### NUM BER 13-06- 0064 9-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
JOEL M OLA NO, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 9 2n d Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la Opin ion b y

Ju stice R od rigu ez App ellee, the St ate of T exas, acting through the Consum er Protect ion an d Pub lic Hea lt h D iv isio n o f

t h e Att or ney

Gene ra l' s O ff ic e ( the S tate or Att or ney

Gene ra l) , s ued appel lan t, Joel M ola no, for the unautho ri z ed pract ic e of la w and v iol ati ons of the Tex as Dec epti v e Tra de Pract ic es–C onsum e r P ro t e ct i o n A ct ( DTPA) and chapt er 406 of the Tex as2

Gov er nment C ode. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17.47 (V er non Su pp. 2 008) ; T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 406.016 (d ) (V er non 200 5) ( "A not ar y publ icnot li cens ed to pract ic e l aw in this s t a t e m a y n o tg iv e legal advice or accep t fees for legal adv ice." ). The trial court
re n d e re d ju d gm e n t fo r th e St a te , o rd e rin g pe rm a n e n t in ju n ct ive re lie f an d awar d in g a mo net aryjudgmen t against Molano

. B y three issue s, Molano conte nds th at th e trial court abuse d i ts dis cret io n i n d e n ying hi s mot ion to abate and t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n i ts int er pretati on of the DTPA w hen i t aw arded c iv il penal ti es, rest it uti on, a nd at tor ney 's fees i n th e ab s en c e of a v i ol at i on o f i nj un c ti v e rel i ef. W e affi r m. I. Bac kg ro und T he St ate brought th e un de r ly ing l awsuit seeking injunctive relief and prayi ng fo r civ il penal ti es in the amount of $20,000 per DTPA v iol ati on, rest it uti on to co nsumers o f money
or proper

ty acq uired by means of Mol ano' s a cts or pract ic es, see T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C ODE A NN . § 17.47 (V er non Supp.2 008) , and re asona ble attor ney 's fees and cour t c ost s. See T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 406.006 (c ) (V er non 200 5)

. Mo lan o fil ed a motio n to abate all eg ing tha t "[th e Sta te] h as failed to follow the prerequisites of a class action law suit con taine d in Rul e 42 of the Tex as Rul es of Ci vil P ro ce d u re " and pray ing thatthe tr ial co urt aba te t he under ly ing proceed ing "unti l [the Stat e] foll ow s t he req uirements se t outi n the cl ass ac ti on p ro vi si on c ontai ned i n R ule 42." See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 4 2

. Th e t r i a l c o u rt , a fter hear ing Mo lan o's moti on to abat e and cons ide ri ng the arg uments of couns el, deni ed th e moti on. Fol low ing a be nch tr ial , t he tr ial co urt s ig ned a final judg ment order ing per manent in ju n ct ive re lie f

an d awar d in g th e fo llo wing: that

. . . [the] Sta te .

. . hav e and re cov er from

. . . M o la n o $10, 000.00 as re st it u ti o n to co n su m e rs o f m o n e y acqu ire d by m e a n s o f fa lse , m isl e a d in g, or dec epti v e act s or pract ic es of defendant; $10 ,000. 00 as a c iv il penal ty toT h e tri a l c o u rt m a d e th e fo l l o w i n g p e rti n e n t fi n d i n g s o f f a c t: 1 1. O n oraft er Janu ar y 1, 200 5, t o M ay 4, 2006 , [ M ol ano] eng aged i n t he b usi ness o f gi v i ng a dv i ce orr ender i ng a ser v i ce r equi r i ng t he u se of l egal ski l l and knowl edge i n:
a. i nt er v i ewi ng p er sons a nd a dv i si ng t hem as t o whet her or not t o f i l e a pet i t i on or app l i cat i on f or di v or ce un der st at e l aw or f or i m m i gr at i on b enef i t s u nderf eder al l aw ; b. dr af t i ng a nd p r epar i ng p l eadi ngs o r d oc um en t s f or ot her s i n j udi ci al or adm i ni st r at i v e pr oceedi ngs r el at i ng t o di v or ce act i ons or i m m i gr at i on t o t he Uni t ed St at es;
c. D r af t i ng a nd p r epar i ng wi l l s, cont r act s, agr eem ent s, power s of at t or ney , and aff i dav i t s f or ot her s; d. sel ect i ng a nd co m pl et i ng l egal f or m s or i nst r um ent s f or ot her s i n di v or ce ac t i on s an d p roc ee di ng s rel ati ng t o i m m i gra t i on t o t he U ni t ed S t ates ; an d/or
e. pr epar i ng l egal i nst r um ent s af f ect i ng t i t l e t o r eal pr oper t y , such as de eds a nd d e e d s o f tru s t; 2

. I n t h e c o n d u c t o fb u s in e s s , [ M o la n o ] a d v e r tis e d , o ff e r e d f o r s a le , a n d /o r s o ld h is s e r v ic e s to c o n s u m e r s o fth is S ta te . A t le a s t 2 0 0 p e r s o n s a c q u ire d b y p u r c h a s e d e f e n d a n t's ser v i ces, and t he sa l e t r ansact i on wi t h ea ch pe r son co nst i t ut es an unl awf ul act orpr act i ce a n d a s e p a ra te vio l a ti o n o f th e T e x a s D e c e p ti v e T ra d e P ra c ti c e s - C o n s u m e r P ro te c ti o n A c t, T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 7 .4 1 , et seq. ; 3. O n oraft er Janu ar y 1, 200 5, t o M ay 4, 200 6, [ M ol ano] sol i c i t ed , c har ged, and r ecei v ed co m pensat i on, t otal i ng $10, 000. 00, f r om consu m er s f or gi v i ng a dv i ce an d f or r ender i ng t he se r v i ces en um er at ed i n pa r agr aph 1 ab ov e; and ,

. . . . 6. A t t orn ey for [ t he S t ate] sp en t 15 0 h ou rs w ork i ng on t hi s c a s e t ha t w ere ne c es s ary f or t he p r operr epr esent at i on o ft he St at e, and t he u sual and cu s t om ary ra t e cha r ged by pra c t i c i ng at t orn ey s of hi s l eve l of ex pe ri en c e i n H i da l go C ou nty i s $1 50

. 00 pe r hou r. T he p er t i nent par t of

t he t r i al cour t ' s concl usi ons o fl aw ar e t he f ol l owi ng: 14. [ M ol ano] acqu i r ed $ 10, 000. 00, by m eans ofhi s unl awf ul act s and pr act i ces, f r om consum er s who a r e en t i t l ed t o r est i t ut i on; 15. Just i ce r equi r es t he i m posi t i on o fa ci v i l pen al t y i n t he a m ount of $10 , 000. 00 f or t he v i o l a ti o n s o f l a w c o m m i tte d b y [M o l a n o ]; 3 the State . . . for fals e, misl eadi ng , or dec epti v e ac ts or

pract ic es commi tted by [M ola no]; and $15 ,000. 00 as reason abl e and neces sar y att or ney 's fees to t he St ate .

. . . The tr ial co urt fil ed findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law , and thi s a ppeal ens ued. 11 6

. A r e a s o n a b le f e e f o r th e n e c e s s a r y s e r v ic e s o fth e S ta te 's a tt o r n e y o fr e c o r d in th is case i s $15 , 000. 00; and , 17. As a r esul t oft he co ncl usi ons o fl aw ( num ber s 14, 15, and 16) , [ M ol ano] i s i ndebt ed t o [ t he St at e] f or t he su m of $35 , 000. 00. 4 II. M oti on to Abat e By his fi rs t i s s ue , M ol an o c on te nd s th at th e tr i al c ou rt er red i n de ny i ng hi s plea in abatementbec ause the S tate faile d to compl y w it h al l re q uirements for c las s c erti ficat ion and not if ica tion unde r ru le 42 of the Tex as Rul es of Ci v il Procedu re . See i d. M ola no arg ues that by

deny ing hi s p lea the tr ial cour t forced him to proceed to tr ial on t he mer it s in v iol ati on of hi s d ue proces s r ig hts a n d wit h o ut hi s h av ing an o ppor tuni ty to defend h im se lf aga in stpo te n ti a l cla im a n ts , t o kn o w wha t e a ch cla im a n t was al le gin g.

A. Standa rd of Rev iew and Appl ic abl e Law A moti on to abat e i s u sed to c hal len g e the pl ain ti ff 's pl e a d in gs by w hic h the def end antident if ies a def ect an d as k s t h e t ri a l court to kee p the suit f rom going fo rw ard unti l pla int iff cor re cts the de f e ct

. Ma rt in v. Dos ohs I, Ltd. , 2 S

. W

. 3 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 4 (T e x. App.–S an An to n io 1999, pet. deni ed) ; see Am . Motor is ts Ins . C o. v

. F odge , 63 S.W .3d 801, 805 (Tex . 2001). As thi s Cour t has sai d, "[a] plea in abatementsh oul d notonl y sh ow the g roun ds up on which the suit is impro perly brou ght, butshou ld also show ho w it sho uld h a v e b e e n b ro u g h t , a n d s h o u l d a l w a y s s t a t e fa c t s , n o t c o n c l u s i o n s o f law ." Bryce v. Cor pus Chr isti Ar e a C onven ti

on & Tour

is t Bu re au , 5 6 9 S

. W

. 2 d 4 9 6 , 4 9 9 (T e x. Ci v. App .–Corp us Christi 197 8, w rit ref 'd n.r.e .) (op. on reh 'g) . W het her to a bat e an action is a matt er w it hin the tr ial co urt' s s ound di sc re ti on. Dolenz v. C ont' l Nat 'l Bank , 620 S. W .2d 572, 575 ( Tex . 198 1) ; Dah l v. Har tm en , 14 S.W .3d 4 34, 4 36 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th Dist.] 200 0, pe t. de nied ). On appe al, the trial court's decision o n a m o t io n t o aba te is5

re v iew ed unde r an abus e of di sc re ti o n s ta n d a rd. Dolenz , 620 S.W .2d a t 575 ; Dah l , 14 S.W .3d a t 436

. B. Ana ly sis 1. The Law Sect ion 17 .46 (a) of

the DT PA provides, in relevant pa rt, as follows: Fal se, mis lea din g , or

decepti v e acts or

pract ic es in the conduc t of any trade or co mmerc e are hereby

dec lared unl awful and are s ubj ectto act ion by the cons umer protec ti on di v is ion [of the Atto rn ey General' s o ff ic e] un der se cti on 17.47

. . . of this co de. T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. §17.46( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008) ; Bar a v . M ajo r Fund

ing C or p. Liqu idatin g Trust , 876 S.W .2d 469 , 471 (Tex. App. –Au stin 19 94, w rit denied ) ( "Und er this prov is ion , the attor ney

general may

bri ng an act ion in the publi c int erestagai nstan e nti ty it believes is engaged in cond uct prohibited by the DTP A." ). T he DT PA, b y its ow n term s, author iz es the Attor ney Gene ra l to b ring an acti on for inj unct iv e reli ef w henev er the
co n su m e r pr o te ct io n di visio n ha s " re ason to be li ev e" un la wf u l tr a d e pra ct ice s a re oc cu rrin g. T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. §17 .47 (a) (Ve rnon S upp . 200 8). Section 17.4 7(a) specif ically p ro v i d e s fo r

t h e fo l l o w i n g i n j u n c t i v e re l i e f: W henev er

the cons umer protec ti on di v is ion [of the Atto rn ey Gene ra l' s o ff ic e] has rea son to believe tha t any perso n is engaging in, has en gaged in, or is abo ut t o e n ga ge in any act or practice declared to be u nlawfu l by this subc hapter , and thatproceed ing s w oul d be in the p ubl icinterest , t he di v is ion m ay bring an action in the na me of the sta te againstthe pe rson to restra in by temporar

y rest ra ini ng order , t emporar y i nj u n ct i o n , or

per manent i nju nct ion the u se of such method, ac t, or pract ic e. Id. ; see id. § 17. 47(b ) (Verno n Sup p. 2008 ) ( explaining that th e "co urt ma y issue tem pora ry or per manent inj unct ion s t o rest ra in and prev ent v iol ati ons of this su bchap ter

. . . .")

. The DTPA als o aut hor iz es ci v il penal ti es to pu nis h v iol ators for thei r unl awful c onduc t; penal ti es"C l a s s a c ti o n s a re g o v e rn e d b y ru l e 4 2 o f th e T e x a s R u l e s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re , re w rit te n i n 1 9 7 7 to 2 m i rr o r th e c l a s s a c ti o n p ro v i s i o n s o f th e F e d e ra l R u l e s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re ." Bara v. Maj or Funding Cor

p. , 876 S. W

. 2d 469, 472- 73 ( T ex. App. –Aust i n 19 94, wr i t den i ed) ( ci t i ng T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 4 2 ; T HO M AS M C E L ROY , C IV IL P R ETR I AL P RO CE DUR E § 618 ( W est 198 0 & Supp. 1992) )

. Feder al case l aw i nt er pr et i ng f eder al r ul e 23 m ay be r el i ed on by T exas cour t s i n const r ui ng si m i l ar l angua ge f ound i n r ul e 42 wher e t her e ar e no T exas ca ses i n te rp re ti n g th e i s s u e . S e e G la s s e ll v . E llis , 9 5 6 S .W .2 d 6 7 6 , 6 8 2 (T e x . A p p .– T e x a r k a n a 1 9 9 7 , w r it d is m 'd w . o.j

. ). 6 w hic h are to be paid to t h e St ate. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17. 47( c) ( Ver non Supp. 2008) . In addit ion to the pri mary remedi es of inj unct iv e reli ef and ci v il penal ti es, the
cour t may order rest it uti on on behal f of co nsumers. See i

d. § 17.47( d) (p ro v idi ng thata "co urt ma y

make such ad dition al orders or judgme nt as ar e n e c essary . . . to restore
mo ney or property"). Mo lan o does not chal len g e the Sta te' s a uthor ity to br ing an a cti on for re li ef under the DTPAw hen it believes unlawf ul trade practices are o ccurring. Molano d oes, howev er, challen ge the Sta te's au tho rity to bring such an act ion wit h o u tf o llo w ing the rules of civ il procedu re as they

rela te t o the fil in g of

cl ass ac ti on c ases , s peci fical ly cl ass ce rt ific ati on and notific ati on. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 42. App ellantargues thatbeca use o the r li tigants are
re q uired to foll ow

cl ass -a cti on r ule s, so shoul d the Sta te. W e di sag re e. 2

. St a n d in g a s a Cl a s s Re p re s e n t a t ive In c las s a cti ons, the propose d p la in ti f f m ustbe a member

of the c las s w hic h he cl aims to re present

. See i d. at 42( a) (" One o r more members of a c las s may su e or be sued as re present ati v e par ti es . . . .")

. The Sev enth Ci rc uithas held that a sta te' s a ttor ney doe s not ha v e stan ding t o b ri n g a cla ss action beca use h e is not a m em ber of the class wh ic h h e p u rp o rt s t o r e p re s e n t , a s re qu ir e d b y fe d e ra l l a w. Ex re l. Bowm an v. Hom e F ed. 2 Sav. & L oan , 521 F .2d 7 04, 7 07 ( 7th C ir . 197 5) ; see F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 23(a ) (p ro v idi ng that "o ne o r more m em bers of a class may sue or be sue d as represe nta tiv e pa rties").7

In t he presentca se, the Atto rn ey Gene ra l sued Mo lan o for the unl awful ser v ic es he offered for sal e to, so ld to, or per formed fo r cons umers . The Att or ney Gene ra l did not all eg e i n hi s p eti ti on th at ei ther he o r the S tate purchas ed M ola no's se rv ic es. The Attor ney General did not pur por

t t o s ue as a represent ati v e of the cl ass of persons w ho purchas ed Mo lan o's se rv ic es. U nder the facts of thi s cas e, ne it her the Atto rn ey

Gene ra l nor

the Stat e is a member

of the p ur por

ted c las s a nd c oul d nothav e broug ht a cl ass ac ti on l aw sui t on b e h a l f o f p r i v a t e c o n s u me rs u n d e r r u l e 42. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 42. To hol d tha t t he language of

section 17.4 7(d) conf ers stand ing to the Att orne y Gene ra l to bring a class act ion w oul d be re adi ng so methi ng i nto t he prov is ion thati s s impl y not there. 3. Author iz ati on by

Sta tute W e not e, ho w ev er , t hat t he S ta te m a y br ing a c las s a cti on i f it is auth or iz ed to do
so under st ate stat ute. F or

ex ample, the ex press l ang uag e of the Tex as Ins urance Cod e author iz es the Attor ney Gene ra l to br ing a c las s a cti on. See T EX
. I NS
. C OD E A NN
. § 541 .25 1 (Verno n Sup p. 200 8). S ection 5 41. 251 (a) o f t he insuran ce code provi des th at if "a member

of the i nsurance buy ing publi c h as been da mag ed" by unl awful pract ic es, the Dep artment of Insurance "mayreq uestthe attor ney general to br ing a c las s a cti on." Id. § 5 4 1 .2 5 1 (a ). In ho ld in g th a t t h e pre re qui sit e s fo r cla ss ac ti o n s mu st b e a p p lie d to da m a ge c l ai ms a s s er

te d by t he Att or ne y

G en eral u nd er

t he i ns uran c e c od e, the T ex as S up rem e Cou rtobs er

v ed, "[ t]he Leg is lat ure coul d hav e str uct ured thi s re medy in v ar iou s w ay s, but
w hen i t aut hor iz ed at tor ney s g eneral to b rin g a ' cl ass ac ti on,' w e presume itmeant w hat the [ Ins urance] C ode s ay s." Farm er sG ro up, Inc., v. Lu bin , 2 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d 4 1 7 , 4 2 6 (T e x. 2007)

. The DTPA, unl ik e the ins urance code, does not prov ide for the use of cl ass ac ti ons by the Attorn ey Gen eral.Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y def i nes " de f act o" as " [ a] ct ual ; exi st i ng i n f act ; hav i ng eff ect ev en t hough not 3 fo rm a l l y o r l e g a l l y re c o g n i ze d ." B L A CK ' S L AW D I CT I ON A RY 35 3 (8th ed

. 20 05 ). 8 4. De Fac to C las s A cti on No n e t h e le s s , e ve n in t h e a b s e n c e o f st a n d in g a n d e xp re s s st a t u t o ry a u t h o ri t y, Molano conte nds th at case s f iled by the A ttorn ey Gen eral und er se ction 17. 47 o n be half
o f a s p e c i fi e d g ro u p o f i n d i v i d u a l s m u s tb e fi l e d a s c l a s s a c t i o n s b e c a u s e s u c h s u i t s q u a l i fy
as de facto cl ass ac ti ons. In suppo rtof his arg ument, Mo lan o reli es on Bara , 876 S.W .2d

3 at 47 2- 73, a nd Thom as v. State , 226 S.W .3d 6 97, 7 07 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2007, pet. dis m'd)

. W hil e the co urts in Bara and Thom as ch aract er iz e s uit s fil ed by the Atto rn ey General under

se cti on 17. 47 as de fact o c las s a cti ons, t h is charact er iz ati on nei ther transfor ms t he nat ure of a D TPA a ct io n n o r author iz es the Attor ney Gene ra l to s ue on beh alf of priv ate indiv idua ls. In Bara , a c ase of f irst impress ion , t he Aus ti n C our t of Appea ls address ed th e i ss ue of "w het her an a ction brou ght b y t he atto rney genera l p ursua nt to DTPAsection 17.4 7 in
re spons e to cons umer compl ain ts tol ls the ru nni ng of the s tat utes of li mita ti ons on th e cons umers ' ind iv idu al cl aims ." Bara , 876 S.W .2d a t 471

. Ac know led g ing that"[t ]he int erest s p re sent ed .

. . are c los ely ak in to t he i nterest s p re sent ed i n c las s a cti on l it ig ati on," and after ex amini ng "the body

of law gov er nin g clas s acti ons" as itrel ated to "t he r unni ng of the s tatut e of li mita ti ons for al l members of the c las s," the Bara co urt c oncl uded t hat: in si tuati ons in w hic h the attor ney g eneral files su itunder se cti on 17. 47 of the DTPA on beha lf of a spec ified g ro up of i ndi v idu als , t hat s uitq ual ifies as a de fac to class action and the statu te of limitation s is tolled during the pe riod in w hic h the i ndi v idu als are par ti ci pants i n the att or ney g eneral' s s uit

.W e al so con si der ed whet her t he j udgm ent v i ol at ed se ct i on 1 7. 47( d) beca use i t or der ed r est i t ut i on 4 i n an am ount t hat i ncl uded m on i es p ai d t o t he T hom ases b ey ond a po i nt t wo y ear s pr i or t o t he f i l i ng o ft he l awsui t and concl uded t hat t he t wo- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od appl i ed onl y t o t he awar d of act ual dam ages and n o t t o re s ti tu ti o n . Th o m a s v . S ta te , 22 6 S

. W

. 3d 69 7, 70 5, 70 8 ( T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 07 , pe t

. di s m ' d). 9 See i d. 47 1- 73. Thus, the B aras, w ho reje cte d the s e tt lementoffer i n the att or ney g eneral' s DT PAac ti on and filed thei r ow n l aw sui t, w ere per mitt ed to rely on c las s a cti on tol li ng pr inc ipl es. See id

. In Thom as , t his C our

t c onsi dered w hether

the tr ial co urt v iol ated sec ti on 17. 47( d) becau se it ordered re sti tuti on to "cons umers " w it hout spec ify ing the ide nti fiabl e pers ons enti tl ed to r e sti tuti on and the a mount of money to be pai d to each. See 226 S.W .3d a t 4 705. Ag re ein g w it h the Sta te t hat a cti ons filed by the attor ney g eneral under

se cti on 17. 47 q ual ify as de fact o c las s a cti ons, w e c oncl uded that "the plai n lang uag e of sec ti on 17. 47( d) author iz es the tri al cour t t o order the re sto ra ti on of money or proper ty ac q uired by

unl awful means, w it hout any

req uirement t hat t he tr ial co urt s peci fy "ide nti fiabl e perso n s" or the amount of money to be pai d to ea ch cons umer. " Id. at 707; see Avi la v. State , 252 S.W .3d 632, 646 (Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 2008, no p et.) ( ag re ein g thatac ti ons filed by the Atto rn ey General' s o ff ic e purs uant to sect ion 17.47 are de facto c las s a cti ons, the cour t c oncl uded tha t the mem bers of

the class m ay be ide ntif ied by the Sta te's e xh ib it s o f fered at trial). Thom as i s i nappos it e to Mo lan o's arg ument t hat t he St ate s houl d be re q uired, a t t he inc epti on of the lawsui t, to foll ow the cl ass ific ati on and noti ficat ion procedu re s of rul e 42. Ha ving co n cl uded, in Thom as, tha t the trial court nee d no t specif y "iden tif iable p erson s"
or the amount o f moneyto be paid to eac h c onsumer , w e w il l not n ow co ncl ude t hat t he Stat e mustfoll ow

r ule 42 p ro cedures w hen fili ng sui t for v iol ati on of the DTPA. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. Mo lan o's re lianc e on Thom as i s mi spl aced. The Attor ney Gene ra l soug ht10

re sti tuti on of moni es acq uired by means of t he all eg ed unl awful act s in the u nder ly ing ca se. Mo lan o prov ide s n o oth er auth o rity , and w e find none, to s uppor t hi s c ontent ion thatthe
ex er ci se of this pow er

co nv erts the S tate' s l aw sui t i nto a r ule 42 c las s a cti on. 5. Eff ic ien t and Ec onomic al Procedu re s t o Sec ure Protec ti on Fur ther more, se cti on 17. 44( a) prov ide s t he foll ow ing r ule of cons tr uct ion for t he courts: [The DTPA] shal l be li berall y cons tr ued and appl ied to promote it s u nder ly ing pur poses , w hic h are to protec t c onsum e rs aga ins t fals e, mi sl eadi ng , and decep ti v e bus ine ss pract ic es, . . . and to prov ide eff ici e n t and ec onomic al procedu re s t o s ecure s uch protec ti on. T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN . § 17.44( a) (Ver non 2002). As the State urg es, to hol d tha t
a req uestfor

rest it uti on bythe Atto rn ey Gene ra l per

force conv erts the D TPA ac ti on i nto a cl ass act ion w oul d impede it s eff ic ien t and ec onomic al procedu re to sec ure the protec ti on of cons umers from dec epti v e bus ine ss pract ic es. R e qui rin g a cti ons broug ht by the Atto rn ey Gene ra l under

the DTPA to meetthe cl ass ce rt ific ati on and noti ce re q uirements
w ould impa ct the ir eff iciency and econ om y of those action s. Therefore, w e c oncl ude t hat t his D TPA ac ti on ag ain st M ola no w as proper ly broug ht. T h e t r i a l c o u rtc o r re c t l y e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c re t i o n b y d e n y i n g M o l a n o ' s m o t i o n t o a b a t e . W e ov er ru le Mo lan o's first is sue.

III

. Ass ess ment of C iv il Penal ti es, R est it uti on, a nd At tor ney 's F ees Byiss ues tw o a n d t h re e , M o l a n o c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r re d i n i ts int er pretati on of secti on 17. 47 w hen i t aw arded a monetar y jud g ment ag ain st him. M ola no asserts th at th e statu te's prov ision for an aw ard of civi l pena lties, restitut ion, a nd a ttorn ey's fees appl ies onl y

to v iol ati ons of res train ing orders, and becaus e there is no ev ide nce of11

a prior tem pora ry

or perm ane nt injun ction, the trial court's asse ssme nt of civ il pena lties,
re sti tuti on, a nd at tor ney 's fees s houl d be set as ide as a mat ter

of law

. W e di sag re e. A. Appl ic abl e Law

and Standa rd of Rev iew In c onst ru ing a s tatut e, t he pr imar y obj ect iv e i s t o det er mine and g iv e effectto the Leg is lat ure's intent

. Mc Inty rev. R am ir

ez , 109 S.W .3d 741, 745 ( Tex . 200 3)

. The st arti ng poi nt for rev iew i s w it h the "pl ain and comm o n m e a n ing of the s tatut e's w ords. " Id. ; see T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN
. § 311.011( a) (Ver non 2005). It is a q uest ion of l aw for t he c our

t t o deci de w hether

a part ic ula r remedy

is av ail abl e under a statut e. W al-Mart Stores, In c. v. McKenz ie , 9 9 7 S. W .2 d 27 8 , 2 8 0 (T e x. 19 9 9 ) (p e r c u r i a m ) (ci ti n g John son v. City of Fort W or th , 774 S.W .2d 6 53, 6 56 ( Tex . 198 9) (per curi am) (p ro v idi ng that statut or y co nst ru cti on is a q uest ion of law ))

. Beca use the i nter pre ta ti o n o f statu tes i s a q uest ion of law , t he sta ndard of rev iew

i s d e nov o. Br

agg v . Ed wards

Aqui fer Aut h. , 7 1 S

. W

. 3 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 4 (T e x. 200 2). B. Ana ly sis 1. Ci v il Penal ti es T h e pe rt in e n t la n gua ge o f se ct io n 17 .4 7 (c) pro vide s t h e fo llo wing: In ad dit ion to the req uest fo r a t e mpora ry

rest ra ini ng order , or

per manent inj unct ion i n a p ro ceedi ng broug ht under Subsect ion (1) of

this secti on, t he cons umer protec ti on di v is ion may re q uest , and the tr ier of fact may

aw ard, a c i v i l p e n a l t y

t o b e p a i d t o t h e s t a t e i n a n a mo u n to f: (1 ) not more tha n $20, 000 per v iol ati on . . . . T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17.47( c) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. Sect ion 17.4 7( e) se ts out that "[a]ny

person w ho v iol ates the ter ms of an inj unct ion under thi s s ect ion sh all forfeitand pay to the s tate a c iv il penal ty of not more tha n $10, 000 pe r viol a ti o n, no t t o ex ceed12

$50,000 ." Id . § 17.47( e) (Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. The Stat e c onced es that sec ti on 17. 47( e) appl ies i n c ircums tanc es in w hic h the Sta te s eek s a c ivil penal ty for a v iol ati on of an inj unct io n . H o wev er , t he tr ial co urt' s a w ard of ci v il penal ti es, i n thi s c ase, w as based on section 17.4 7(c), not sect ion 17 .47 (e). The tr ial co urt found i n i ts sec ond findi ng of fact th at atl east200 persons purchas ed Molano 's serv ices and thateach sale transa ction co nstitu ted an un lawf u l a c tor practice and a separate v iol ati on of the DTPA. It als o c oncl uded i n i ts fifteenth c oncl usi on of l aw that "[j ]us ti ce re q uires the i mposi ti on of a c iv il penal ty i n the amount of $10,000. 00 for the
v iol ati ons of law

co mmitt ed by

[M ola no]." It

i s a pparent t hat t he tri al cour t' s referenc e to "law " i s to sec ti on 17.47( c) of the D TPA and the "v iol ati ons" re fer to the DTPA v iol ati ons sta ted i n i ts findi ng . The tr ial co urt mak es no referenc e to an aw ard of ci v il penal ti es for the v iol ati on of an inj unct ion

. W e find not hin g i n the tr ial co urt' s fin din g s o r conc lus ion s o r in t h e f in a l j u d gm e n tt h a tsu b s t a n t ia t e s Mo la n o ' s p re m is e t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtm u s th a ve impos ed c iv il penal ti es pursuantto sec ti on 17. 47( e)

. Thus, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial
cour t' s a w ard of ci v il penal ti es for v iol ati ons of the D TPA w as co n si ste nt w it h, an d author iz ed unde r, se cti on 17. 47( c)

. Id . § 17. 47(c) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). 2. Res ti tuti on T he p ertine nt lan guage of section 17.4 7(d), on w hich th e tria l court relied in
aw ardin g rest it uti on, p ro v ide s t hat "[ t]he co u rt m a y make suc h addi ti onal orders o r jud g ments as are nec ess ar y . . . to re sto re money

or proper ty , real or

personal , w hic h may hav e been acq uired by means of any u n la wful ac t or pract ic e." Id. § 17. 47( d) ( Ver non Supp. 2008)

. The le g is la ti ve g ra nt of j udi ci al author ity to re sto re money

ac q uired by unl awful means i s t he bas is for t he t ri al cour t' s a w ard of rest it uti on as framed i n i ts final13

jud g ment. R ead i n c ontext, the p ro v is ion has no l ang uag e or w ords that w oul d c ondi ti on the a v ail abi li ty

of the rest it uti on remedy upo n a v iol ati on of an i nju nct ion , as M ola no cont ends. Rat her , the prov is ion is cl ear that the tri al cour

t is author iz ed to aw ard rest it uti on of money"w hic h may

hav e been acq uired by means of any

unl awful ac t or

pract ic e." In it s fin din g s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law , t he tr ial cour t made the n eces sar

y findi ng and
conc lus ion to suppo rtthati t acted with in the g ra nt of aut hor ity co nferred by

se cti on 1 7

. 4 7 (d ). See i

d. The t ri al cour

t' s t hird findi ng of fact prov ide s t hat M ola no "s oli ci ted, charg ed, a nd recei v ed c ompensat ion , t o ta ling $10,000 .00, from co nsumers for g iv ing adv ic e and for renderin g t h e serv ic es, " and the c our t' s four teent h c oncl usi on of l aw se ts out t hat M ola no "ac q uired $10, 000.00, by means of his unl awful acts and pract ic es, from
cons umers w ho are ent it led t o rest it uti on." Con trar y to Mo lan o's co ntent ion , s ect ion 17. 47(d ) d oe s n otreq ui re a v i ol at i on o f an i nj un c ti on b efo re th e tr i al c ou rt ma y a w ard
re sti tuti on. 3. Atto rn ey 's F ees In ad dit ion , t he St ate p ra y ed for , and the tr ial courtgranted, att or ney 's fees und er the Te x as Governm entCode. Section 402 .00 6(c) prov ides th e followi ng: " In a case in
w hic h the st ate i s e nti tl ed to recov er a penalty

or damages the attor ney g eneral is enti tl ed, on beha lf of th e s ta te, to reason abl e att or ney 's fees and co urt c ost s." T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 406.006 (c ) (V er non 200 5) ; see State v. Triax Oil & Gas, In c. , 966 S.W .2d 1 23, 1 27 (Tex

. App.–A ust in 1998, n o w ri t) ; see als o Mer chant s F ast Motor Li nes v. State , 917 S.W .2d 518 , 524 (Tex. App. –W aco 1 99 6 , wr it den ied) (conclud ing that the State is also enti tl ed to the re cov er

y of attor ney 's fees w hen i t recov ers penal ty or tor t damag es)

. The Stat e recov ered a ci v il penalty of $10,000 f ro m Mo lan o. Thus, the aw ard of attor ney 's fees14

w as w it hin the author ity granted to t he tr ial co urt by se cti on 402. 006( c) of the g ov er nment code and w as proper . See T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 406 .00 6(c) (Vernon 2 005 ). In s ummary , t he pl ain and cl ear lan g uag e of secti on 17. 47 of the DTPA and s ect ion 402.006 of the g ov er nment c ode ex press ly authori z es the remedie s a w arded by the tr ial
cour t i n thi s a cti on. Se e Mc In tyre , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d at 745; T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN . § 17. 47 (Vernon Su pp. 200 8); T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN
. §§ 311 .01 1(a), 402 .00 6 (Verno n 20 05). W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d noterr i n a w ardin g remedie s a v ail abl e under the sta tute in thi s c ase, i ncl udi ng ci v il penal ti es, rest it uti on, a nd at tor ney 's fees, w it hout a findi ng that Mol ano v iol ated an i nju nct ion

. See Wal- Ma rt Sto re s , 997 S.W .2d at 280. W e overr ule M olano' s secon d an d thi r d i ssues. I V. C oncl usi on W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this 28th day of Aug ust , 200 8.