CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. v. Brandy Springer, Hani Tohme, Frank Jackson, George Randle, Leonard Faulk, and Trent Thibodeaux, 09-16-00479-CV

CH2M Hill (CH2M) contracted with the City of Beaumont in Sept. 2014 to evaluate water and sewer operations and produced a critical written report.
After the report, the City made personnel changes that included demotion, termination, or forced resignation of the six appellees.
Appellees sued CH2M in May 2016 for defamation and tortious interference, alleging the report contained false and misleading statements.
CH2M moved to dismiss under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002 for failure to file a required certificate of merit (affidavit by a third‑party licensed professional engineer).
The trial court denied the motion; CH2M appealed interlocutorily, arguing the court abused its discretion.
The appellate court affirmed, finding CH2M failed to prove it was a firm in which a licensed or registered professional practiced and thus failed to show the trial court abused its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §150.002 applies because CH2M is a “licensed or registered professional” firm	Appellees disputed CH2M’s status as a licensed professional firm; they argued §150.002 did not apply	CH2M argued it is registered with the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and thus §150.002 requires a certificate of merit	Held: CH2M did not show a licensed professional practiced in the firm or that a licensed engineer signed the report; §150.002 did not clearly apply on the record, so trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether plaintiffs’ claims arise from provision of professional services requiring a certificate	Implied: plaintiffs contended claims were non‑professional (defamation/tortious interference) and not governed by §150.002	CH2M argued claims arose from its professional report and therefore required a certificate	Held: Court did not reach this question because CH2M’s failure to prove firm status was dispositive
Standard of review for denial of §150.002 dismissal	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Held: Abuse of discretion standard for denial of motion to dismiss; statutory construction reviewed de novo
Burden to show trial court abused discretion	Appellees argued CH2M failed to produce record evidence	CH2M argued facts supported application of §150.002	Held: CH2M had burden to show abuse and failed to present evidence that a licensed professional practiced for CH2M or signed the report

Epco Holdings, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 352 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (standard of review and statutory construction principles for §150.002 appeals)
Sharp Eng’g v. Luis, 321 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (interpretation of §150.002 and certificate requirements)
Benchmark Eng’g Corp. v. Sam Houston Race Park, 316 S.W.3d 41 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (abuse of discretion standard and statutory construction rules)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for appellate review of trial court decisions)
Dunham Eng’g, Inc. v. Sherwin‑Williams Co., 404 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (treating firm proof requirements under §150.002)
Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., 739 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. 1987) (party asserting abuse of discretion bears burden to show it)
Morrison Seifert Murphy, Inc. v. Zion, 384 S.W.3d 421 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (after statutory construction, appellate review of trial court’s application of statute)