing hi s p ri or empl oy ment w it h OA , Labor may hav e been involv ed i n an extra- mari tal re lat ion shi p w it h an OA sta ff tec hni ci an. In ad dit ion, Jones ind ic ated that Labor had faile d to re tur n a p ay ro ll ch eck thathad been errone ously i ssued t o h im , t h o ugh she also indicate d tha t he did not cash the che ck. Follow ing the me eting, the shareh olde rs of OA decid ed to reh ire L abo r and he began work in Janua ry

2002. At some pointduri ng his 2002 employ ment w it h OA, Labor lea rn ed of the comments that Jones had made at the sharehol der m eeti ng . In Aug ustof 2002, Labor g av e a letter of res ig nati on to OA, w hic h bec ame effect iv e at the end of N ov ember

. In c onj unct ion w it h his resi g nati on, L abor

and OA reache d an ag re ement t hat Labor w oul d payOA $150,0 00 to be released f rom th e no ncom pet e clause in his emp loymentagree me nt. T his release f urthe r p ro v ided thatOA w ill have discretion w het her to p rov ide pa tient s w ith con tact infor mati on for Labor ’s new pract ic e and t hat O A may ch arg e pat ien ts for medi cal records at t he c ostes tabl is hed by OA at t he ti me the re cords are req uest ed. W hil e wor ki ng for O A i n 2002, Labor wor ked out o f a M in eral W ell s o ff ic e tha t O A s u b l e a s e d fro m a n o t h e r O Ad o ct o r , C a r

y L a b b e . N e a r

t h e t i me t h a tL a b o r ’ s re s i g n ati on3

beca me ef

fective, Lab be resigned and sought an early ter m in a t io n of

the sub lease ag re ement. OA and Lab be neg oti ated an ear ly ter minat ion of the s ubl ease that prov ide d OA a transi ti on per iod , dur ing w hic h OA had full ri g ht of use o f t h e proper

ty , unt il Ju ne 1, 2003. In a d d it io n , the e ar ly ter minat ion ag re ement s peci fical ly prov ide d tha t no non- OA ophthal molog is ts coul d treat a ny pati ents in the premis es dur ing the transi ti on per iod

. As Labor and Labbe h ad pl anned a busi ness re lat ion shi p to use the off ic e s ubl eased to OA, the e ar ly ter minat ion ag re ement forced Labor to obtai n different off ic e s pace for s ome ti me. Labor bro u g h ts u i ta g a i n s tW a r re n , H e n d r i c k s , M a rg o , a n d J o n e s a l l e g i ng defamation, li bel , sl ander , tor ti ous int er

ferenc e w it h cont ra ct, and tor ti ous int er

ferenc e w it h prospecti v e bus ine ss r e la ti o n s. Pr ior to tr ial , t he defendants fil ed a Mo ti on for Par ti al Summary

Ju dg ment. The tr ial co urt g ra nted the mot ion i n par t and deni ed i n par

t. Sub sequen tly , the defend ant s f il e d a Motion for Sum ma ry Judgme nt on All of

Plaintif f ’s Rem aining Claims. T he trial cou rt again grant ed parts of the m otion and den ied ot her pa rts. The combi ned effect of the tr ial court ’s su mmary j udg ment r uli ng s was to di smi ss eac h of Labor ’s cl aims ex cept for cer tai n cl aims made ag ain st Jones and two c lai ms of defamatio n made ag ain st W ar re n. Dur ing the tr ial on t hese re maini ng cl aims , Lab o r a n d Jones re ached a s ettl ement an d th e c l ai ms a g ai ns t J on es w ere di s mi s s ed w i th p rej ud i c e. Th e def am ation c l ai ms against W arren were tr ied an d sub mitt ed to the jury. T he claim s against W arren th at w ere submi tted to the jur

y al leg ed th at, in June of 2002, W ar re n made a defamator y st atement to La bbe conce rning Labo r and, a t an un specif ied tim e, W arren m ade a defam ato ry sta tement about Labor to the d aug hter

of one of Labor ’s former pati e n ts

. T he j ur

y found4

that W ar re n di d notmake a defamator y st atement in either

of thes e i nst ances and the t ri al cour t ent ered judg ment on the v erdict and i ts summar y j udg ment r uli ng s. In addi ti on, t he jud g ment awarded c our t c ost s t o H endr ic ks , M arg o, an d W ar re n. By three i ss ues, Labor appeal s thi s jud g ment. By hi s first is sue, Labor

co ntends that the trial court erred in dismissing his d e fa m a t io n a nd to rtious inte rferen ce w ith bu siness re la ti onshi p c lai ms ag ain st Hen dr ic ks

. By hi s s econd i ss ue, L abor co ntends thatthe tr ial court erred in dism issing his tortiou s interferen ce w ith bu siness relatio nship claim against Ma rg o. By

h is third i ss ue, L abor

co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n aw ardin g co sts to appel lee s i n the abs ence of proof of thes e c o st s. W e w il l address Labor ’s i ss ues in the followi ng order: the propriety of the c o u rt’s summ aryjudgmen t dismissa l of Lab or’s defam ation claim against Hen dricks (Issue One ), the prop rie ty of the cou rt’s summ ary jud g ment di smi ss al of the tor ti ous int er

ferenc e clai ms ag ain st Hen dr ic ks and Ma rg o ( Iss ues One and Two), and th en th e judgme nt’s award of costs (Issue T hree ). Standa rd of Rev iew

on S ummary

Ju dg ment I ss ues Each of Labor ’s first two i ss ues chal len g e s ummary j udg ment r uli ng s made by the trial court. A party may prevail on a t radition al sum ma ry judgmen t mo tion b y

conclusively est abl is hin g the absen ce of an y g enui ne is sue of a mater ial fact a nd th at t he par ty i s e nti tl ed to j udg ment as a matter of law

. T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 66a( c)

. W e rev iew the g ra nti ng of suc h a conclu siv ely- esta blished summ aryjudgmen t usin g the stand ards set o ut in Nix on v. M r. Prop. M g mt. C o., 690 S. W .2d 5 46, 5 48- 49 ( Tex . 198 5) :5

1. T he m ovant for sum ma ry judgmen t has the burd en of showing tha t the re is no genuine is s u e o f

m a t e ria l fa ct and thatit is ent itled to judgmen t as a matter of law

. 2. In determ ining w het her there is a dispu ted issue of ma terial fa ct precl udi ng su mmary

j udg ment, ev ide nce fav orabl e to the non- mov ant w il l be tak en as tr ue. 3. Ev er y reaso nabl e inferenc e must be ind ulg ed in fav or of the non- mov ant and any doubt s resolv ed in its favor. If the mov ant for

su mmary

j udg ment i s a defendant, then, in order to be enti tl ed to summar y j udg ment, the mov ant mus t di sprov e at lea sto n e o f t he el ements of the n onmov ant’ s c ause of acti on, o r, al ter nati v ely , th e m ov ant mus t prov e eac h el ement of an a f f ir m a t ive d e fe n s e . Ra n d a ll ’s Fo o d Mkt s . , I n c . v. Jo h n s o n , 8 9 1 S

. W

. 2 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 4 (T e x. 199 5). Ev iden ce favoring the m ovant’s positio n i s n ot con sidered unless it is uncon trov erted. Putt hof v

. Ancr um, 934 S.W .2d 1 64, 1 67- 68 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 19 96, w ri t den ied ). Claims of Defam ation Against Hend ricks Lab or conte nds th at th e trial court erred in de term ini ng, byw ay of summ ary judgme nt, th at W arren w as no t acting as He n d ricks’s agent when W arren alleged ly repu blished defam ato ry state me nts originally

mad e by Jones. Lab or doe s no t generally a ss ign erro r in th e tri a l co u rt ’s s u m m a ry jud gm e n t ruli n g. L a b o r a lso d o e s n o t c h a lle n ge th e tr i al c ou rt’ s s pe c i fi cs um ma r y j ud g me nt r ul i ng s t ha t H en dr i c k s d i d no t di rectl y d efa me Labor and tha t t here w as no ev ide nce to s uppor t any al leg ati on th at W ar re n made defamatory

st atements , ot her

than i n reg ard to the tw o i ss ues that w ere s ubmitted t o the6

jur y . In res pectof

those tw o al leg ed defamator y st atements , Lab or

does not chal len g e the jur y ’s findi ng s t hat W ar re n di d notdefame Labor i n tho se two s peci fic i nst ances . A j udg ment may

not be rev ersed on appe al on the g ro und that the t ri al cour t er re d unle ss such error proba b ly c a u sed th e rend ition of an imp rope r judgmen t or proba bly prev ented the p ro per

present ati on of the cas e on appeal

. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44. 1(a). Ajury ’s findi ng in a t rial thatco mes after a s ummary

j udg ment r uli ng ca n render er ro r in the summar y j udg ment r uli ng har mles s. See Prog re ss iv e Cou nty Mu t. Ins

. Co. v . Bo y d, 17 7 S.W .3d 9 19, 9 21 (Te x . 200 5). A n app ellate ch allenge to a sum ma ry judgmen t ruling mu st challen ge ea c h g ro u n d upo n w hich th e ruling could be su ppo rted or it mu st generally ass ig n er ro r to t he g ra nt of s ummary j udg ment. See Ma loo ly Bros. , I nc. v . N api er , 461 S.W .2d 119 , 121 (Tex. 1970 ). By his f irst issue, Lab or conte nds th at th e trial court erred in m akin g t h e sum ma ry jud g ment r uli ng thatW ar re n w as not H endr ic ks ’s ag ent. H ow ev er , for the ex is tenc e of an ag ency rela ti onshi p betw een W ar re n and Hen dr ic ks to cons ti tute a mater ial fact i ss ue i n the presentca se, there woul d hav e to be s ome bas is to suppo rta deter minat ion that W ar re n d e fa me d L a b o r i n o rd e r fo r l i a b i l i ty fo r t h a t d e fa ma t i o n t o b e i mp u t e d t o H e n d ri ck s b ased o n th e exis te n ce of

th e age n cy. Ho wever, as La b o r do e s n o t c h a lle n ge a n y of th e f in d in gs that nei ther Hen dr ic ks nor W ar re n defamed hi m, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng that no ag ency

rela ti onship e xist e d betw een W ar re n and Hen dr ic ks , ev en i f erroneous , was re ndered har mles s b y

the uncha ll eng ed findi ng s t hat W ar re n di d notdefame Labor

. See Prog re ss iv e C ounty

M ut. Ins . C o., 177 S. W .3d a t 921

.7 Tor ti ou s I nt er

feren c e C l ai ms By his firs t and second is sues , Lab or co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n g ra nti ng summar y j udg ment i n fav or

of Hen dr ic ks and Marg o i n reg ard to Labor ’s cl aims of tor ti ous int er ferenc e w it h pot enti al busi ness rela ti onshi ps. To est abl is h a cl aim of torti ous int er ferenc e w it h a p ro specti v e bus ine ss rela ti onshi p, a pl ain ti ff mustes tabl is h: ( 1) a reas onabl e probabi li ty that the pl ain ti ff

woul d hav e ent ered int o the busines s rel ati onshi p; (2)an i ndependen tl y tor ti ous or unl awful act by

the defendant that prev ented the rela ti onshi p from oc cur ri ng ; ( 3) the defendant di d s uch a ctwit h a conscio us de sire to prevent the relationsh ip f rom o ccurring or knew tha t the interferen ce w as cert a in o r su bst anti all y ce rt ain to occ ur ; and ( 4) the pla int iff suffered actual har m or da ma g e s a s a re s u l to f t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s i n t e r fe re n c e . B a ty

v . P ro Te c h I n s . A g e n cy , 63 S.W .3d 841 , 860 (Tex.A p p . – Ho usto n [14 Dist.] 2001 , pet . den ied). An ind epe nde ntly th tor ti ous actneed not b e prov en to be an independ ent tor t, but t he pl ain ti ff

mustprov e tha t the defend ant ’s condu ct w ould be actiona ble unde r a recogniz ed to rt. W al-Mart Stores, In c. v . St urg es, 52 S .W .3d 7 11, 7 26 ( Tex . 200 1)

. Ho wever, c onduct t hat i s merely “ shar p” or unfair i s n ot acti onabl e and canno t be the basi s for an a cti on for tor

ti ous int er

ferenc e w it h prospecti v e bus ine ss rela ti onshi ps. I d. On ap peal , Lab or

bas es his claim s that Hen dr ic ks and Ma rg o tor ti ousl y i nter fered w it h Labor ’s prospecti v e bus ine ss re lat ion shi p w it h Labbe on the “i ndependen tl y tor ti ous or unl a wf ul act” of

W arren, a s an agentof Hendricks and Marg o, m aking defam ato ryW e n o te t h a t L a b o r’s p e ti ti o n al so in clu d e s a n al le gat io n th a t He n d ric ks an d Margo 1 tor ti ousl y i nter fered w it h his prospecti v e busin ess rel ati onshi p w it h Labbe by “ re q uir [i ng ]” Labbe t o c ontract ual ly

ex cl ude Lab or

from us ing the Mi neral W ell s o ff ic e as p a rtof the ear ly ter minat ion of OA’ s s ubl ease of the office. H ow ever, i n h is appe ll ate b ri ef, Labor does not prov ide any author ity or subs tanti v e dis cus si on of ho w thi s cont ra ctu al prov is ion w as tor ti ous or unl awful. Therefore, t his bas is for h is cl aim is w aiv ed. See Le w is v . D eaf Sm ith Elec. Co-op ., Inc. , 768 S.W .2d 511 , 512 -13 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 1989 , no wr it). 8 sta tements to Labbe t hat L abor had an af

fair w it h an OA techn ic ian in 1999. H ow ev er , as 1 a d d re ss e d ab o ve, La b o r ha s no t ap p e a le d th e su m m a ry ju d gm e n t ruli n gs o r ju ry f in d in gs t h a tW a rre n d id n o td e fa m e L a b o r. T h u s , L a b o r’ s cl a im s o f d e fa m a t io n d o n o tid e n t ify a tortiou s or u nlawfu l a ct as is req uired to state a claim of tortious int erferen ce w ith bu siness relation ship. As a result, we conclude thatthe trial court did not err in dismissing Lab or’s tor ti ous int er

ferenc e c lai ms ag ain st Hen dr ic ks and Ma rg o. For the foregoing reason s, w e overrule Labo r’s first tw o issues. Aw ard of Co urt C ost s By hi s t hird i ss ue, L abor

co ntends t h a t th e t rial co urt er re d i n awardin g co sts to Hen dr ic ks , M arg o, an d W ar re n b e ca u se t h e appel lee s d id not fil e a w ri tten moti on re q uest ing an a w ard of cos ts and di d notprov e up the c ost s t hey i ncur re d. A s a g e nera l rule, the succe ssf ul party to a suit shall recover of h is adversary all cos ts inc ur re d the re in. Se e T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 31. The al loc ati on of cos ts is a matter for t he tr ial co urt’ s d is creti on and canno t be ov ertur ned on appeal absent an abuse of di sc re ti on. Ma dis on v . W il li amson, 241 S.W .3d 145, 157 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 Di st. ] 2007, pet. st deni ed)

. It is an a buse of dis cre ti o n for a tr ial co urt t o r ule ar bit ra ri ly , unreason abl y , or9

w it hout re g ard to g uid ing l eg al pr inc ipl es. G oode v. Shoukfeh, 943 S .W .2d 4 41, 4 46 (Te x .19 97). A successf ul party need n ot pray for o r f ile a w ritten m otion for costs be cause Rule 131 of the Tex as Rul es of Ci v il Procedu re enti tl es the p re v ail ing par ty to an award of cos ts re g ardle ss of w hether

that par ty mov ed for them. Thompson v . Be y er , 91 S.W .3d 9 02, 9 04 (Tex .App. –Da llas 2002, no p et.) ; C ity of Ir v ing v . D all as/ For

t W orth I nt’ l Ai rp ort Bd ., 894 S.W .2d 4 56, 4 71 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 19 95, w ri t deni ed)

. W hil e the appel lee s were not re q uired t o f il e a w ri tten re q uestfor c ost s, the a ppel lee s’ F irst Amended A nswer does re q uestthatthe appel lee s “ re cov er thei r cos ts

. . . .” Thus, w e c annot conc lud e tha t t he tr ial court ab used its discretion in awarding c o s t s t o t he a ppe llees ba sed o n the app ellees’ failure to f ile a w ritten requestfor costs. A successf ul party i n a l a wsu itis no t required to sub mit an accou nting of its court cos ts to t he tr ial co urt or oppos ing co unsel before jud g ment may be e ntered adj udi cat ing cos ts. Se e T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 31.007( a) ( Ver non 200 8) ; M adi son, 241 S.W .3d at 158 . Rather, th e succe ssf ul party is re spon sible to sub mit a reco rd of its court costs t o t h e c o u rtcle rk so that th e clerk can pe rform its m inisterial dut y and tax costs in acc ordance w it h Tex as Rul e of C iv il Procedu re 622. Id. Thus, w e c annot conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n awardin g co sts to the a p p e lle es ev en th oug h the appel lee s d id not s ubmitan ite miz ed accoun ti ng of their co sts to the t ri al cour

t or oppos ing coun sel. W e ov er ru le Labor ’s thi rd i ss ue.10 Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led each of La bor ’s appel lat e is sues , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial cour t.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice