Carolyn C. James v. Michael Easton and Peter J. Riga
368 S.W.3d 799
Tex. App.2012Background
- James suing Easton and Riga for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with contract over Easton’s inappropriate communications in three underlying cases involving James’s mother’s dementia.
- Easton intervened in probate and district court proceedings; he contacted James and her medical expert, using Riga’s letterhead.
- Easton’s conduct included a photo and threats to Dr. Glass, and emails to James referencing violence and intimidation.
- James sought a temporary injunction; trial court denied it and Riga moved to dismiss via special exceptions.
- Trial court later granted Riga’s directed verdict; court sustained special exceptions, then this appeal followed.
- Appellate court affirmed denial of injunction, reversed dismissal on special exceptions, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal on special exceptions was proper | James | Easton/Riga relied on improper rule that torts can't arise from litigation conduct | The special exceptions lacking merit; reversal of dismissal |
| Whether the Riga directed verdict was proper | James | Riga deemphasized due process in injunction context | Directed verdict reinterpreted as denial of injunction; no error in not hearing Riga first |
| Whether dismissal on special exceptions prejudices re-filing | James | Sanctions in underlying suits suffice | Not addressed due to sustaining issue on special exceptions |
| Whether denial of temporary injunction was error given outrageous conduct | James | No imminent, irreparable harm shown | Court did not abuse discretion; injunction denial affirmed |
| Whether anti-contact rule and rules of civil procedure were enforced | James | Proceedings and sanctions adequate | Issue subsumed; remains remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Filipp v. Till, 230 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (review of dismissal under special exceptions; de novo standard)
- Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (attorney immunity not bar to independent tort claims under fraud/malicious conduct)
- Toles v. Toles, 113 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (attorney misconduct in underlying litigation can support tort claims; sanctions not exclusive remedy)
- Poole v. Houston & T.C. Ry., 58 Tex. 134 (1882) (attorneys may be liable for fraudulent acts despite representation role)
- Querner v. Rindfuss, 966 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998) (attorney may be liable to opposing party for fraud/conspiracy; not immune)