Court Opinion

ID: 9382290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-26 07:16:21.315158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.342030
License: Public Domain

Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Majority and Dissenting Opinions
filed March 23, 2023.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                             NO. 14-22-00928-CV

  QUAN NGUYEN; POLO CAPITAL, LLC; CALEDONIA WATER CO.
       L.C.; AND QN & DN INVESTMENTS, INC., Appellants
                                       V.

                        THANH THI TRAN, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 152nd District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. 2022-01421-A

                         DISSENTING OPINION
      Does language suggesting the mere possibility of further claims make a
judgment that is otherwise final into an interlocutory judgment? In this appeal an
interlocutory judgment has been severed in the trial court and is otherwise final
under the first prong of Lehmann after that severance. See Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (“A judgment that finally disposes of all
remaining parties and claims, based on the record in the case, is final, regardless of
its language.”). Without discussing Lehmann and its progeny, the majority merely
states, “The severance order expressly indicates that further proceedings are to be
had in the severed action,” does not analyze whether any parties and claims remain
to be disposed of by “further proceedings,” deems the judgment interlocutory, and
dismisses the appeal (presumably for want of subject-matter jurisdiction). Because
this violates Lehmann, I dissent.

       The parties signed a September 17, 2022 settlement agreement containing
the following language:

       Defendants agree to sign the “Agreed Partial Judgment” attached to
       this Agreement as Exhibit A. Plaintiff agrees not to abstract or record
       the Agreed Partial Judgment unless Defendants fail to strictly comply
       with any payment term(s) of this Agreement. In the event that
       Defendants fail to strictly comply with any payment term(s) of this
       Agreement, the Parties agree that Plaintiff may abstract and record the
       Agreed Partial Judgment and that the Agreed Partial Judgment will be
       enforceable, final, and not subject to appeal.1

After plaintiff Thanh Thi Tran decided that defendants2 did not comply with the
settlement agreement, plaintiff filed the following motion:

           UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE ABATEMENT ORDER,
               REINSTATE CASE, AND ENTER AGREED NON-
                       APPEALABLE JUDGMENT
              Plaintiff and Quan Nguyen entered into a settlement agreement
       for the purpose of resolving their dispute. They filed, and this Court

       1
           The settlement agreement appears in the clerk’s record as exhibit A to plaintiff’s
October 14, 2022 motion to sever and exhibit B to defendants’ supplemental response to
plaintiff’s motion to sever. There is no reporter’s record in this appeal. I express no opinion
whether the settlement agreement was admitted into evidence in the trial court and is properly
before this court for review.
       2
      The defendants are Quan Nguyen; Polo Capital, LLC; Caledonia Water Co. L.C.; and
QN & DN Investments, Inc.

                                              2
granted, a joint motion to abate pending the earlier of (a) Plaintiff
timely receiving all payments under the agreement or (b) any failure
by Quan Nguyen to strictly comply with the payment terms of the
agreement. Unfortunately, Quan Nguyen failed to comply with his
obligation to pay the first installment payment. Thus, Plaintiff
requests—and Quan Nguyen does not oppose—vacating the
abatement order; reinstating this case; and entering the agreed,
non-appealable judgment attached to this motion as Exhibit A.
On October 14, 2022, the trial court signed that judgment:

                AGREED PARTIAL JUDGMENT

       Plaintiff Thanh Thi Tran (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Quan
Nguyen, Polo Capital, LLC (“Polo Capital”), Caledonia Water Co.,
L.C. (“Caledonia”), and QN & DN Investments, Inc. (“QN & DN”)
(collectively, “Defendants”) have agreed to entry of this Judgment.
Having considered their agreement, the pleadings, and the records on
file in this case, this Court RENDERS judgment for Plaintiff and
against Defendants.
       It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
Plaintiff shall recover from Quan Nguyen, Polo Capital, Caledonia,
and QN & DN, jointly and severally, the amount of Twelve Million
Dollars ($12,000,000).
       It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
Plaintiff shall recover court costs taxed against Defendants.
       It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED Plaintiff
shall recover from Defendants post-judgment interest on all amounts
awarded in this Judgment at the rate of 5.5% per annum compounded
annually from the date of this Judgment until fully paid.
       It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
each Defendant is jointly and severally liable for all amounts awarded
in this Judgment and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from each
Defendant all amounts recoverable from any other Defendant in this
Judgment in accordance with Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice
& Remedies Code.
      The trial court signed a severance order on November 21, 2022:

                                  3
   ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEVER

       On this day, the Court considered the “Motion to Sever”
(“Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Thanh Thi Tran (“Plaintiff”). After
considering the Motion, the Response and Supplemental Response
filed by Defendants Quan Nguyen; Polo Capital, LLC; Caledonia
Water Co., L.C.; and QN & DN Investments, Inc. (collectively,
“Defendants”), Plaintiffs Reply, the record, and arguments of counsel,
the Court finds the Motion should be, and is hereby, GRANTED.
       It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
Plaintiffs claim against Defendants arising from the breach of the
settlement agreement is hereby SEVERED from the remaining claims
in this action and shall proceed under the separate docket number of
2022-01421-A.
       It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
copies of the following documents shall be made by the Clerk of the
Court and placed in the Court’s file in Cause No. 2022-01421-A:

  Image No.                       Title                      Date

                 MONETARY AMAGES AWARDED
  104584966      ORDER FOR AGREED PARTIAL
                 JUDGMENT SIGNED                           10/14/22
                 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs
                 Unopposed    Motion     to   Vacate
  104555307      Abatement Order, Reinstate Case, and
                 Enter     Agreed     No-Appealable        10/13/22
                 Judgment
  104538396      Proposed Agreed Judgment                  10/12/22

                 Unopposed    Motion      to  Vacate
                 Abatement Order, Reinstate Case, and
  104520307
                 Enter    Agreed      Non-Appealable       10/11/22
                 Judgment
  104520308      Proposed Agreed Partial Judgment          10/11/22

  104520446      Letter to Judge Schaffer                  10/11/22

                                  4
            It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
      the costs of severance are to be borne by Defendants.

                                Signed: [signature]
                                11/21/2022
                             The Honorable Judge Robert Schaffer, presiding

      It is further Ordered that any recovery obtained by the Plaintiff
      under the final judgment of 2022-01421-A shall serve as a
      credit towards any recovery, if any, obtained by Plaintiff under a
      final judgment awarding Plaintiff damages in 2022-01421.

      Nothing in the severance order mandated further proceedings on claims. The
severance order merely stated, “and shall proceed under the separate docket
number of 2022-01421-A.” That wording does not make an otherwise final
judgment interlocutory.

      This court errs in holding that the appeal is interlocutory. It is not, and this
court has subject-matter jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§ 52.012 (providing for appeal or writ of error to court of appeals).

      This court further errs in granting the appellee’s motion to dismiss without
addressing the grounds in the motion. The first ground is that appellants “cannot
challenge the severance order without appealing the final judgment.” It is true that
appellants’ notice of appeal states, “Defendants Quan Nguyen, Polo Capital, LLC,
Caledonia Water Co. L.C., and QN & DN Investments, Inc (collectively
“Nguyen”) file this Notice of Appeal to either the First or Fourteenth Court of
Appeals and state that they desire to appeal from the Order of Severance (dated
November 21, 2022) attached as Exhibit ‘A.’” The November 21, 2022 order of
severance, however, is not merely an order of severance, it is also the final
judgment. If the court is concerned that appellants only wish to appeal the actual
severance and not the remainder of the final judgment, then the court should
                                          5
provide due process and notify appellants and provide them an opportunity to file
an amended notice of appeal correcting that defect. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.5(g)
(amending notice).

       Appellee’s second ground for dismissal is that appellants have waived the
right to appeal the final judgment. Appellee cites as authority Emerson v. Emerson,
a case that involved a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 waiver of the right to
appeal some but not all the issues in that appeal. Emerson v. Emerson, 559 S.W.3d
727 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). There is no Rule 11
agreement in this appeal, the settlement agreement appears to apply to everything
in the final judgment,3 and appellants have not yet filed a brief stating their issues
or points or error. Emerson does not apply to this appeal, and appellee make no
other arguments to support dismissal under the facts of this appeal.

       This court errs in granting the motion to dismiss without explanation. The
court could, but does not, give notice of an involuntary dismissal for want of
prosecution, explaining the court’s reasoning for the involuntary dismissal. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (involuntary dismissal in civil cases).

       I dissent to this court’s judgment dismissing the appeal.

                                               /s/       Charles A. Spain
                                                         Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Spain (Spain,
J., dissenting).

       3
           See discussion of whether the settlement agreement is before this court, supra note 1.

                                                     6