1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 6 - 2 9 1 - CV
KARA N R. M O SEL EY, M . D. AN D APPE L L AN TS O M EG A O B- G YN A SSO C I A TES O F S OUT H A R L I NGT ON V . O M EGA O B- GY N A SSOC I ATES OF APPE L L EE S S OUT H A R L I NGT ON A ND K AR AN R . M OS E L E Y, M . D.

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 96TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- K a r a n R . M o s e le y , M .D . a p p e a ls t h e t r ia l c o u r t ’s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n tin f a v o ro fO m e g a O B -G Y N A s s o c ia t e s o fS o u t h A r lin g t o n . B yc r o s s -a p p e a l, O m ega app ea l s t he t r i al cou r t ’ s “m odi f i ed” or dergr ant i ng Dr . M os el ey’ s bi l l of
r e v ie w . W e re v e r s e t h e t r ia l c o u r t ’s m o d if ie d o r d e r g r a n t in g D r . M o s e le y ’s b ill ofr evi ew , and w e r enderj udg m entdenyi ng t he bi l l ofr evi ew .2 ... D r . M osel ey l at er am ended her pl eadi ngs t o assertaddi t i onal causes

ofac t i on a nd c l ai m s, i ncl udi ng t hats he bec am e e i t her an equ i t y s har eho l deror partn e r; th a t t he con t r ac tw as voi d orvoi dab l e; an d t hatO m ega vi ol at ed t he D T P A a n d c o m m i tte d fra u d . 2 D r. M o s e l e ya n d O m e g a s i g n e d a “ P h y s i c i a n E m p l o y m e n t A g re e m e n t,” ef f ec t i ve D ec em ber1, 1995 . By i t s t er m s, t he con t r ac tex t end ed th r ough N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 6 , a n d p r o v id e d t h a t“ [a ]tt h e e n d o ft h e f ir s ty e a ro ft h is A g r e e m e n t , t h e S h a r e h o ld e r /P h y s ic ia n s o fO m e g a s h a ll v o t e w h e t h e rt o a d m it t he Ph ysi ci an as an equi t y ow neri n t he Pr of essi onal A ssoci at i on. ” The contr act f ur t herst at ed I ti s noti nt end ed th a t th e Phys i ci an sh al l be ad m i t t ed t o t he Pr of es si ona l A ss oci at i on un t i l t he exp i r at i on oft w el ve ( 12) m ont hs f ol l ow i ng t he B egi nn in g D at e and unti l t he Ph ysi ci an has been adm i t t ed t o t he Pr of es si ona l A ss oci at i on byag r ee m ent o ft he Shar eho l der / Phys i ci ans Pr of es si ona l A ss oci at i on. Fu r t her , i t i s not i nt end ed t ha t t hi s A gr ee m entbe t w ee n t he Phys i ci an and t he P ro fe s s i o n a l A s s o c i a ti o n s h a l l , b y i ts e l f, c o n s ti tu te a j o i n t v e n tu re o r p a rtn e rs h i p . T h e c o n tra c t a l s o c o n ta i n e d a n a rb i tra ti o n c l a u s e . D r . M osel ey w or ked f orO m ega f orsever al year s, al t hou gh t he par t i es vi gor ous l y di sp ut e w het her sh e eve rbe ca m e m or e t han an em pl oye e. Fo l l ow i ng hert er m i nat i on i n 1 99 8, D r . M osel ey sued O m ega, assert i ng br each ofcont r act and co l l ec t i on ofde bt , and s ee ki ng a de cl ar at or y j udgm entan d a n a cc ount i ng. 23 ... A docketent r y i ndi cat es t hat th e m o tio n t o r ei nst at e w as deni ed

b e c a u s e th e m o ti o n w a s n o t v e ri fi e d a n d , th e re fo re , th e c o u rt “ l o s t j u ri s d i c ti o n .” S eeT EX . R. C IV . P . 1 6 5 a (3 ).

4 ... Th e r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat noti ce oft he N ovem ber13 , 20 02 di sm i ssal w as m ai l ed t o D r . M osel ey’ s f or m erat t or ney, w hom she had di schar ged i n M ay 3 A f t erD r . M os el ey f i l ed t he l aw su i t , t he part i es s che dul ed an ar bi t r at i on dat e. S hor t l y bef or e t he schedul ed ar bi t r at i on, how ever , D r . M osel ey noti f i ed hert hen- at t or neys t hat she had r et ai ned new r epr esent at i on. A r bi t r at i on w as pos t pone d byag r ee m ent , an d th e p a rti es f i l ed a j oi ntm ot i on t o a bat e t he l aw sui t . The part i es l at eragr eed t o m edia te i nst ead, butt he m edi at i on w as
u l ti m a te l yu n s u c c e s s fu l . In O c t o b e r2 0 0 2 , t h e t r ia l c o u r t is s u e d a n o t ic e in d ic a t in g t h a tt h e la w s u it

w o u ld b e d is m is s e d f o rl a c k o fp r o s e c u t io n p u r s u a n tt o T e x a s R u le o fC iv il Pr oce dur e 165a un l es s t he part i es t ookce r t ai n a ct i on. Dr . M os el ey t ookno
ac t i on, s o t he t r i al co urtdi sm i ss ed t he ca se . O n N ove m ber 15, 2002 , t w o da ys af t er t he di sm i ss al or der w as si gne d, D r . M os el ey f i l ed a “M ot i on t o SetA si de t he C ont r ac t , M ot i on t o Rei ns t at e L i t i gat i on a nd Voi d Ar bi t r at i on, an d M ot i on t o Di s qu a l i f y Ar bi t [ e ] r . ” Th e t r i a l c ou r ts e tt he s e m ot i on s f ora J a nu a r y 17, 20 03 hear i ng and deni ed t he m ot i ons on t hatdat e. Th e r ecor d does not r ef l ect 3 anyac t i on byD r . M os el ey bet w ee n t he f i l i ng oft he m ot i ons and t he dat e t he
m ot i ons w er e h ea r d a nd de ni ed, an d Dr . M os e l ey con t end s t hats he di d not
r ec ei ve not i ce oft he di sm i ss al unt i l t he dat e h erm ot i ons w er e h ea r d. 42 0 0 0 . D r. M o se l e yco n c e d e s th a t he r f o rm e r a ttorn e yfai l e d to fi l e a m o ti o n to

w i t h d r a w , a n d h e rn e w a t t o r n e y s n e v e rf ile d a m o t io n t o s u b s t it u t e c o u n s e l. W e n ot e t hatnot i ce ac qui re d byan at t or neyaf t ert he t er m i nat i on oft he a tto rn e y -c l i e n t re l a ti o n s h i p i s n o t i m p u te d to th e fo rm e r c l i e n t. S ee Her nandez v. Koch Machi

nery Co. , 1 6 S .W .3 d 4 8 , 5 8 n .6 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 0 , p e t. d e n i e d ); J. J. T. B. , I nc. v. G uerre ro , 9 75 S. W . 2d 737, 739 ( Tex. A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 1 9 9 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ).

5 ... O m ega subsequen t l y pet i tio n ed t hi s cour tf orw r i tofm andam us, c o n te n d i n g th a t th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n i n g ra n t i n g D r. M o s e l e y ’s bi l l ofr evi ew . W e deni e d m andam us r el i efon Jul y 22 , 20 04 , “because [ O m ega] has an adequate r em edy by ap peal . ” Th e Su pr em e C our tofTexas s u b s e q u e n tl yd e n i e d O m e g a ’s p e ti ti o n fo r w ri t o f m a n d a m u s a s w e l l . 4 D r . M os el ey f i l e d a pet i t i on f orbi l l ofr evi ew on J ul y 2, 2003 . O m ega
a n s w e r e d a n d m o v e d f o rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n t h e g r o u n d t h a tD r . M o s e le yd id notex er ci se due di l i gen ce i n pur su i ng a l l ad equ at e l ega l r e m e di es ag ai ns tt he di sm i ssal . A f t era hear i ng, t he t r i al cour tgr ant ed D r . M osel ey’ s bi l l ofr evi ew
a n d d e n i e d O m e g a ’s m o ti o n for su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 5 O n J a n u a r y1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e t r ia l c o u r tn o t if ie d D r . M o s e le yt h a titw o u ld di sm i ss t he case f or w antofpr osecut i on on M ar ch 9 , 20 06 , unl ess i tr ecei ved
an agr ee d s che dul i ng or ders et t i ng t he ca se f or a t r i al be f or e M ay 29, 2006 , or
a m ot i on w as f i l ed r equest i ng such act i on by t he cour t . D r . M osel ey r equest ed t hatt he ca se be s etf ort r i al , an d t h e t r i al co urts ett he ca se f ort r i al on J une 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 . P ri o r to th e tri a l s e ttin g , h o w e v e r, O m e g a fi l e d a m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t arg u i n g tha t t h e re w a s n o ev i d e n c e to su p p o rttw e n ty-tw o elem e n ts6 ... Wem b l e yIn v. Co . v. Herrera , 1 1 S .W .3 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 6

– 2 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 9 ).
7 ... Thomps on v. Hender so n , 4 5 S . W . 3d 28 3, 28 7 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as 2 0 0 1 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 5 ofD r . M os el ey’ s num er ous ca us es ofac t i on a nd t hat , be ca us e t her e w as no genu i ne i ssue ofm at er i al f actas t o t hose cl ai m s, i tw as ent i t l ed t o j udg m entas
a m at t erof l aw . The t r i al cou r tgr ant ed t he m ot i on f ors um m ar y j udgm enton J u l y5 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d th i s a p p e a l fo l l o w e d . I n i ts fi rst cro ss -po i n t, O m e g a c o n t e n d s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts di sc r et i on bygr ant i ng Dr . M os el ey’ s pet i t i on f or bi l l of r evi ew be ca us e a f t ert he
case w a s d is m i ssed f orl ack ofpr osecut i on i n N ovem ber20 02 , D r . M osel ey f ai l ed t o pur su e a vai l abl e l ega l r em edi es su ch as a m ot i on t o r ei ns t at e, a m ot i on fo r n e w tri a l , o r a m o ti o n to e x te n d p o s t-j u d g m e n t d e a d l i n e s . A b ill o fre v ie w is a n in d e p e n d e n ta c t io n t o s e t a s id e a ju d g m e n tt h a tis
n o l o n g e ra p p e a la b le o rs u b je c tt o c h a lle n g e b ya m o t io n f o rn e w t r ia l. 6 B e c a u se i t i s fu n d a m e n tal l yi m p o rt a n t t h a t so m e fi n a l i ty b e ac c o rde d to ju d g m e n t s , a b ill o fre v ie w s e e k in g re lie ff r o m a n o t h e r w is e f in a l ju d g m e n tis
sc ru tini zed by t he cour t s “w i t h ext r em e j eal ousy, and t he gr oun ds on w hi ch i n te rfe re n c e w i l l b e a l l o w e d a re n a rro w a n d r e s tri c te d .” To setasi de a 7 j udgm entby bi l l ofr evi ew , t he pet i t i one rm us t pl ea d and pr ove ( 1) a m er i t or i ous def ens e t o t he ca us e o fac t i on a l l e g e d t o s upportt he j udgm ent , ( 2) t hats he8 ... Caldw el l v. Bar nes , 9 7 5 S .W .2 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ).
9 ... Wem bley I

nv. Co. , 11 S. W . 3d a t926– 27; Ca ld w ell, 97 5 S . W . 2d at 537.
10 ... Wem bley I nv. Co. , 1 1 S .W .3 d a t 9 2 6

– 2 7 ; Fer r i ce v. L egacy I

ns. A gency, I

nc. , N o. 02- 05- 003 63-C V , 2 0 06 W L 171453 5, at*3 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (m e m . o p .); G a rcia v. Ten o r io , 6 9 S .W .3 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 2 , p e t. d e n i e d ); Thomps on , 45 S. W . 3d a t288.

11 ... Fer r i ce , 2 0 0 6 W L1 7 1 4 5 3 5 , a t * 3 ; Perduev. Patten C or p. , 142 S .W .3 d 5 9 6 , 6 0 6 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.). 6 w as pre vent ed f r om m aki ng by t he f r aud, acci dent, orw r ong f ul actofher oppon ent , ( 3) unm i xed w i t h a ny f aul torne gl i gen ce ofhe row n. 8 A ddi t i onal l y, bi l l ofr evi ew r el i efi s avai l abl e onl y i fa par t y has exer ci sed d u e di l i gence i n pur sui ng al l adequate l egal r em edi es agai nsta f or m er j u d g m e n t. Rel ie f b y e q u it abl e bi l l ofr evi ew i s unavai l abl e i fl egal r em edi es

9

w er e avai l abl e but i gno r ed, even i ft he f ai l ur e t o pur sue t hese r em edi es r esul t ed f r om ne gl i gen ce orm i st a k e o fa part y’ s at t or ney . T h e req u i rem e n t t h a t a 10 par t y di l i gentl y pur sue i t s l egal r em edi es i s di st i nctf r om t he t hr ee bi l l ofr evi ew el em ent s. 11 W e concl ude t hat D r . M osel ey w as not ent i t l ed t o r el i efby bi l l ofr evi ew because she f ai l ed t o exer ci se due di l i gence i n pur sui ng avai l abl e l egal r em edi es f ol l ow i ng t he di sm i ssal . I ti s undi sput ed t hat D r . M osel ey di d not r ecei ve act ual not i ce oft he di sm i ss al unt i l Ja nua r y 17, 2003 , s i x ty -f i ve day s af t ert he12 ... S eeT EX . R. C IV . P. 329b.
13 ... Id. Th e m ot i on t o r ei nst at e l i t i gat i on and voi d ar bi t r at i on r equest ed t hatt he case be br oug htoutofar bi t r at i on and t hatt h e c o nt r actbe decl ar ed voi d. The m ot i on di d not setf or t h any gr ou n d s fo r rei nst at i ng t he di sm i ssed c a s e . S eeT EX . R. C IV . P . 1 6 5 a (3 ).

14 ... S ee T EX . R. C IV . P . 3 0 6 a (1 ), (4 ), (5 ). 1. Beg i nni ng of per i ods. T h e d a t e o fju d g m e n t o ro r d e ris si gn e d as s how n ofr ec or d s hal l de t er m i ne t he beg i nni ng oft he per i ods pr es cr i bed by t hes e r ul es . . . f orf i l i ng i n t he t r i al co urtt he var i ous doc um ent s . . . i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i te d to , m ot i ons f or new t r i al [ and ] . . . m ot i ons t o r ei ns t at e a ca se di sm i ss ed f orw ant o f p ro s e c u ti o n . . . .

. . . . 4 . N o n o ti c e o f j u d g m e n t. I fw i t hi n t w ent y da ys af t ert he ju d g m e n to ro t h e ra p p e a la b le o r d e ris s ig n e d , a p a rt ya d v e r s e ly af f ect ed by i torhi s at t or ney has nei t herre c e iv e d t he noti ce r equ i r ed by p ar agr aph ( 3) oft hi s r ul e n or ac qui r ed ac t ual kn ow l edg e oft he or der , t hen w i t h r es pec tt o t hatpa rty a l l t he per i ods m e n ti o n e d i n p a rag rap h (1 ) sh a l l b e g i n o n th e d a te th a t su c h p a rt y orhi s at t or neyr ec ei ved su ch not i ce orac qui r ed ac t ual kn ow l edg e oft he si gni ng, w hi chever occur r ed f i r st , buti n no even tshal l such 7 di sm i ss al or derw as s i gne d, an d w el l pa stt he t hi r t y- dayde adl i ne f orf i l i ng a
m ot i on f orne w t r i al orot herpos t -j udgm entm ot i on. I ti s f ur t herundi sput ed 12 th a t D r. M o se l e y ’s m o ti o n to rei n sta te l i ti g a ti o n a n d v o i d a rbit rati o n , fi l e d tw o day s af t ert he di sm i ss al or derw as s i gne d, w as nota m ot i on f o r n e w tri al or ot her pos t -j udgm entm ot i on. A n d , D r . M o s e le yd id n o ta t t e m p tt o u t iliz e ru le 13 30 6a to ext end t he t i m e f orf i l i ng a m ot i on t o r ei nst at e orm ot i on f ornew t r i al
o n c e s h e re c e iv e d a c t u a l n o t ic e o ft h e d is m is s a l. S h e , th e refo re, f a i l e d to 14per i ods be gi n m or e t han ni net y day s af t er t he or i gi nal j udgm entor

ot herap pea l abl e o r derw as s i gne d. T EX . R. C IV . P . 3 0 6 a (1 ), (4 ).

15 ... See Sm al

l i ng v. Sm al

l i ng , No s . 0 1

- 9 7

- 0 0 2 4 6

- CV , 0 1

- 9 8

- 0 0 6 9 1

- CV , 199 8 W L 39 4 3 4 9 , a t * 2 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] Jul y 16, 1998 , no p e t.) (n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ) (h o l d i n g b i l l o f re v i e w u n a v a i l a b l e w h e re part y ha d a ct ual not i ce of d e faul tj udgm entbe t w ee n t w ent y a nd ni net y da ys o f j u d g m e n t b u t fa i l e d to fi l e a m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l u n d e r ru l e 3 0 6 a ); S te wa rd v. S te wa rd, 734 S . W . 2d 432, 434 , 435– 36 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1987, no w r i t ) ( hol di ng t hatbi l l ofr e v ie w w as i m pr oper l y gr ant ed w her e bi l l ofr evi ew pet i t i one rr ec ei ved not i ce ofde f aul tj udgm enton thi r t y- f ourt h da y f ol l ow i ng j udg m entand f ai l ed t o f i l e m ot i on f or new t r i al underext ensi ons contem pl at ed b yru l e 3 0 6 a ).

16 ... S e eD a vi

s v. Sm ith , 22 7 S . W . 3d 29 9, 30 2 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 1st D i st . ] 20 07 , no pet . ) ( set t i ng ou tabuse of di scr et i on st andar d ofr evi ew oft r i al c o u rt’s d e c i s i o n to g ra n t o r d e n y a b i l l o f r e v i e w ); Manl ey v. Par

so ns , 112 S .W .3 d 3 3 5 , 3 3 7 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (sa m e ).

17 ... S ee Fer

r i ce , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 7 1 4 5 3 5 , a t * 3 ; Perdue , 14 2 S . W . 3d at 606 –07 ( hol di ng t hatw her e part y ha d not i ce ofdi sm i ss al w i t hi n t he t i m e p er i od dur i ng w hi ch i tcoul d seek a post

-j udg m entr em edy shor tofa bi l l ofr evi ew , par t y had no texer ci sed due di l i gence i fi thad not s oug htsuch r em edy and can o ffe r n o g o o d c a u s e fo r s u c h fa i l u re ). 8 exer ci se due di l i gence i n pur s ui ng avai l abl e l egal r em edi es and bi l l ofr evi ew
r el i efw as unavai l abl e. A c c o rdin g ly , w e h o l d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts 15 di sc r et i on by gr ant i ng t he bi l l ofr evi ew .

16 W e sust ai n O m ega’ s f i r stcr oss- 17 p o i n t.18 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 1. W e not e t hatO m ega at t em pt ed t o l i m i tour

r evi ew oft he bi l l ofr evi ew , s t at i ng t hati t“ con di t i ona l l y pr es ent s t he c o n d it io n a l is s u e s in t h is c r o s s -a p p e a l o n ly if t h is C o u r t r e v e r s e s (in w h o le o rin par t ) t he Jul y 5, 20 06 O r derand Fi nal Su m m a ry Judg m ent . ” H ow ever , an appel l ee’ s at t em ptt o cond i t i on con si der at i on of a cr oss- poi nt on “t he eventt hat [t h e a p p e lla t e c o u r t ] r e v e r s e s t h e ju d g m e n to ft h e t r ia l c o u r to n a p p e a l” is i n e ffe c ti v e to l i m i t o r c o n d i ti o n th e a p p e a l . Unitar i an Univer

sa l i st Serv. v. Lebrecht , 6 7 0 S .W .2 d 4 0 2 , 4 0 3 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 1 9 8 4 , w ri t re f’d n .r.e .); se e a l

so J o h n H i l l C a y c e , J r., A n n e G a rd n e r & F e l i c i a H a rri s K y l e , Civil A pp e a l s i n Texa s : Pra c ti

ci ng Un der th eNe wRule so f A pp el l a tePro c e dure , 49 B AY L OR L. R EV . 8 6 7 , 9 6 5 n .6 2 7 (1 9 9 7 ). T h e r e f o r e , o n c e a c r o s s -p o in tis p r e s e n te d to a n a p p e l l a te c o u rt, i t i s b e fo re th e c o u rt fo r a l l p u rp o s e s . S ee Un ita ri a n Un ivers a l

i s t S erv . , 670 S. W . 2d a t403.
19 ... S ee T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 3 .2 (c ); Sm al l i ng , 1998 W L3943 49, a t*3 ( r eve r si ng j udgm entgr ant i ng bi l l ofr evi ew and r end er i ng j udgm entt hatbi l l of re v i e w b e d e n i e d ); S te wa rd, 734 S . W . 2d at 436 ( r eve r si ng j udgm entgr ant i ng b i l l o f re v i e w a n d re n d e ri n g j u d g m e n t fo r a p p e l l a n t o n b i l l o f re v i e w ). 9 H a v i n g s u s ta i n e d O m e g a ’s fi rs t c ro s s -p o i n t, w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s D r. M o se l e y ’s i ss u e s c h a l l e n g i n g the su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. W e r ever se t he t r i al 18
cou r t ’ s m odi f i ed or dergr ant i ng Dr . M os el ey’ s bi l l of r evi ew and r end erj udgm ent denyi ng t he bi l l ofr evi ew . 19 P E R CU R I AM PA N EL A : CA YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and H O LM A N , JJ. DEL I VERE D: J un e 19, 2008