REVERSE IN PART; AFFI RM IN PART; Opinio n Filed May 10, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-01112-CV FARIBORZ HADIDI A ND GLOBAL ENTERPRI SES CAPITAL, LLC, Appellants V. FAEZ LAW FIRM, PLLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-12583 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Partida-Kipness Opinion by Justice Schenck Fariborz Hadidi and Global Enterprises Capital, LLC (“Gl obal Enterprises”) appeal the trial court’s judgm ent in favor of Faez Law Fi rm, PLLC. In three issues, appellants challenge the evidence to supp ort the amount of damages awarded, the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, and th e Global Enterprises’ liability. We reverse the portion of the trial court’s judgment in favor of Faez Law Firm against Global Enterprises, LLC. We affi rm the remainder of the tria l court’s judgment. Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
47.4.–2– B ACKGROUND Faez Law Firm filed suit against Hadi di and Global Enterprises, asserting claims for suit on sworn account, quantu m meruit, and declaratory relief in connection with legal services provided. In its petition, Faez Law Firm alleged Hadidi was a prior client of the law firm and that Hadidi enga ged the law firm to represent Evelin Hernandez in a suit to recover damages she sustained in an automobile accident. When Hadidi e ngaged Faez Law Firm, he and Hernandez presented themselves as a married couple. Faez Law Firm submitted a claim to Hernandez’s insurance carri er and obtained a settlement check for approximately $3,525, which was made out to Hernandez, Hadidi, and Fa ez Law Firm. While Faez Law Firm represented Hernandez in her su it, Hadidi claimed an interest in the settlement proceeds from Hernandez’s acciden t and also engaged the law firm to represent him in other matters, including development of a piece of property. Although Hadidi made some payments for th e legal fees he incurred, he refused to pay the balance. Hadidi and Global Enterprises filed an answer generally denying the allegations in Faez Law Firm’s petition a nd asserting they had paid for all work actually performed. The case proceeded to a bench trial where neither defendants nor anyone purporting to represent them appeared. Vafa Faez represented and testified on behalf of Faez Law Firm. Faez offe red, and the trial court admitted into evidence, invoices totaling $9,520, which he testified were unpaid. The following–3– day, the trial court signed a final judgm ent ordering that Faez Law Firm recover $9,520 from Hadidi and Globa l Enterprises, jointly a nd severally. The final judgment also declared Faez Law Firm may credit “$1,763 against judgment from a settlement check in another legal matter in which Defenda nt Fariborz Hadidi has or had an interest” and awar ded Faez Law Firm $5,000 fo r reasonable and necessary legal fees. Hadidi and Global Enterprises requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, but none were signed. Soon thereaf ter, they filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of la w. This appeal followed.
D ISCUSSION In their first issue, appellants challe nge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the damages amount of $9,520. Mo re specifically, they argue Faez Law Firm failed to present evidence the fees they sought to recover were reasonable and necessary. Faez Law Firm distinguishes the authority on whic h appellants rely, urging the challenged amount represented an unpaid balance and the subject of the instant suit, rather than fees incurred by a prevailing party pursuant to a statute or contract provision. This Court has already held evidence consisting of the amount invoiced and not paid is legally sufficient to support su mmary judgment in favor of an attorney in his suit against a former clie nt for suit on sworn account. See Panditi v. Apostle , 180 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. App.—D allas 2006, no pet.). At the bench trial, Faez Law–4– Firm offered, and the tria l court admitted into eviden ce, invoices for the work performed. Accordingly, we ove rrule appellants’ first issue. In their second issue, appellants challeng e the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award of attorney’s fees of $5,000. When a fee claimant seeks to recover attorney’s fees from an opposing party, it must put on evidence of reasonable h ours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, yielding a base figure that can be adjusted by considerations not already accounted for in either the hours worked or the rate. See Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes, L.L.C. , 596 S.W.3d 370, 378 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet. denied) (citing Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP , 578 S.W.3d 467, 475 (Tex. 2019)). Chapter 38 of the civil practice and remedies code provides the authority for a successful plain tiff to recover attorney’s fees in a claim for a sworn account, as here. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 38.001(b)(7). Under Chapte r 38, the trial court may ta ke judicial notice of the usual and customary attorney’s fees and of the contents of the case file without receiving further evidence in a pr oceeding before the court. See id. § 38.004. Further, Chapter 38 provides for a rebu ttable presumption that the usual and customary attorney’s fees for a claim of the type described in Section 38.001 are reasonable. See id. § 38.003. Faez’s testimony indicates he requested the trial court consider an affidavit by attorney Richard Tanner to support the atto rney’s fees he incurred by representing–5– Faez Law Firm in this case. The docket sheet includes a notation that an affidavit regarding legal services was filed with th e court the day before the bench trial took place, and this Court ordered a supplemen tation of the record to include this affidavit. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(c) (supplementation of clerk’s record). In that affidavit, Tanner testifies as to his experience and his opinion that, based on that experience, $5,040 is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees for representation of Faez Law Firm in this cas e, and that $300 is a reasona ble hourly rate. Tanner’s affidavit is supported by a list of dates and the hours expended on the case and tasks performed each day, such as meeting w ith the client, reviewing and preparing pleadings, and participating in mediation. We conclude the record contains sufficient evidence to support the attorney’s fee award. Accordingly, we overrule appellants’ second issue. In their third issue, appellants challe nge the trial court’s liability finding against Global Enterprises. They argue that although the invoices show both Hadidi and Global Enterprises were clients of F aez Law Firm, there is no evidence that any agent contracted on behalf of Global Enterprises. At tr ial, Faez testified he had represented Hadidi in various matters over several years, including setting up Hadidi’s corporation, Global Enterprise s. However, Faez ’s testimony did not indicate whether he had represented Global Enterprises. The invoices are addressed to “Fariborz Hadidi, GE Capita l LLC.” There is no evidence in the record to support a finding that “GE Capital LLC” is the same entity as appellant Global Enterprises–6– or a finding that Faez Law Firm represen ted Global Enterprises. Accordingly, we sustain appellants’ third issue. See Brockie v. Webb , 244 S.W.3d 905, 909 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied).
C ONCLUSION We reverse the portion of the trial court’ s judgment in favor of Faez Law Firm against Global Enterprises, LLC and rende r judgment Faez Law Firm take nothing on its claims against Global Enterprises, LLC. We affirm the re mainder of the trial court’s judgment.

201112F.P05 /David J. Schenck / DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE–7– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

FARIBORZ HADIDI AND GLOBAL ENTERPRISES CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant
No. 05-20-01112-CV V. FAEZ LAW FIRM, PLLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-12583. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Osborne and Partida-Kipness participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. We REVERSE that portion of the trial court’s judgment in favor of Faez Law Firm against Global Enterprises, LLC and RENDER judgment Faez Law Firm take nothing on its claims against Global Enterprises, LLC. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.
Judgment entered this 10th day of May 2022.