1 ... S itt ing b y a ssig n m e n t.

i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 10 5- CV KILLA M RA NC H P RO P ER TIES , LT D .,

Appellant
v . WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS ,

Appellee Fr om the 341st J udicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CVQ-001710- D3 Honora ble David Peeple s, J udg e Presiding 1 Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: November 19, 2008 AFF I RMED This is an appea l from an order a war ding attorney ’s fe es af ter the nonsuit of a

decla ratory jud g me nt a c tio n. Ap pe lla nt K ill a m Ra

nc h Pr op e rt ie s, L td. (“ Ki llam Ra nc h” ) b ri ng s th re e iss ue s, alleg ing the trial court e rre d in awar ding attorney ’s fe es to appe llee W eb b County , Texas (“the County” ). We a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.04
- 08
- 00 10 5- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND On Oc tob e r 19, 20 06 , Kill a m Ran c h f ile d a de c larator

y jud g me nt a c tio n a sse rt ingthe County violated ce rtain provisions of the Te x as L ocal Go vernme nt Code reg arding the proposed sa le of
c ounty -o wn e d p ro pe rt

y . The County a ns we re d on Nov e mbe r 16, 20 06 , a sse rt inga g e ne ra l de nia l, ple a din g so ve re ig n im mun ity , a nd re qu e sti ng a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. Ki llam Ra nc h f ile d a no tic e of no ns uit on September 20, 2007. The County there afte r filed a

motion for attorney ’s fe es base d on section 37.009 of t he Tex as C ivil P rac tice and Re medies Code. Af ter a hear ing, the trial court e ntere d final jud g me nt d ism iss ingKi llam Ra nc h’ s c la ims purs ua

nt t o th e no ns uit and

a wa rd ingthe County $ 4 0 , 2 6 4
. 00 in attorney ’s fe es. Killam Ranch a ppeals c laiming the tr ial court e rre d in awar ding attorney ’s fe es to the County
. D I S CUS S I ON Ki ll a m Ra

n c h a s s e rts in it s f

ir s t is s u e th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt a b u s e d it s d is c r e ti o n in a war ding attorney ’s fe es to the County beca use on the date of the nonsuit the County had aband o n ed any p en d i n g cl ai m for a ffirma tive relief by failing to comply

with rules 194.2(c ) and ( d) of the T exas Rul e s of Civ il Pr oc e dure . Ki llam Ranc h c on te nd s the County ’s a lle g e d fa ilure to re sp ond t o its discovery reque sts resulted in an aba ndonment of its claim for attorney ’s fe es. Ki llam Ra

nc h, in a c c or da

nc e wi th su

bs e c tio ns (c ) a nd

(d ) o f r ule 19 4. 2 a sk e d th e County to disclose “ t h e l ega l t h eorie s and, in g ener al, the fa ctual base s of the re sponding pa rty ’s claims or defe nses” and “the amount and any method of ca lculating economic da mag es.” See T EX . R. C IV . P. 194.2(c) , (d). The County answe red stating Killam Ranch had failed to state a via ble ca use of a ction
a nd the County

ha d c omp lie d w iththe pr ov isi on s o f t he Te xas L oc a l G ov e rn me nt Cod e . The County further stated the que stion reg arding calc ulation of damag es wa s “ [n] ot applicable.” Killam Ranch04
- 08
- 00 10 5- CV

- 3- contends the c laim for attorne y ’s fe es did not survive the nonsuit beca use the County

was re quired to disclose its claim for af

firmative r elief, i.e ., that it wa s see kin g a tto rn e y ’s fe e s, the the or y fo r t ho se fe e s, a nd th e met ho d use d in c a lc ulatin g tho se fe e s. B e c a us e the County

fa ile d to pr ov ide thi s information, Kil lam Ranch a rg ues the County

abandone d any

claim for f

ees a nd there fore had no pending claim for a ffirma tive relief at the time of the nonsuit. A fa ilure to comply with discovery reque sts in rule 194.2 results in an automatic e x clusion of the no n- dis c los e d e vid e nc e , a bs ent pro of of

g oo d c a us e or la c k o f u

nf a ir surp ri se or

un fa ir prejudice
. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 93 .6 (a ); Phan v. Addison Spec trum, L.P. , 2 4 4 S. W. 3 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 9 ( T e x. App.–Dallas 2008, no pe t.). Killam Ranch is arguing f or an e x t en s i on of this exclusi onary rule, sug g esting that a fa ilure to comply with discovery

reque sts results in a wholesa le aba ndonment of a cla im for af

firmative r elief. A claim for aff

irmative relief is one on which the County could re cover

even if Killam Ranch abandone d or fa iled to establish its cause of a ction. See I n re C.A.S. , 1 2 8 S. W. 3 d 6 8 1 , 6 8 5
- 8 6 ( T e x. Ap p . – Da l l as 2 0 0 3 , n o p et . ) ( ci t i n g Gen. Land Office v. OXY U.S.A., Inc

. , 7 8 9 S. W. 2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 0 ( T e x. 1990). A reque st f

or rec overy of attorney ’s fee s, stated in an answ er, is a c laim for af firmative r elief. C.A.S ., 128 S.W .3d at 686. Killam Ra nch has not pr ovided this c ourt with a ny authority

sug g esting that th e County

a ba nd on e d it s c la im f

or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s b y

fa ili ng to respo nd , o r f

ull y re sp on d, to Killam R a n c h ’ s d is c o v e r y r e qu e s ts u n d e r r

u le s 1 9 4
. 2 ( c ) a n d ( d )
. T h e o n ly a u th o r it ie s c it e d by Ki llam Ra

nc h in vo lve d s itu a tio ns wh e re the a pp e llate c ourt s h e ld t

he tr ia l c ourt di d no t e rr in excluding evide nce ba sed on fa il u re s to comply with discovery
. Se e Gr im es v . S tat e , No. 03-04- 00154-CV, 2005 WL 2043842 (Tex. App.–Austin Aug . 26, 2005, n o p et . ) (m em. op.) (holding R ai l ro ad C o m m i s s i o n d i d n o ter r i n ex cl u d i n g evide nce rela ted to leg al t heory wher e propone nt of04
- 08
- 00 10 5- CV

- 4- theory failed to respond to a rule 194.2(c) discovery reque st); Jack

son v. Maul , No. 04-02-00873- CV, 2003 WL 22295332 (Tex. A pp.–San Antonio O ct. 8, 2003, no pet.) (me m. op.) (af firming trial
co u rt ’s i m p o s i t i o n o f s an ct i o n p re cl u d i n g p l ai n t i ff fr o m p re s en t i n g evide nce o f d e f e n dant’s
ne g lig e nc e be c a

us e pla int if

f f a ile d to re sp on d to a

ru le 19 4. 2( c ) d isc ov e ry re qu e st)
. Th e se c a se s in
n o w a y s u g g e s ta

p a rt y abandons a c la im by fa ili ng to r e sp on d to a

ru le 19 4. 2( c ) d isc ov e ry

re qu e st. T h er e i s n o t h i ng in the case law linking a failure to respond to discover y to an aba ndonment of a claim. Moreover, Ki l l am Ranch’ s arg ument amounts to a reque st for a de ath pena lty sanction without affor ding the County the due pr ocess to which it would b e en t i t l ed. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 21 5. 3; see also Magnuson v . Mullen , 65 S.W .3d 815, 823 (Tex. A pp.–For t Worth 2002, pet. de nied) (holding imposit i o n o f d iscovery sanctions is limi ted by

constitutional due proce ss). Rule 215.3 authorizes the impositi on of death penalty sanctions, e.g ., the striking of pleading s or impositi on of
a defa ult judgment, but only

afte r notice a

nd hear ing. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 215.2(b)( 5), 215.3. The
rec ord does not r efle ct any notice or he aring reg arding the impositi on of sanc tions for the County ’s alleg ed fa ilure to comply

with discovery
. Th e County

did no t a ba nd on its c la im f

or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s b y

a lle g e dly fa ili ng to pr op e rl y respond to discove ry

reque sts. W e over

rule Killam Ranch’ s first issue. Ki llam Ra

nc h n e xt co nte nd s th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a wa rd inga tto rn e y ’s fe e s to the County be c a us e e vid e nc e of

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s sh ou ld h ave bee n e xclu de d b a se d o n th e County ’s fa ilure to comply wi th

a d is c o v e r y r e qu e s t p e rta in in g to te s ti f y in g e xp e rts u n d e r

r u le 1 9 4
. 2 ( f

)
. Wi th o ut evidenc e, Killam Ra

nch claims any

awa rd of attorney ’s fe es wa s improper. Se e Can tu v. Mo or e , 90 S.W .3d 821, 826 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2002, pe t. denied) ( holding e x pert testimony is require d04
- 08
- 00 10 5- CV

- 5- to s up po rt

a ward of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s) ; W oo lle tt v . M

aty as tik, 2 3 S. W.3 d 4 8, 52 (T e x. Ap p. –A us tin 2000, pet. denied) (same) . Killam Ranch cla ims the rules do not pe rmit the County to supplement its response re g arding

expert witnesses af

ter the nonsuit and a fter the orig inal t ri al d ea d l i n e h ad p assed. I n its request under

rule 194, Killam R anch asked the County to disclose, for a

ny testify ing expert (1) the e x pert’s na

me, addr ess, and tele phone number , (2) the subje ct matter of the expert’s testimony , (3) the g ener al substance of the experts’ opinions and a brie f summary of the ba sis for the opinions, and (4) doc uments relied on, r eviewe d by , or prepa red by or the experts in anticipation of their testimony
. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 19 4. 2( f) . The Co un ty tim e ly re sp on de d w ithre g a rd

to attorney ’s fe es by

listi ng the names of

two attorney s, J ames P. Allison and J . Eric Ma g ee – the attorney s repr esenting the County in the decla

ratory judgme nt action – and stating that the subject matter of the ir testimony

would be “[a]t t o rney s’ fe es.” See T EX . R. C IV . P. 194.2(f)(1) , (2). The County stated informa tion with reg ard to the substanc e of the experts’ testimony or any documentation re lated ther eto was “ [t ]o be supplemented.” SeeT EX . R. C IV . P. 194.2(f)(3) , (4). Trial wa s orig inally

set for O ctober

15, 2007. On Octobe r 10, 2007, afte r Killam Ranch had filed its nonsuit, t he County filed a “ Motion for Attorney ’s Fees.” Acc ompanying the motion was an af fidavit from Allison a

nd billing rec ords. Allison essentially testified in his affidavit that he and his firm provided the County with le g al service s rela ted to K illam Ranc h’s claim, imply ing that the basis for his opinion on the amount o f at t o rn ey ’s fee s was the wor k done in conne ction with the claim. The billing rec ords detail the leg al servic es provided. T hese doc uments supplied the information soug ht by

Killam Ranch in the pre viously unanswe re d re quests for disclosure . The pa rt ie s p a sse d o n th e Oc tob e r 1 5, 20 07 tr ia l d ate . At th e tr ia l on the iss ue of

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s, he ld04
- 08
- 00 10 5- CV

2 ... T he C o un t y do es no t d i sp ute t ha t b o t h A l l i so n a nd M ag ee we re “re t aine d b y, em p l o yed b y, o r o t he rw i se subject t o t he co nt rol o f ” t he C o unt y , ob l i gat i ng i t t o pro vi d e t he i nf o rma t i o n s p eci f

i ed i n 19 4
. 2 (f

)( 4 ).

- 6- Dec ember

4, 2007, the t rial court admitted Allison’s testimony and the billing records ove r Killam Ranch’s obje ction. We reviewa trial c ourt’s ruling to admit or exclude evidenc e base d on the discovery rules for a buse of discr etion. State v. Target Corp., 194 S.W .3d 46, 49 (Tex. App.–Waco 2006, no pet.). A trial cour

t abuses its discretion whe n it rules on the admissib i l i t y o f ev i dence in an ar bitrary or
unrea sonable manne r or without re fer ence t o guiding leg al principles or rules. Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W .3d 682, 687 (Tex. 2002)
. We must uphold a trial court’ s evidentiar y ruling if there is any

leg itimate basi s i n t h e re cord to support it. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 97 2 S. W.2 d 3 5, 43 (T e x. 19 98 ); Taylor v. T exas Dep’t of Prot ective& Regulatory Serv

s., 160 S.W .3d 641, 650 (Tex. App.–Austin 2005, pet. denied). The County

was oblig ated to provide the information specifie d in 194. 2( f)( 3) and ( 4). 2 See T EX . R. C IV . P. 194.3 (stating that responding party must serve wr itten response of reque sting pa

rty ). A p a rt y mus t re sp on d to wr itt e n di sco ve ry , in c lud ing re qu e sts fo r d isc los ur e un de r r ule 19 4, in writing within the time provided by court orde r or the discovery rules. T EX . R. C IV . P. 193.1. When responding to written discovery , a party must make a complete response, based on all i nformation
rea sonably available to the responding party or its a ttorney at the time the response is made. Id. If
a p a rt y ’ s r e s p o n s e t o w r i t t e n d i s c o v e r y w a s i n c o mp l e t e o r i n c o r r e c t w h e n m a d e , t h e pa rt y mus t amend or supplement the re sponse. T EX . R. C IV . P. 193.5(a) . Supplemental or amended re sponses must be made “ rea sonabl y p rom ptly ” af ter the pa rty discovers the nece ssity

for same, but if made l e s s t h a n t h i rt y

d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l , i ti s p r e s u m e d

t h e r e s p o n s e w a s n o tr e a s o n a b l y p ro mpt . T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 93 .5 (b ). As pr e vio us ly state d, a fa ilure to r e sp on d to dis c ov e ry re qu e sts re su lts in a

uto ma tic04
- 08
- 00 10 5- CV

- 7- exclusion of the non-disclosed evidenc e, absent proof of g ood cause or lack of unfa i r s u rp ri s e or unfair pr ejudice. T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 93 .6 (a ); Phan , 244 S.W .3d at 899. There is no dispute that the County did not or igina lly provide response s to K illam Ranch’s
r e qu e s t s u n d e r

r u l e s 1 9 4
. 2 ( f

) ( 3 ) a n d ( 4 )
. N o r d i d i t s u p p l e m e n t i t s r e s p o n s e s m o r e t h a n t h i rt y d a ys be fo re the Oc tob e r 1 5, 20 07 tr ia l date se t f or th i n th e pr e tr ia l g uid e lin e or de r. Ho we ve r, tr ia l in thi s matter wa s rese t a

nd occur red on Dec ember 4, 2007. This r esetting nullified the previous discove ry de a dli ne s r e la te d to the tr ia l a s fo rt h in t he pr e tr ia l g uid e lin e or de r a nd g ov e rn e d b y

the ru le s o f c ivi l proce dure. See D aniels v. Y ancy , 175 S.W .3d 889, 893 (Tex. A pp.–Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (c iting J.G. v . Murray , 915 S.W .2d 548, 550 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1995, no writ). I n the abse nce of another pretria l guide line order , discovery deadlines w ere g overne d by the new tr ial date. The County was ther efor e re quired to supplement its responses to Killam R anch’ s reque sts for disclosure thirty day s befor e the De cembe r 4, 2007 trial date to avoid the pre sumption t hat they wer e not made
re as o n ab ly

promptly
. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 9 3
. 5 ( b )
. T h e Co u n ty c o mp li e d b y a tt a c h in g A ll ison’s
a f f id a v it a n d th e b il li n g r e c o r d s to it s O c to b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 mo tion. S ee Tex. Mun. League Intergo ve r n me ntal Risk Pool v. Burns , 209 S.W .3d 806, 817-18 (Te x . App.–For t Worth 2006, no pet.) (holding that failure to disclose attorney ’s billing re cords in re sponse to reque st for disclosure did not render

rec ords inadmissible under rule 193.6 wher e documents were produce d by attachme nt to motions for attorney ’s fe es filed pr ior to introduction of evidenc e). We h old the t ria l c ourt

a c te d w ith in i ts d isc re tio n in fi nd ingthe Cou

nty su pp le me nte d it s dis c los ur e re sp on se s r e a so na bly pr omp tly a nd in a dmi tti ng the e vid e nc e . A c c or din g ly , w e ov e rr ule Killam Ranch’s sec ond issue.04
- 08
- 00 10 5- CV

- 8- I n its final issue, Killam Ra nch argues the trial court err ed in awa rding attorney ’s fe es to the County be c a us e the re wa s n o ple a din g to sup po rt a fe e a wa rd pe nd ing wh e n Kill a m Ran c h f ile d it s nonsuit. W e disag ree . I n Dean Foods Co. v. Ande rson , an em p l o y er a ppeale d a wor

kers’ compensa tion compensa bility awa rd. 178 S.W.3d 449, 451-52 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2005, pet. denied). T he claimant re quested a ttorney ’s fe es in response
. Id. at 45 2
. T h e empl oy er subse quently filed a nonsuit. Id. After

the nonsuit, the claimant filed a mot ion seeking attorney ’s fees, which the tr ial court g rante d. Id. Th e e mpl oy e r c la ime d o n a pp e a l tha t th e c la ima

nt w a s n ot e nti tle d to fe e s b e c a us e she only pled for attorney ’s fe es re lated to her counter claims and d i d n o t s eek fee s relate d to the reque st for judicial re view until afte r t h e n o n s u i t was filed. Id. The c ourt held that althoug h the
c la ima nt’ s ans we r “ on ly

re qu e ste d a tto rn ey ’s fe e s in a g e ne ra l ma

nn e r” it c ou ld b e “ re a so na bly construed a s reque sting a ttorney ’s fe es assoc iated with her defense in the judicial re view of the
awa rd t he appeals pane l had made to he r.” Id
. at 453. The court c oncluded ther efor e the attorney ’s fee s claim survived the nonsuit. Id. ; see also Falls County v. Pe rkins & Cullum , 798 S.W .2d 868, 869-71 (Te x . App.–For

t Worth 1990, no writ) ( h o l d i n g d ef endant’ s claim for attorney ’s fe es wa s
a ff ir ma tiv e c la im f

or re lie f t ha t surv ive d c ounty ’s no ns uit of de c larator

y jud g me nt action

be c a us e “a r equest for attorney ’s fees m ade in a Declar atory J udg ments Act case is a claim for af firmative relief authorizing a

party to be hea rd under the provisions of rule 162” ). The County

filed a g ener al re quest for attorney ’s fe es. Unde r De an Fo od s and Fa lls Cou nty , this request wa s sufficient to asse rt a c laim for af firmative r elief that would survive Killam Ranch’s nonsuit of its declaratory

judgme nt action. See id. The subsequent motion for attorney ’s fe e w as
mere ly the vehicle by

which it soug ht to enforc e its pre- exis ting c laim for re lief.04
- 08
- 00 10 5- CV

- 9- Killam Ranch cites Le o n S p r in g s G a s Co

. v . R es ta u r a n t Eq u ip
. Le a s ing Co. for the proposition that no claim for affirmative relief exis ts in this case beca use t he C ounty did not plead
a s e p a r a te c a

u s e o f a c ti o n o r d a ma g e s a s s o c iate d th ere with. See 9 6 1 S. W. 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 7 7
- 7 8 ( T e x. App.–San Antonio 1997, no pe t.). Killam Ranch re ads the c ase too broa dly . I n Leon Springs , the defe ndant counter claimed f or attorne y ’s fe es under section 38.002 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which permits a party to r ecove ry attorney ’s fee s in the event a party rec overs on a bre ach of

contra ct claim and meets ot her statutory require ments. Id .; see T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 38.002 (Ve rnon 2008). Howeve r, t he defenda nt had no underly

ing brea ch of c ontrac t
c la im. Th is c ourt

he ld a re qu e st f or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s ma de in c on necti on wi th a c on tr a c t di sp ute is
on ly a c la im f or a ff ir ma tiv e re lie f t

ha t w ill surv ive a

no ns uit if the re qu e st i s ma de in c on ne c tio n w ith an under ly ing c ontrac t claim. Le o n S p r ings , 961 S.W .2d at 578. B eca use the de fenda

nt made no
c la im f or dama g e s b a se d o n a

br e a c h o f c on tr a c t, t

he re wa s n o b a sis fo r a

n a wa rd of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s, neg ating the exist ence of any claim for a ffirma tive relief that would prec lude dismissal based on the plaintiff’s nonsuit. Id
. I n this case, attorney ’s fe es ar e re cover able unde r s ection 37.009 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code without the nec essity of the pa

rty seekingfee s ass er t i n g its own declar atory judgme nt action or a

n independe nt claim of damag es base d there on. Com pa re T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 37.009 with T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 38.002 (Ve rnon 2008). Section 37.009 states that “[i] n any proce eding under this cha pter, the cour

t may awa rd costs and
rea sonable a

nd nece ssary

attorney ’s fe es as a

re e quitable and just.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 37.009 (Ve rnon 2008). Killam R an ch broug ht a dec lara tory judgme nt proce eding under Chapter 37 a

nd the County

reque sted attorney ’s fe es in response . This was suffic ient to a ssert the04
- 08
- 00 10 5- CV

- 10- claim, pre serve i t i n the fa ce of the nonsuit, and support an a war d of fe es upon proof

of same. Acc ording ly , we ove rrule K illam Ranch’s third issue. C ONCL US I ON We overrule Killam Ranch’s issues and hold the t rial court did not err in awa rding attorney ’s fee s to the County . Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the tria l court’s judg ment.
Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice