Amir-Sharif, Lakeith v. Quick Trip Corporation
416 S.W.3d 914
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Amir-Sharif, a pro se inmate, appeals a vexatious-litigant declaration and dismissal without prejudice arising from a 2009-2012 sequence against Quick Trip Corp. and Chester Cadieux III.
- Quick Trip sought a vexatious-litigant declaration under §11.051 and security under §11.055; hearing scheduled for Nov. 12, 2009.
- Amir-Sharif allegedly did not receive adequate advance notice for the hearing and later challenged the adequacy of notice and opportunities to respond.
- In 2012, the trial court sua sponte set a bench warrant and hearing date, issued a prefiling order under §11.101, and ultimately dismissed the case for failure to post security.
- The court remanded after concluding the vexatious-litigant finding was not supported by legally sufficient evidence.
- This appeal challenges notice, evidentiary sufficiency, and related procedural rulings leading to reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice for the vexatious-litigant hearing was proper | Amir-Sharif asserts failure to provide requisite advance notice | Defendants contend notice complied with statutory requirements | Remanded for proper notice considerations and proceedings |
| Whether the court had a ministerial duty to provide advance notice under §11.053(a) | Amir-Sharif argues statutory duty was not satisfied | Quick Trip and Cadieux contend duty was met | Remanded for proper notice compliance and record clarification |
| Whether the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the vexatious-litigant finding | Amir-Sharif contends there is a reasonable probability to prevail | Defendants show no reasonable probability and present prior-litigation history | Legal insufficiency; Amir-Sharif prevails on this issue; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion |
| Whether the court erred in failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law | Amir-Sharif sought findings and law conclusions | Trial court did not provide them | Remanded for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law |
| Whether there was a hearing on motions to reconsider and related liberal-construction considerations | Amir-Sharif sought reconsideration hearings and liberal construction of pleadings | No proper hearing conducted | Remanded for hearing on motions and proper application of liberal construction principles |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (establishes standards for legal sufficiency review in appellate courts)
- Willms v. Americas Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (limits on vexatious-litigant determinations and evidentiary review)
- Drake v. Andrews, 294 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (two-part test for vexatious-litigant declaration under §11.054)
- Leonard v. Abbott, 171 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (probative considerations in appeal of vexatious-litigant rulings)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (illustrative context for motion-priority standards (foreign citation))