Christopher Click and Jerry Lindemann v. Transport Workers Union Local 556, 05-15-00796-CV

Background

In 2013 TWU Local 556 sued three former officers (Stacy Martin, Chris Click, Jerry Lindemann) for alleged misappropriation of union funds and related claims after internal disciplinary proceedings that removed them from office. Click and Lindemann were suspended/removed and later tried before union trial committees; initial trial committees found Click and Lindemann not guilty but the union re-set trials and ultimately removed officers. Martin was tried by jury and found liable at trial; Click and Lindemann were not tried by jury.
Click and Lindemann filed no‑evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment asserting TWU lacked proof of a breach of fiduciary duty under §501 of the LMRDA; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Click and Lindemann (January 22, 2015) but did not initially enter a written judgment on the relief awarded.
Click and Lindemann then moved to modify the judgment under Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b seeking entry of the summary‑judgment relief they requested: dismissal, attorneys’ fees, court costs, and pre/post‑judgment interest. The trial court subsequently signed a Final Judgment granting modification and awarding interest, costs (amount blank), and attorneys’ fees of $44,371.19 to Click and Lindemann.
Defendants’ summary‑judgment theory: the union’s claims concern internal administration, time/attendance/performance disputes, and not pecuniary fiduciary breaches covered by §501(a) of the LMRDA; therefore TWU lacked evidence of a fiduciary relationship or breach as a matter of law.
Procedural posture on appeal: Click and Lindemann (pro se) appealed the final judgment to the Fifth Court of Appeals (No. 05‑15‑00796‑CV), challenging (among other things) the trial court’s handling of relief and the denial/entry of fees and costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a fiduciary relationship existed under §501(a) when the contested events occurred	TWU contends officers were fiduciaries and incurred costs when hearings proceeded or officers continued occupying offices	Click and Lindemann argue they were suspended/stripped of authority before the alleged conduct, so no §501 fiduciary relation existed	Court granted summary judgment for Click and Lindemann: no genuine issue that §501 fiduciary relationship applied for the challenged acts
Whether alleged conduct (forcing/insisting trials proceed; occupying offices; travel) constituted a breach of fiduciary duty under §501(a)	TWU says the conduct wasted union resources and therefore breached fiduciary duties	Defendants say these are internal administrative disputes (time/attendance/performance), not pecuniary misappropriation under §501, and defendants received no personal benefit	Court treated allegations as administrative disputes not actionable under §501 and granted summary judgment to defendants
Whether defendants are entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre/post‑judgment interest after summary judgment	TWU opposed fees/costs tied to Martin’s trial and argued costs would have been incurred regardless	Defendants sought modification to enter relief awarded by summary judgment (fees, costs, 5% interest) and relied on precedent permitting reimbursement when officers prevail	Trial court granted motion to modify and entered final judgment awarding interest, fees ($44,371.19), and court costs (amount left blank in form) to Click and Lindemann
Whether the denial of a written order on relief (timeliness/procedure) barred appellate review	TWU argued procedural defects/motion timing; TWU did not appeal the January 22 summary‑judgment ruling within 30 days	Defendants argued they timely filed motion to modify under Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b and preserved the relief request	Court accepted modification motion and entered a final judgment awarding relief; the record shows defendants pursued postjudgment motion to obtain written relief

Key Cases Cited

Hoffman v. Kramer, 362 F.3d 308 (5th Cir.) (internal administrative decisions and maladministration typically do not state a §501 fiduciary breach)
Holdeman v. Sheldon, 311 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1962) (policy permitting unions to reimburse officers who successfully defend suits to protect officials from harassing litigation)
Kerr v. Shanks, 466 F.2d 1271 (9th Cir.) (recognizing reimbursement policy for successful officer defenses)
McNamara v. Johnston, 522 F.2d 1157 (7th Cir.) (union may reimburse officers who prevail in §501 suits for defense costs)
American Bank v. Waco Airmotive, 818 S.W.2d 163 (Tex. App. — Waco 1991) (motion to modify/claims about postjudgment relief must be presented to trial court)
Dawson‑Austin v. Austin, 968 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. 1998) (trial‑court modification required to preserve complaint about costs/interest on appeal)
Larrumbide v. Doctors Health Facilities, 734 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1987) (issues about omitted relief must be raised by motion to modify judgment)
L.M. Healthcare, Inc. v. Childs, 929 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1996) (motion to modify is appropriate when there are errors in the judgment)