Court Opinion

ID: 9900026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 10:14:29.278945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:58.621188
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00060-CV

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

PAUL V. ANDERSON AND PAUL                      §      APPEAL FROM THE
ANDERSON PLLC,
APPELLANTS
                                               §      COUNTY COURT AT LAW
V.

ALEJANDRA RODRIGUEZ,                           §       NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLEE
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Paul V. Anderson and Paul Anderson PLLC (collectively Anderson) appeal the trial
court’s order awarding sanctions in favor of Appellee Alejandra Rodriguez. Anderson raises
seven issues on appeal. We reverse and remand.

                                        BACKGROUND
       This case arises from a noncompete agreement between Rodriguez and her former
employer, Blue Lotus Tattoo, which is owned by Stephen Buelow. Rodriguez worked at Blue
Lotus as an apprentice-tattoo-artist at its location in Lufkin, Texas from March 22, 2022, until
her apprenticeship was terminated in late July 2022. Thereafter, Rodriguez began working for
Casey’s Tattoo in Nacogdoches, Texas.
       On September 7, Buelow’s attorney, Anderson, confronted Rodriguez at Casey’s Tattoo
with the noncompete agreement. According to Rodriguez, Anderson told her that she needed to
decide whether she should continue working for Casey’s Tattoo in light of the agreement and to
contact him by the following Monday to apprise him of her decision.
       Rodriguez contacted Attorney Connor Throckmorton to seek advice as to how to
proceed. Throckmorton wrote Anderson a letter dated September 9, in which he informed

                                               1
Anderson that he represented Rodriguez, questioned whether the noncompete agreement was
legally enforceable, and advised that if there was any further dispute over the enforceability of
the noncompete, he would, on Rodriquez’s behalf, file a declaratory judgment action against
Buelow and Blue Lotus Tattoo. That same day, Anderson responded by email, in which he,
among other things, invited Throckmorton to contact him on his cell phone over the weekend.
Throckmorton, instead, attempted to contact Anderson at his office during regular business
hours. But ultimately, no phone conversation resulted.
         On September 12, Anderson filed the instant suit on behalf of Buelow d/b/a Blue Lotus
(collectively Buelow) against Rodriguez, by which he sought a declaratory judgment interpreting
the enforceability of the noncompete agreement between the parties.                           Rodriguez filed a
declaratory-judgment action against Buelow and Blue Lotus in an Angelina County District
Court later that same day. In response to Buelow’s petition, Rodriguez filed a “Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,” in which she argued, in pertinent part, as follows:

                  This frivolous petition was frantically filed by Blue Lotus’s lawyer on the same day
         Rodriguez filed an appropriate declaratory judgment action in the 159th District Court in Angelina
         County, Texas . . . . In a race to beat Rodriguez by “filing first[,]” Blue Lotus has knowingly
         made fraudulent statements to this Court to wrongfully impose jurisdiction without a factual basis.
         Blue Lotus and its lawyer know the venue is inappropriate [in Nacogdoches County], know their
         “contract” is unenforceable, and know this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, this
         action must be dismissed, as the appropriate action is pending in Angelina County District Court
         to determine the parties’ [existing] rights and status under an unenforceable contract.

Four days later, Buelow filed a notice of nonsuit of his claims against Rodriguez.
         Thereafter, Rodriguez filed a motion for attorney’s fees as sanctions against Buelow and
Anderson. 1 In her motion, she argued that Buelow filed the notice of nonsuit to avoid an
unfavorable outcome and counterclaim. She further argued that an award of attorney’s fees
pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 10 is appropriate because
Anderson filed the verified petition in Nacogdoches County, despite the fact that Rodriguez
signed the noncompete agreement in and worked at the Blue Lotus location in Angelina County
and, thus, he either (1) failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts or (2) made a reasonable

         1
           The time during which the trial court has authority to impose sanctions on a party’s motion is limited to
the time period during which it retains plenary jurisdiction, even when the motion for sanctions is filed after notice
of nonsuit is filed pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 162. See Scott & White Mem’l Hosp. v. Schexnider,
940 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. 1996).

                                                          2
inquiry, lied to the Court, and hoped that opposing counsel would not make a reasonable inquiry
into the facts. As a result, she sought $11,309.94 in attorney’s fees as sanctions. Buelow filed a
response and, following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement.
         Thereafter, the trial court rendered an order granting Rodriguez’s motion and ordering
that Buelow pay Rodriguez’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5,500. 2 The order further set
forth that Paul V. Anderson and Paul Anderson, PLLC be held jointly and severally liable for the
attorney’s fees ordered to be paid. Thereafter, Anderson filed a motion for new trial, which was
overruled. This appeal followed.

                                       SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
         In his sixth issue, Anderson argues that the trial court erred by ruling on Rodriguez’s
motion for sanctions without first determining whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, which
Rodriguez challenged in her motion. Because the trial court did not rule on Rodriguez’s motion,
we will consider the issue as if it first was raised on appeal.
Standard of Review and Governing Law
         Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by agreement, and we have a
duty to consider a question of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte because the district court’s
power to decide the merits, as well as our own, rests upon it. Good Shepherd Med. Ctr., Inc. v.
State, 306 S.W.3d 825, 837 (Tex. App.–Austin 2010, no pet.). The Texas Supreme Court has
recognized that, when reviewing subject-matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal, there is
no opportunity to cure the defect. Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Woods, 388 S.W.3d 785, 791
(Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). Accordingly, we “must construe the petition in
favor of the [pleading] party, and if necessary, review the entire record to determine if any
evidence supports standing.” Id.
         Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law.                              Hendee v.
Dewhurst, 228 S.W.3d 354, 366 (Tex. App.–Austin 2007, pet. denied). The determination of
whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction begins with the pleadings. Id. The pleader
has the initial burden of alleging facts that affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction
to hear the cause. Id.

         2
           Attached to the order was a two-page letter from the trial court, in which it set forth its findings related to
the order granting attorney’s fees as sanctions.

                                                            3
       A contract may be construed in a declaratory-judgment action before breach occurs,
regardless of whether further relief is or could be claimed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. §§ 37.003(a) 37.004(b) (West 2020); MBM Fin. Corp v. Woodlands Oper. Co., 292
S.W.3d 660, 667 (Tex. 2009); Bright v. Addison, 171 S.W.3d 588, 606 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005,
pet. denied). But a declaratory judgment is available only if a real and substantial controversy
exists between the parties, which requires a showing that litigation is imminent unless the
contractual uncertainties are resolved judicially. See Paulsen v. Tex. Equal Access to Justice
Found., 23 S.W.3d 42, 46 (Tex. App.–Austin 1999, pet. denied). An action for declaratory
judgment will lie when the fact situation manifests the presence of “ripening seeds of a
controversy.” Save Our Springs All. v. City of Austin, 149 S.W.3d 674, 683 (Tex. App.–Austin
2004, no pet.). This occurs where the claims of several parties are present and indicative of
threatened litigation in the immediate future which seems unavoidable, even though the
differences between the parties as to their legal rights have not reached the state of an actual
controversy. Id.
Discussion
       In the instant case, Anderson argues generally that the trial court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over the suit he himself filed on Buelow’s behalf, thus rendering the subsequent
order on Rodriguez’s motion for sanctions void. Thus, if any of Buelow’s allegations in his
petition vested the trial court with subject-matter jurisdiction, it retained its jurisdiction to
consider the motion for sanctions.
       As set forth above, a contract may be construed in a declaratory-judgment action before
breach occurs, regardless of whether further relief is or could be claimed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE ANN. §§ 37.003(a), 37.004(b).        In his pleadings, Buelow sought a declaratory
judgment regarding the enforceability of the noncompete agreement. Further, the record reflects
that Anderson confronted Rodriguez at Casey’s Tattoo with the noncompete agreement.
According to Rodriguez, Anderson told her that she needed to decide whether she should
continue working for Casey’s Tattoo in light of the noncompete agreement and to contact him by
the following Monday to apprise him of her decision. Thereafter, Throckmorton wrote Anderson
a letter dated September 9, in which he informed Anderson that he represented Rodriguez,
questioned whether the noncompete agreement was legally enforceable, and advised that if there

                                               4
was any further dispute over the enforceability of the noncompete, he would, on Rodriquez’s
behalf, file a declaratory judgment action against Buelow and Blue Lotus Tattoo.
       The foregoing facts sufficiently present a situation, which manifests the presence of well-
ripened “seeds of a controversy.” See Save Our Springs All, 149 S.W.3d at 683. Accordingly,
we conclude that there existed a justiciable controversy for Buelow’s declaratory-judgment
action against Rodriguez to seek an interpretation of the enforceability of the noncompete
agreement. Anderson’s sixth issue is overruled.

                                                 SANCTIONS
       In his second issue, Anderson argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding
attorney’s fees as sanctions.
       We review the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, Chapter 10 under the same standard we review sanctions under Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 13—abuse of discretion. See Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007); Am.
Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. 2006); Cire v. Cummings, 134
S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. 2004). We may reverse the trial court’s ruling only if it acted without
reference to any guiding rules and principles, such that its ruling was arbitrary or unreasonable.
See Low, 221 S.W.3d at 614; Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 838–39. To determine if the sanctions were
appropriate or just, we must ensure there is a direct nexus between the improper conduct and the
sanction imposed.      See Spohn Hosp. v. Mayer, 104 S.W.3d 878, 882 (Tex. 2003) (citing
TransAmerican Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991)). Generally, courts
must presume that pleadings and other papers are filed in good faith. See GTE Commc’ns Sys.
Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725, 730 (Tex. 1993). The party seeking sanctions bears the
burden of overcoming this presumption of good faith. Id. at 731.
       Chapter 10 allows a trial court to sanction an attorney or a party for filing motions or
pleadings that lack a reasonable basis in fact or law. See Low, 221 S.W.3d at 614. Section
10.001 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

                 The signing of a pleading or motion as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
       constitutes a certificate by the signatory that to the signatory’s best knowledge, information, and
       belief, formed after reasonable inquiry:

                                                       5
                   (1) the pleading or motion is not being presented for any improper purpose, including to
          harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

                    (2) each claim, defense, or other legal contention in the pleading or motion is warranted
          by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
          existing law or the establishment of new law;

                   (3) each allegation or other factual contention in the pleading or motion has evidentiary
          support or, for a specifically identified allegation or factual contention, is likely to have
          evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery[.]

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 10.001 (West 2017). Under Section 10.001, the signer of
a pleading or motion certifies that each claim, allegation, and denial is based on the signatory’s
best knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry. See Low, 221 S.W.3d
at 615.
          A trial court may not award sanctions on a basis not asserted in the motion for sanctions.
See Mann v. Kendall Home Builders Construction Partners I, Ltd., 464 S.W.3d 84, 93 (Tex.
App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.); Polansky v. Berenji, 393 S.W.3d 362, 369 (Tex.
App.–Austin 2012, no pet.); Greene v. Young, 174 S.W.3d 291, 298–301 (Tex. App.–Houston
[1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (reversing sanctions because parties did not have notice of legal
basis or conduct under consideration). Furthermore, before a court may exercise its discretion to
shift attorney’s fees as a sanction, there must be some evidence of reasonableness because
without such proof a trial court cannot determine that the sanction is “no more severe than
necessary” to fairly compensate the prevailing party. Nath v. Tex. Children’s Hosp., 576
S.W.3d 707, 709 (Tex. 2019); PR Invs. & Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. State, 251 S.W.3d 472,
480 (Tex. 2008); see also Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620 (“[A] sanction cannot be excessive nor should
it be assessed without appropriate guidelines”). “Consequently, when a party seeks attorney’s
fees as sanctions, the burden is on that party to put forth some affirmative evidence of attorney’s
fees incurred and how those fees resulted from or were caused by the sanctionable conduct.”
CHRISTUS Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell, 505 S.W.3d 528, 540 (Tex. 2016).
          If the court determines that attorney’s fees as sanctions are appropriate, it shall describe
in an order imposing a sanction under Chapter 10 the conduct the court determined amounted to
a violation thereof and explain the basis for the sanction imposed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE ANN. § 10.005 (West 2017) (emphasis added). Due process requires that there be a direct
nexus between the sanction and the sanctionable conduct. See Nath, 446 S.W.3d at 373; Zuehl

                                                          6
Land Dev., LLC v. Zuehl Airport Flying Cmty. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 510 S.W.3d 41, 55 (Tex.
App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.).
Discussion
         In the instant case, the trial court attached a letter directed to the parties to its order
awarding sanctions. In that letter, it sought to describe the sanctionable conduct in violation of
Chapter 10, in pertinent part, as follows:

                   Mr. Anderson has made several statements (in pleadings and arguments) that cannot be
         supported by the evidence that was submitted. Such statements have been proven to be false.
         Examples include, but are not limited to: The Start date for Miss Rodriguez’s employment with
         Mr. Buelow (different dates alleged in different pleadings--apparently Mr. Anderson now believes
         a later start date would be beneficial to establish contemporaneous knowledge of a Nacogdoches
         location); the fact that the case was non-suited based upon a settlement agreement (the court does
         not accept the concept of a settlement of the issues in this case that does not involve the opposing
         party in the litigation, further, the mention of a settlement came only after the motion to dismiss
         was filed, and perhaps is being used as a basis for the nonsuit in order to avoid responsibility); the
         start date for Mr. Buelow’s Nacogdoches tattoo business (apparently Mr. Anderson believes it
         would be beneficial to his position if Miss Rodriguez began her new job in Nacogdoches [sic]
         after his client’s Nacogdoches location had opened, and, further, it must be considered beneficial
         for Mr. Buelow to have been operating his tattoo business in Nacogdoches at the time the
         Employee Non-Compete Agreement was signed); and the location of Mr. Buelow’s tattoo
         business in September of 2022 and earlier the evidence establishes that the Nacogdoches tattoo
         business was to begin in Oc[t]ober of 2022. The pleadings in this case as well as the Angelina
         County case contain similar factual allegations that have been proven to be false.

In sum, the instance of conduct the court determined to be the bases of its sanctions order
consisted of Anderson’s statements related to (1) the start date of Rodriguez’s employment with
Buelow, (2) the reason Anderson gave for nonsuiting the case (settlement), (3) the start date for
Blue Lotus’s Nacogdoches location, and (4) the location of Blue Lotus Tattoo during September
2022.
         However, in her motion for Sanctions, Rodriguez limited her focus to statements related
to (1) the Nacogdoches location of Blue Lotus Tattoo as set forth in Buelow’s sworn pleadings
for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction and venue in Nacogdoches County rather than
Angelina County 3 and (2) Buelow’s filing his notice of nonsuit following her Motion to Dismiss

         3
           While the suggested purpose of the alleged misrepresentations is not set forth in Rodriguez’s motion for
sanctions, her motion repeatedly references her Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In that motion, she
contends that Buelow “knowingly made fraudulent statements to [the trial court] to wrongfully impose jurisdiction
without a factual basis” when Buelow and its lawyer knew “venue is inappropriate” in Nacogdoches County “and
[knew the trial court] lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” She further stated that Blue Lotus purposefully lied to the
Court about its business location to establish a proper venue, which amounts to, in her words, “procedural fencing.”

                                                           7
for Lack of Jurisdiction “to avoid an unfavorable outcome.” The start date of Rodriguez’s
employment is not referenced as a false statement in her motion for sanctions. Nor is a start date
for Blue Lotus’s Nacogdoches location referenced in the petition. 4 Moreover, the trial court was
required to explain the basis for the sanction imposed, i.e., the direct nexus between the sanction
and the sanctionable conduct. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 10.005; Nath, 446
S.W.3d at 373; Zuehl Land Dev., LLC, 510 S.W.3d at 55.
         Here, the purported misstatements regarding Rodriguez’s start date and Blue Lotus
Tattoo’s Nacogdoches-location’s start date are listed among several instances of sanctionable
conduct underlying the trial court’s award. But neither of these purported misstatements were
raised in her motion for sanctions. Furthermore, the trial court made no attempt to explain the
direct nexus between the sanction and the sanctionable conduct. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

          In her motion to dismiss, Rodriguez appears to conflate, somewhat, the concept of subject matter
jurisdiction with the propriety of venue, which she also referenced several times in the Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction. She first argues that the purported invalidity of the contract deprives the trial court of subject matter
jurisdiction. However, a person interested under a contract, whose rights are affected thereby, may seek
determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument and obtain a declaration of
rights. See In re Gen. Agents Ins. Co. of America, Inc., 254 S.W.3d 670, 674 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.]
2008) (orig. proceeding) (emphasis added). Thus, Rodriguez’s argument that the contract is invalid does not affect
the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. She further contends that Buelow lied to the court to establish proper
venue, but she never moved to transfer venue. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 86. And while it is undeniable that Buelow
referred to a Nacogdoches business location of Blue Lotus Tattoo in his petition, in three instances in the section of
the petition entitled “Jurisdiction and Venue,” he references only the address for Casey’s Tattoo. The general venue
statute provides that venue may lie in the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.002(a)(1) (West 2017). Contract claims
generally accrue in any county where the contract was formed, where it was to be performed, or where it was
breached. Killeen v. Lighthouse Elec. Contractors, L.P., 248 S.W.3d 343, 348 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2007, no
pet.) (emphasis added). Thus, it is unlikely that the presumption that Anderson, on Buelow’s behalf, made these
statements in support of venue in good faith has been overcome by Rodriguez’s accusations that he made false
statements for the purpose of “procedural fencing,” because an arguably-reasonable interpretation of the law
suggests that venue for Buelow’s declaratory judgment action involving a contract claim is permissible in the county
where the purported breach occurred, which precisely is what is alleged. See id.
         4
           Buelow did not refer to Blue Lotus’s Nacogdoches location in his petition as “operational,” “conducting
business,” or the like. Instead, he made three references to the business’s Nacogdoches location––once in the
introductory paragraph and twice more when referencing the distance between that location and Casey’s Tattoo.
Immediately after these latter two references, he referenced Blue Lotus’s Lufkin location with regard to the distance
between it and Casey’s Tattoo. However, Buelow made no statement regarding which location of Blue Lotus Tattoo
Rodriguez worked as an apprentice. After the hearing on Rodriguez’s motion for sanctions, with the trial court’s
permission and without objection, Buelow filed a copy of the lease for the Nacogdoches location of Blue Lotus
Tattoo, which demonstrates that Buelow accepted possession of the premises on August 22, 2022. Although the
lease did not commence until October 1, it is questionable that the assertion that the business was “located” there as
of the date Buelow took possession of the premises amounts to an irreparable misrepresentation, particularly when,
despite Rodriguez’s contentions, it was not set forth to establish venue. At the very least, such a statement is less-
than-candid, which, though ill-advised, might better be addressed by a special exception and corrected by
amendment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 63, 91.

                                                            8
CODE ANN. § 10.005; Nath, 446 S.W.3d at 373; Zuehl Land Dev., LLC, 510 S.W.3d at 55. As a
result, we face impediments to our ability to determine the propriety of the trial court’s sanctions
award. First, two stated instances of culpable conduct underlying the trial court’s sanctions
award cannot support the award because they were not raised in Rodriguez’s motion for
sanctions. Thus, we are unable to determine the extent to which the sanctions were attributable
to those two instances versus the two instances set forth in her motion. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE ANN. § 10.005; Nath, 446 S.W.3d at 373; Zuehl Land Dev., LLC, 510 S.W.3d at 55;
see also Mann, 464 S.W.3d at 93; Polansky, 393 S.W.3d at 369; Greene, 174 S.W.3d at 298–
301.     Second, despite Rodriguez’s request for $11,309.94 in attorney’s fees, which was
supported by Throckmorton’s affidavit and a case-activities report, which set forth the nature of
the legal work he performed and time attributable to each instance of his performance, the trial
court awarded only $5,500 in attorney’s fees as sanctions with no explanation given for how it
arrived at this reduced amount. Therefore, because we cannot determine the extent to which the
sanctions awarded related to conduct made the subject of the motion for sanctions or any direct
nexus between any appropriately sanctionable conduct and the sanctions ultimately awarded, we
hold that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees as sanctions against
Anderson. 5 Anderson’s second issue is sustained. 6

                                                   DISPOSITION
         Having overruled Anderson’s sixth issue and having sustained his second issue, we
reverse the trial court’s judgement, vacate the order awarding attorney’s fees as sanctions, and
remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         5
           We acknowledge that a trial court has inherent power to discipline an attorney’s behavior, which includes
the power to sanction a party’s bad-faith abuse of the judicial process, even if not covered by a particular rule or
statute. See Zuehl Land Dev., LLC v. Zuehl Airport Flying Cmty. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 510 S.W.3d 41, 54 (Tex.
App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.). However, here, the trial court’s order indicates that it stems from
Rodriguez’s motion for sanctions, and there is no indication that the trial court intended to employ or, otherwise,
gave Anderson notice of its intent to sanction him under its inherent powers.
          6
            Having overruled Anderson’s sixth issue and having sustained his second issue, we do not address his
remaining five issues addressing whether: Rodriguez is judicially estopped from seeking relief in Nacogdoches
County; the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Rodriguez’s unauthenticated evidence in support of her
motion for sanctions; the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Rodriguez was a “prevailing party;” the
trial court abused its discretion in ruling on the motion for sanctions after Buelow’s notice of nonsuit; and the trial
court abused its discretion in overruling Anderson’s motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

                                                          9
                                                              JAMES T. WORTHEN
                                                                 Chief Justice

Opinion delivered November15, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                                         10
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                        NOVEMBER 15, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00060-CV

                   PAUL V. ANDERSON AND PAUL ANDERSON PLLC,
                                    Appellants
                                       V.
                             ALEJANDRA RODRIGUEZ,
                                     Appellee

                                Appeal from the County Court at Law
                     of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV2214736)

       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed herein, and
the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this court that there was error in the
judgment of the court below, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED by this court that
the judgment be reversed, the order awarding attorney’s fees as sanctions be vacated, and the
cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings; and that all costs of this appeal are
hereby adjudged against the party incurring the same in accordance with the opinion of this
court; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

                    James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.