Motion Motion to Dismissand toDismiss issuedits andissued onthe its Orderson the forty-fifth day of filing--November the dateof day followingthedate 10, 2014.A Novemberl0,2014. llchallenged All causesofaction challengedcauses of action
were dismissed were with prejudicewhich dismissed withprejudice whichincluded: included: ffalse alseimprisonment, and battery,and imprisonment, assaultand and
conspiracy. conspiracy. Silverado Silverado nnow movesfor owmoves award ofall anaward for an costsandreasonable allcosts and reasonableand necessary attorneyfees andnecessary fees
0 incurred incurred with with respect to thechallenged respect to causesofaction. the challengedcausesof action.
0 RULE 91a.7
Except in Except actionbby an action in an oragainst yor governmental againstaa governmentalentity raapublic entityoor actingin public official actingin his her official capacity orher his or orunder capacityor coloroofflaw, undercolor law,the thecourt award theprevailing court must award the prevailing party on themotion party on all costsaand the motion all costs reasonableand ndreasonable necessaryattomey andnecessary feesincurred attorney fees incurred with with respect to thechallenged respectto the challengedcause ofactioninthetrial court.TThe cause of action in the trialcourt. he courtmust must considerevidence consider evidenceregarding regardingcosts indetermining award. costs and fees in determining award. issued added). he firstandonlyopinion interpreting 91a.7 was issued TEX. P. 91a.7 (emphasis added).TThe R. Crv.P.91a.7(emphasis TEX.R. and only opinion interpreting 91a.7was November20,2014. Chase 2014No.02-13-00340-CV, 2014Tex.App.Lexis November 20, 2014. Drake v. v. Chase Bank, 2014 No. 02-13-00340-CV, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572(Tex.App. - Worth Nov.20,2014,nopet. Drake involveda pro seplaintiff Drake involvedaprose who plaintiff who 12572 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014, no pet. h.). broughtclaimsagainst ChaseBankforirreparable harmto hiscreditandintentional infliction of brought claims against Chase Bank for irreparable harm to his credit and intentional infliction of emotionaldistress. Thetrial granted defendant's 91aMotion toDismiss andawarded it emotional distress. Id. The trial court granted defendant's 91a Motion to Dismiss and awarded it $2,480 incostsandfees. at*1.Plaintiff amotion toreconsider which wasdenied andthe $2,480 in costs and fees. Id. at *1. Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider which was denied and the awarded defendant itsfeesrelated tothatmotion court awarded defendant its fees related to that motionas wellintheamount of as well in the amount of $1,545. Id.
4 Id. 5 Id
168.1 4849-6015-5168.1
Silverado Appx. 0269 No. 1-15-586-CV 3618 Applyingaa de the Drake Court of review, the novo standard ofreview, de novo Court foundthat"...an awardof that "...anaward of
0 attorneys' fees attorneys' to theprevailing fees to the prevailingparty on aa rule91amotion partyon rule 91a motion to dismissiiss mandatory,not to dismiss not discretionary." Id. at *5.Notably, Id. at thetrial *5. Notably, the trial c ourthhad court granted plaintiff adgranted plaintiffindigent statusdduring indigentstatus uringthe the
proceedings. proceedings. Id at *4. Id. at the Drake Court *4. Nevertheless, theDrake oundthat"therule Courtffound that "the rulesays nothingaabout saysnothing bout
exempting indigent exempting indigentparties parties frompayingaattorneys' frompaying ttorneys' fees feestto partywho oaaparty prevails underrule whoprevails rule91a."IdId. 91a."
at citing ((In re at *5 citing re Christus Hosp. Spohn Hosp. Kleberg, 222S.W.3d Christus Spohn 434, 437 (Tex.2007) 222 S.W.3d434,437(Tex. 2007 )(orig. (orig. 0 proceeding) (stating proceeding) (stating tthat hatcourts pplythe courts aapply samerules the same of constructionthat rulesofconstruction thatgovern the interpretationof governtheinterpretation of
0 statutes when construing statutes when construing rules (CityofRockwell rules ooff procedure));(City of