CTL/THOMPSON TEXAS, LLC v. Morrison Homes
337 S.W.3d 437
Tex. App.2011Background
- Morrison Homes sues Sheffield for breach of contract and related claims; CTL/Thompson provided geotechnical engineering services for Sheffield.
- Morrison Homes filed an original petition with a Hillhouse certificate of merit (Hillhouse certificate).
- CTL moves to dismiss Morrison Homes's claims in 2008, arguing the Hillhouse certificate was inadequate.
- Sheffield cross-claims against CTL reference and incorporate the Hillhouse certificate; CTL cross-claims against Sheffield.
- Trial court denied CTL's first motion to dismiss in July 2008; CTL did not appeal that ruling.
- In 2009 Morrison Homes amends its pleadings to add new allegations including fraud; CTL files a second motion to dismiss and a motion to dismiss Sheffield's cross-claims; trial court denies both in July 2010, leading to this interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the July 6, 2010 order denying CTL's second motion to dismiss Morrison Homes's claims appealable? | CTL argues interlocutory appeal allowed under § 150.002(e). | Morrison Homes contends there is no jurisdiction for renewal; prior order unresolved. | No; the order is not appealable, and the appeal is dismissed. |
| Does CTL have to file its own certificate of merit for Sheffield's cross-claims against CTL? | CTL argues cross-claims require independent merit certificates. | Sheffield contends cross-claims are derivative and may rely on Morrison Homes's Hillhouse certificate. | Sheffield may rely on Hillhouse; CTL's cross-claims need not file a separate certificate. |
| Does Morrison Homes’s later fraud claim require a new certificate of merit separate from the Hillhouse certificate? | Hillhouse certificate covers all claims in original petition. | Certificate of merit is tied to the original complaint and does not mandate new certificates for later amendments. | A new certificate is not required for newly asserted claims; Hillhouse suffices for the original complaint, but CTL cannot extend later review beyond what §150.002 allows. |
Key Cases Cited
- Criterium-Farrell Eng'rs v. Owens, 248 S.W.3d 395 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008) (certificate of merit must support at least one meritorious claim)
- Palladian Bldg. Co. v. Nortex Found. Designs, Inc., 165 S.W.3d 430 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standards; statutory construction guidance)
- Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352 (Tex. 1998) (strict construction of interlocutory appeal provisions)
- Denton County v. Huther, 43 S.W.3d 665 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001) (non-appealability of renewals where no appeal from original denial)
- Landreth v. Las Brisas Council of Co-Owners, Inc., 285 S.W.3d 492 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2009) (interlocutory appealability of § 150.002(e) orders)
- Desai v. Reliance Mach. Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (interlocutory appeal considerations)