REVERSE IN PART; AFFIRM IN PART; Opinion Filed May 10, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01112-CV 

FARIBORZ HADIDI AND GLOBAL ENTERPRISES 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 (“Global Enterprises”) 

appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of Faez Law Firm, PLLC. In three issues, 

appellants challenge the evidence to support the amount of damages awarded, the 

amount of attorney’s fees awarded, and the Global Enterprises’ liability. We reverse 

the portion of the trial court’s judgment in favor of Faez Law Firm against Global 

Enterprises, LLC. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. Because 

all issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 

47.4. 
 –2– 

BACKGROUND

Faez Law Firm filed suit against Hadidi and Global Enterprises, asserting 

claims for suit on sworn account, quantum 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 engaged the law firm to 

represent Evelin Hernandez in a suit to recover damages she sustained in an 

automobile accident. When Hadidi engaged Faez Law Firm, he and Hernandez 

presented themselves as a married couple. Faez Law Firm submitted a claim to 

Hernandez’s insurance carrier and obtained a settlement check for approximately 

$3,525, which was made out to Hernandez, Hadidi, and Faez Law Firm. While Faez 

Law Firm represented Hernandez in her suit, Hadidi claimed an interest in the 

settlement proceeds from Hernandez’s accident 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 the 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 and 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 offered, 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 judgment ordering that Faez Law Firm recover 

$9,520 from Hadidi and Global Enterprises, jointly and 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 Defendant Fariborz Hadidi has or 

had an interest” and awarded Faez Law Firm $5,000 for reasonable and necessary 

legal fees. Hadidi and Global Enterprises requested findings of fact and conclusions 

of law, but none were signed. Soon thereafter, they filed a motion for new trial, 

which was overruled by operation of law. This appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

In their first issue, appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support the damages amount of $9,520. More 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 which 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 summary judgment in favor of an attorney in 

his suit against a former client for suit on sworn account. See Panditi v. Apostle, 180 

S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). At the bench trial, Faez Law 
 –4– 

Firm offered, and the trial court admitted into evidence, invoices for the work 

performed. Accordingly, we overrule appellants’ first issue. 

In their second issue, appellants challenge 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 hours 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 plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees in a claim 

for a sworn account, as here. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. 

§ 38.001(b)(7). Under Chapter 38, the trial court may take judicial notice of the 

usual and customary attorney’s fees and of the contents of the case file without 

receiving further evidence in a proceeding before the court. See id. § 38.004. 

Further, Chapter 38 provides for a rebuttable 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 attorney’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 the court the day before the bench trial took 

place, and this Court ordered a supplementation of the record to include this 

affidavit. See TEX. R. APP. 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 case, and that $300 is a reasonable 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 with 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 challenge the trial court’s liability finding 

against Global Enterprises. They argue that although the invoices show both Hadidi 

and Global Enterprises were clients of Faez Law Firm, there is no evidence that any 

agent contracted on behalf of Global Enterprises. At trial, Faez testified he had 

represented Hadidi in various matters over several years, including setting up 

Hadidi’s corporation, Global Enterprises. However, Faez’s testimony did not 

indicate whether he had represented Global Enterprises. The invoices are addressed 

to “Fariborz Hadidi, GE Capital 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 represented Global Enterprises. Accordingly, we 

sustain appellants’ third issue. See Brockie v. Webb, 244 S.W.3d 905, 909 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied). 

CONCLUSION

We reverse the 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. We affirm the remainder 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.