ACCEPTED 04-13-00106-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/2/2015 4:36:48 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/2/2015 4:36:48 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk DARBYRILEY BOARDCERTIFIED/CIVIL TRIALLAW CHRISRILEY,M A TEXASBOARDOF LEGALSPECIALIZATION LEGALASSISTANT darbyriley@rileylawfirm com
C H A R L E S AR I L E Y , P C charlesriley@rileylalvfirmcom June2, 2015
FourlhCourtof Appeals 300 Dolorosa,Suite3200 San Antonio.Texas 78205-3037
Re. Barry Brooks et al. v. ExcellenceMortgage,Ltd. et al., CauseNo. 04-13-00106-CV
JU S T IC ESBARNARDANdALVAREZ: T O T H E H ON OR A B L E
The appellantloan officersrespectfullysubmit this letter,containingadditional
citationsand succinctcomment,with respectto Appellees'Motionfor Rehearing.
1. A N T IT R U S TC L A IMS
Motion for SummaryJudgmentlimited to grounds asserfedby the Motion.
Attached hereto are peftinent excerpts from the mortgage company parties'
Motionfor SummaryJudgment.The Motionat CR 126-128showsthe grounds traditional
assertedon the loan officers'tortious interferenceand antitrustclaims against the
mortgagecompanyparties.
"Whena motionfor summary judgmentassertsgroundsA and B, it cannotbe upheldon groundsC andD,whichwerenotasserted, evenif the summary judgment proofsupports themandthe responding partydid not exceptto the motion."
3 2 0 L e x i n g t o nA v e . S a nA n t o n i o ,T X 7 8 2 1 5 - 1 9 1T3e l : ( 2 1 0 )2 2 5 - 1 2 3 6 F a x :( 2 l 0 ) 2 2 1 - 7 9 0 7 FourthCourtof Appeals June2, 2015 Page:2
Roberfsv. SouthwestIexas MethodistHospital,Sl 1 S.W.2d 141,146 (Tex.App-
San Antonio 1991,writ denied),quoted in McConnellv. SouthsidelndependentSchool
District,858S.W.2d 337, 342 (fex. 1993);T. Pnnoru,Suuunnv Juoctuerurs tNTexns:
PnRcrce, PRoceouRE, (3d ed. 2013). ANDRrvrew,53.06t21
The mortgagecompanypartiesonly soughtsummaryjudgmenton the antitrust
claim on the ground that their action "merely enforced reasonablenon-disclosure
agreements."(CR 128-129).The Court'sopinionon Motionfor Rehearingfinds a fact
issueon whether"Excellencefalselyclaimedit had the sole rightto servethe pipeline
c u s t o m e rs."Op i n i o np, . 1 8 . T h u s ,havingfoundthatthe mor tgagecompanypar ti esdi ' d
agreementsgave them exclusiverightto provethat the non-disclosure not conclusively
serve the pipelinecustomers,the Court properlydenied summaryjudgment on the
antitrustclaims.
B. The Appel/ees'New Argument on Causation
The mortgagecompanypartiesgo beyondtheirMotionfor SummaryJudgmentin
arguingthat the panel'sOpinionon Motionfor Rehearing"is inconsistent with appellants
pleadedcausationtheory"on the antitrustclaim. (Appellees'Motionfor Rehearing,p. 7).
They point out that the loan officerspleadedthat the injunctionsuit by Excellence
Mortgage,Ltd. was groundless.(ThirdAmendedOriginalCounterclaim, CR 269-270).
(The loan officersalso pleadedthat the moftgagecompanyparties"unlawfully" refused
to transferthe loansas requestedby the pipelineborrowers).ld. FourthCourlof Appeals June2, 2015 Page:3
The mortgagecompany parties cite Houston Mercantile change Corp. v. Dailey
PetroleumServicesCorp., 1993 WL 322901(Tex. App.-Houston [14thDist.] 1993, no
writ) for the propositionthat a personwho initiatesa lawsuitis generallyimmunefrom
exceptionis where the suit is groundlessand/or antitrustliability.The well-recognized
broughtfor an anticompetitivepurpose,as allegedhere. See /n re BurlingtonNofthern,
822 F.2d 518,527,529 (sthCir. 1987). (Evena successfullitigantmay be foundto have
abusedthe litigationprocessin orderto effectuatean antitrustviolation).
Thus,to succeedon this issue,the mortgagecompanypartieshad to first,move
provethat the suitwas for summaryjudgmenton that ground,and second,conclusively
purpose. The mortgage not groundlessand was not broughtfor an anticompetitive
companypartiesdid neither. The Courthas properlydeniedsummaryjudgmenton the
antitrustclaim.
2. T OR T IOU SIN