### NUM BER 13-07- 665- 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 C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
M A DH A VA N PISH A ROD I, A pp ellan t,
v . WA TT S L A W FIR M , L .L.P., W

A TT S & HEA RD , L .L.P., R

A Y R . M A RC HA N; C A RM EN D. ROC CO, A ND JA M ES R . GOZA , A pp ellees .

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 57t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la2

This i s a n appea l from a summary j udg ment g ra nted in fav or of appel lee s, Car men D. Rocco, M.D., Jam es R. Goza, W atts L aw Firm, L.L .P., W atts & Heard, L.L .P., Harri s & W atts , P.C. , and Ray

R . M ar chan, and ag ain st appel lan t, Ma dhav en Pi sharodi , M .D . i n a c as e al l eg i ng a bu s e of p r oc es s a nd c on s pi r ac y t o c om mi t ab us e of p r oc es s
. W e affi r m. I. B A CK GRO UND Dr . Pi sharodi , i s a phy si ci an i n Brow nsv il le. Ap pel lee s W atts Law F ir m, L.L .P., W atts & H ear d, L. L.P. , Ha rris & W a tts P.C ., Ray R . M ar chan, and Goz a ar e Tex as attor ney s a nd l aw

fir ms. Dr. Rocc o is a phy si ci an pr act ic ing i n Brow nsv il le. D r. R occ o and Goz a w er e mar ri ed atthe ti me the ev ents su rroundi ng thi s mat ter took pl ace. In 20 00, Dr. Pisha rodi w as nam ed as a def end ant in a me dical ma lpractice lawsuit b r o u g h tb y

t h e C a b e l l o fa mi l y

fo l l o w i n g t h e d e a t h o f t h e i r c h i l d , J u l i o C a b e l l o
. M ar chan,
w or k i ng w i th th e W at ts l aw fi r m, w as th e at to r ne y r ep r es en ti ng th e C ab el l o fami l y . Dr. Roc co w as one of Ju li o C abel lo’ s t re ati ng phy si ci ans. D r. Pi sharodi ’s c lai m in the under ly ing ca se is bas ed pr imar il y on a Ja nuar

y 2001 r e f er ra l fee ag re ement be tw een Goza and M a rc han that nett ed Go z a a $1 40, 000 fee f or referring the Cabello case . Dr

. Pi sharodi as ser

ts that Dr . R occ o “ re ferr ed” the Cab ell o matt er to Goz a, he r husba nd, for leg al re pr esent ati on; G oz a, i n tur n, referr ed th e c ase to M ar chan. Goza f irst met wi th th e Cabe llos in Dr. R o c co’s of f ice af ter Julio’s dea th, a t Dr. Roc co’ s req uest

. The family had leg al q uest ion s t hat D r. R occ o c oul d notans w er
. Dur ing tha t me eting, issues aro se tha t Goza t hou ght co uld lead to a ma lpractice act ion. Goza told the C abel los that he coul d re commend s ev er al attor ney s t o as si st them, inc lud ing att or ney Ma rc han.3

Dr . Pi sharodi cl aims t h a t b e caus e D r. R occ o w as a treati ng phy si ci an i n the und erly ing case, she was an impo rtant f act and e x pert wi tne ss. He urg es tha t the Cabello
cas e w oul d hav e been w orthl ess and w oul d probabl y not hav e been file d had the def end ant s known early -on tha t Dr. R occo’s hu sban d ha d received a large ref erral fee in the c ase. D r. Pi sharodi as ser ts that the re ferr al fee w as conc eal ed from t he defendants and him. He argues tha t Dr. Rocco a ctua lly rece iv ed the f ee b ecau se she and Goza w ere marr ied at the t ime. The cas e ev entual ly s e tt led. The Cab ell os’ ca se ag ain st Dr . Pi sharodi w as dism issed after he a llegedly incurred $80 ,00 0 in atto rney’s f ees. He the n f iled suit against app e llees c lai ming abus e of pr oces s a nd c onspi ra cy to abuse proces s. In re spons e, appel lee s fil ed and the t ri al cour t g ra nted thei r moti ons for s ummary j udg ment. II. S TAND ARD OF R EVI EW W e re vie w th e t ri a l c o u rt ' s su m m a ry j u d gm e n td e n o vo
. Pr ovi dent Lif e and Accide nt Ins . C o. v

. Kn ott, 128 S.W .3d 2 11, 2 15 ( Tex . 200 3)

. The sta ndar ds of rev iew for t ra dit ion al and no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ments ar e w ell es tabl is hed. A mov a n t for tradi ti onal
summar y j udg ment has the bur den t o es tabl is h tha t t h er e ar e no mater ial i ss ues of f act

. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( c) ; Rhon e-Pou lenc, Inc. v. Stee l, 997 S.W .2d 217 , 222 (Tex. 1999 ); Me rcier v. Sw. B ell

Yel low Pages , Inc. , 214 S.W .3d 7 70, 7 73 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 200 7, no pet. ). Ev iden ce f avor a b le t o t he n on-m ovant w ill be ta ken a s true, every
re asona ble i nferenc e w il l be indul g ed i n the non- mov ant' s fav or , and doubt s mus t be
re sol v ed i n the non- mov ant' s fav or
. Knott , 128 S.W .3d a t 215

.

In c ontr ast , a no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment i s the s ame as a pretr ial di re cte d4

v er dic t, and w e apply

the same l eg al suffici ency st andard on re v iew

. Mack Tr ucks, In c. v. T a m e z, 206 S.W .3d 5 72, 5 81- 2 ( Tex . 200 6) ; Orteg a v. City Nat 'l Bank, 97 S.W .3d 765, 772 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch ris ti 2003, no p et.) ( op. o n r eh'g ). W e r ev iew the ev ide nce in the li g ht mos t f a vora ble to the n on- mov ant. City of K eller v. Wils on, 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 25 (Tex . 200 5)

. The non- mov ant must prod uce ev ide nce to rais e a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact i n order

to defeat a no -e v ide nce summar y ju d gm e nt. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66 a( i )

. To deter mine w hether

the non- mov ant h as met it s bur den, w e re v iew the ev ide nce in the l ig ht
mo st favorable to th e no n-mo v ant , crediting such evidence that reason able jurors could
cr edi t and di sr eg ar din g co ntr ar y ev ide nce unl ess reaso nabl e jur ors c oul d not

. T a m e z, 206 S.W .3d a t 582 ; City of Keller, 168 S.W .3d a t 827

. Becau se appel lee s p re sent ed bot h no- ev ide nce and t ra dit ion al g ro unds for
sum ma ry

ju dgme nt, we first add ress app ellant s’ challenges to th e no -ev iden ce mo tions. See F or d Motor C o. v . R idg way , 135 S.W .3d 598 , 600 (Tex. 2004 ).

I I I

. A N ALY SI s A. Ab use o f

Process W e f irst turn to D r. P isharod i’s abuse of process claim . Th e term “process” is defined a s “ [a] summons or w ri t, esp. to appear

or r espon d i n c our

t.” B L A CK ’ S L AW D I C T I O N A R Y 1 0 1 0 ( 8 t h e d

. 2 0 0 5 ) ; Se e M a rtin v. T re vi no , 5 7 8 S

. W

. 2 d 7 6 3 , 7 6 9 (T e x. Ci v. App.– C or pu s C hr i s ti 19 78 , w r i t r ef’ d n. r .e .)

. The el em en ts of an ab us e of proc ess claim inc lud e ( 1) an i ll eg al, i mprop er , or per v erted u se o f

p ro ces s, nei ther

w ar ra nted nor author iz ed by

the pr oces s, (2 ) an ul ter ior moti v e or

pur pose in ex er ci si ng such u se, and (3 ) damag es as a re sul t of t he i ll eg al act

. Pr eston Gate, L.P. v. Buk aty , 248 S.W .3d 8 92, 8 975

(Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2008, no pet .)

. In order to be an abuse , the pr oces s mus t hav e been used to accom plish an end w hich is beyond th e pu rvi e w o f the pro cess an d com pels a par ty to do c oll ater al thi ng s that he could not be c ompell ed to do

. Id. T he crucial asp ect of this tor

t i s the impr oper

us e of pr oces s a fter i t has been is sued. Id .; Boss in v. Towber , 894 S. W .2d 2 5, 33 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, pet. deni ed)

. In other w or ds, the
or ig ina l is suanc e o f

p ro ce ss i s j ust ified , butthe pr oces s i s l ater us ed for an uni ntended pur pose. Id

. W hen t he proces s i s u sed for th e pur pose for w hic h i t was i ntended , ev en if ac compl is hed t hr oug h ul ter ior moti v e, no abus e of pr oces s h as occ ur re d. Id .; Baubles & Bea ds v. Loui

s V uitton , S.A

. 766 S.W .2d 377 , 379 (Te x . App .–T exarkana 19 89, no w rit). The “g is t” of abuse of

proce ss as a tor

t does not inv olv e commenci ng an a cti on or caus ing proces s t o is sue w it hout jus ti ficat ion

. Bl ack sto ck v. T atum , 396 S.W .2d 4 63, 4 68 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 1965, no w ri t)

. Rat her , it inv olv es mis usi ng or mis appl y ing pr oces s j ust ified i n i ts elf for an end other than i t w as int ended t o ac compl is h. Id. The pur pose for w hic h the proce ss i s u sed is the onl y thi ng of impor

tanc e. Id

. If w ro ng ful int ent o r mali ce caus ed th e proces s t o be is su e d i nit ial ly , t he c lai m is i nst ead one for mali ci ous pr osec uti on. Monte m ayor v. Ortiz , 208 S.W .3d 6 27, 6 50 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet. deni ed)

. Mere procu reme nt or issuan ce of process w ith a m alicious inte nt or w ithou t proba ble
caus e i s n ot ac ti onabl e; t her e mustbe an improper us e of the pr oces s a fter i ts is suanc e. Detenbec k v

. Ko ester , 886 S.W 2d 4 77, 481 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 94, no w rit). W her e the onl y

proces s i ss ued i n a c ase is a c it ati on and no al leg a ti o n s a re m a d e w it h
re g ar d to any

abuse in the ex ecut ion of ser v ic e of thatproces s, ther e i s n o c ause of acti on6

for abus e of pr oces s. Id. In t hei r no- ev ide nce moti ons for summary judg ment, appel lee s c lai m thatthere w as no ev ide nce adduc ed of t he ele ments re q uired to maint ain an abus e of pr oces s c lai m. A s the r ule i tse lf r ecog niz es, appel lee s h ad no bur den t o produce ev ide nce. City of K eller , 168 S.W .3d a t 825

. Rat her , t he ru le pla ces the b ur den upo n Pi sharodi to produce ev ide nce. For d Motor C o. , 135 S.W .3d a t 600

. As summar

y j udg m e n t e videnc e, P is har odi su bmit ted a n aff ida v itex ecut ed by attor ney H or aci o Bar re ra
. Bar re ra av er re d that informati on reg ar din g a re ferr al fee paid to Goza w as no t rev eale d in the case. Had th e informa tion b een disclosed , the disc overy proce ss and the strat egy emp loyed bythe de f end an t s would ha v e be en a ltered . Dr

. Pi sharodi st ated in his aff ida v itthat he did not know unti l September 2003 that a r eferr al f ee h ad b een paid to Goza. He claims tha t he spe nt ap proximate ly $80 ,00 0 in atto rney’s fees, t hat h e c ommitt ed no actof neg li g ence, and that ther e w as no l eg it imat e bas is for t he suit tha t the plaintif

f brought against him

. Atto rney Ed Stap leton also subm itted an af f idavit in re spons e to the n o- ev ide nce moti o n f o r summary j udg ment t hat o utl ine d the circumsta nces su rround ing th e ref erral fee to Goza. H e op ined that the claim against Dr. Pisha rodi w ould have had no value if it had be en kn own "that Carmen Rocco w as a f act
w i tn es s , ex pe rt w i tn es s an d i n a po s i ti on to r ec ei v e a c on ti ng en t fee ba s ed on th e s am e clai m." D r. Pi sharodi al so attac hed v ar iou s d is cov er y r espon ses to his r espon se that outl ine d the r eferr al fee ag re ement, as w ell as ex cer pts from hi s d eposi ti on.

All of the evidence of f ered involv ed the ex iste n c e o f a n d t h e a ll e ge d s ecrecy surroun ding t he ref erral fee a rrangeme nt. T here w as, ho w ever, no evi den ce of f ered byDr.7

Pi sharodi thatappel lee s made an i ll eg al, i mprop er , or perv erted use o f the proces s, that ther e w as an ul ter ior

moti v e for ex er ci si ng the use of proc ess or thatdamag es re sul ted from an i ll eg al acti nv olv ing the pr oces s. T he only proce ss inv olv ed here w as the c it ati on that w as is sued. Ther e w as no al leg ati o n o r e vidence tha t t her e w as abuse i n the
ex ecut ion or

se rv ic e of pr oces s. The mer e mai ntenanc e of a c iv il ac ti on, e v en i f done w it h
ma licious inten t, w ill not supp ort a cau se of action for abu se of

process
. Deten beck , 886 S.W .2d a t 481

. Acc or din g ly , w e hol d tha t Pi sharodi fail ed to i ntrod u ce anyev ide nce on any eleme nt of

an ab use o f

p ro c e s s cla im an d the no-evidence mot ions for sum ma ry jud g ment w er e proper ly g ra nted. B. Consp iracy

to Com mit Ab use o f

Process A c iv il co nspi ra cy

i nv olv es a c ombina ti on of tw o or more persons w it h an unl awful pur pose ora l a wf ul pur pose to be ac compl is hed by unl awful means

. Ernst & Yo ungv. Paci fic Mut. Lif

e Ins

. Co., 51 S.W .3d 5 73, 583 (Tex. 2001 ). Because the con spiracy itself
re q uires int ent, the u nder ly ing tor t for a cons piracy

mustbe a n i ntent ion al tor t. Fi re sto ne Steel Pr ods. v. Ba ra

jas , 927 S.W .2d 608 , 617 (Tex. 1996 ). The elem ent s of consp iracy require some participat ion in an und erly ing tort; if n o inte ntion al tort w as com mitt ed, there is no c lai m for c onspi ra cy
. Id. T he trial cou rt correctly dete rmine d tha t app ell e e s we re entitle d to sum ma ry jud g ment as a mat ter

of law on t hei r a b u se of

proces s c lai m. B ecaus e the re w as no ev ide nce off er ed that the abuse of proces s tor t had been commi tted by any of the app ellees, the con spiracy to com mit ab use o f process claim also fails. Dr . P is haro di’s is sue, w hic h enc ompass es both the a buse of proc ess and cons piracy to commi t abuse o f8

dis cr eti on c lai ms, is ov er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 4th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 8.