Court Opinion

ID: 9554199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 00:00:35.020507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:39.796002
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10884        Document: 00516848401             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                     August 7, 2023
                                      No. 22-10884                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   Dalpark Partners, Limited,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Verus Management One, L.L.C.,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CV-965
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Dalpark Partners, Limited (“Dalpark”) alleges that Verus
   Management One, LLC (“Verus”) trespassed on its property by authorizing
   a third party, AT&T, to install equipment beyond the parties’ lease
   agreement. However, its claim requires proof of physical entry, which
   Dalpark does not offer. Thus, the district court granted summary judgment
   in favor of Verus. We agree and AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10884        Document: 00516848401             Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                         No. 22-10884

                                              I.
           Dalpark purchased a parking garage in Dallas, Texas. Along with the
   property came the rights to an existing lease agreement (the “Lease”)
   covering a portion of the garage. AT&T remains the sole tenant of this Lease
   and uses the leased space (the “Premises”) to install equipment for its
   business.
           In 2006, Dalpark assigned its interest in the Lease to Verus for agreed-
   upon consideration (the “Assignment”). In executing the Assignment,
   Dalpark agreed to “allow [Verus] to modify, . . . expand or refurbish the
   equipment” on the Premises “at any time” during the Lease’s term. In 2011,
   Dalpark and Verus amended the Assignment, reaffirming the same rights.
           Over the next four years, Verus and AT&T executed several
   amendments without consulting Dalpark. In essence, the amendments
   allowed AT&T to “modify” the equipment already installed on the
   Premises. None of the amendments authorized AT&T to install more
   antennas on the Premises. Nor was AT&T allowed to install equipment
   outside the stipulated Premises.
           Asserting that Verus and AT&T executed the amendments without
   its consent, Dalpark sued Verus for trespass. 1 Verus moved for summary
   judgment, and the court granted its motion, holding that (1) Dalpark did not
   provide sufficient evidence demonstrating physical entry on the property by
   AT&T equipment and (2) no reasonable jury could conclude that Verus
   intentionally authorized AT&T’s alleged trespass. Dalpark timely appealed.
   We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

           _____________________
           1
             While initially asserting claims for slander of title and conversion, Dalpark
   ultimately abandoned both claims and instead alleged trespass. Thus, trespass was the only
   issue before the district court in this case.

                                               2
Case: 22-10884     Document: 00516848401           Page: 3      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                    No. 22-10884

                                        II.
          We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
   Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation
   omitted). We will affirm if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
   fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 56(a). Further, all evidence will be viewed “in the light most
   favorable to the nonmoving party and all reasonable inferences” will be
   drawn in that party’s favor.      Austin, 864 F.3d at 328-29.         However,
   “[u]nsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported
   speculation are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”
   Brown v. City of Hous., 337 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 2003).
                                        III.
          Texas law provides three elements to trespass: “(1) entry (2) onto the
   property of another (3) without the property owner’s consent or
   authorization.” Env’t Processing Sys., L.C. v. FPL Farming Ltd., 457 S.W.3d
   414, 419 (Tex. 2015). In dispute here are elements (1) and (3). Dalpark has
   not provided sufficient evidence to prove either element.
                                        (1)
          Dalpark’s claim does not depend on Verus, by and of itself, physically
   trespassing on the property. Rather, Dalpark mainly contends that Verus
   urged AT&T’s trespass through “unauthorized amendments” to the Lease.
          In making this argument, Dalpark neglects to prove one fundamental
   element of the claim: physical entry. Dalpark does not identify any physical
   intrusion, beyond the defined Premises, by any AT&T equipment. Nor can
   we find anything in the record. And Texas law requires “some physical
   entry” before that entry is deemed a trespass. R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v.

                                         3
Case: 22-10884         Document: 00516848401       Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                    No. 22-10884

   Manziel, 361 S.W.2d 560, 567 (Tex. 1962) (emphasis added).               Thus,
   Dalpark’s claim fails on the first element.
                                         (2)
          Because Dalpark cannot prove the first element of its claim, we need
   not address the third: whether Verus authorized the alleged trespass without
   Dalpark’s consent. In any event, Dalpark also fails to provide sufficient proof
   for this element.
          Under Texas law, defendants may be liable for trespass, without
   personally participating in the physical entry, if they “intentionally cause[] a
   third person” to trespass. Wilen v. Falkenstein, 191 S.W.3d 791, 798 (Tex.
   App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied). Dalpark contends that Verus’s
   amendments to the Lease suffice to indicate such intent. We disagree.
          Dalpark offers no evidence to help ascertain what is genuinely being
   authorized by the amendments. Further, the language in the Assignment is
   clear: Dalpark contractually agreed to “allow [Verus] to modify” the
   equipment on the Premises. Verus abided by these terms, and no competent
   evidence in the record suggests the contrary.
                                         IV.
          It is indisputably true that summary judgment is about the evidence.
   Dalpark has offered us none. The district court’s grant of summary judgment
   is thus AFFIRMED.

                                          4