Cypress Creek EMS v. Dolcefino, 548 S.W.3d 673

Cypress Creek EMS (CCEMS) accidentally mailed un-redacted, allegedly confidential documents to investigator Wayne Dolcefino in connection with a Texas Public Information Act request; CCEMS sought Attorney General guidance and sent sample documents for review.
CCEMS sued Dolcefino for conversion and sought TRO/temporary and permanent injunctions to prevent use or dissemination and to compel return; a TRO issued and an agreed confidentiality order later found the mailing inadvertent and that Dolcefino had not caused the mailing.
Dolcefino denied receiving the disputed package, returned an unrelated unopened package, and asserted he would return any package if received; parties disputed whether he ever had possession.
Dolcefino moved to dismiss under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a and later moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment on conversion and for summary judgment on the permanent injunction; he also sought sanctions under Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 10.
The trial court initially granted Dolcefino’s Rule 91a dismissal (then vacated it), later granted summary judgment for Dolcefino on conversion and on the permanent injunction, awarded CCEMS limited Rule 91a fees, and denied Dolcefino’s sanctions motion.
CCEMS appealed the summary-judgment rulings, continuance/compel denials, and the fee award; Dolcefino cross-appealed the denial of sanctions. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment on conversion was improper	CCEMS: mailing and presumption of receipt raise fact issues that Dolcefino received and retained documents	Dolcefino: no evidence he received, exercised dominion, or wrongfully retained documents	Affirmed for Dolcefino; no evidence he exercised dominion or wrongfully retained documents
Whether denial of continuance / compel was erroneous	CCEMS: needed more discovery (deposition answers/postal witness) to oppose no-evidence MSJ	Dolcefino: CCEMS had adequate discovery; many refused questions were immaterial or privileged	Affirmed for Dolcefino; court did not abuse discretion denying continuance or compel
Whether permanent injunction should be granted	CCEMS: injunction necessary to prevent use/dissemination of confidential docs	Dolcefino: injunction requires wrongful act; no evidence of wrongful act after summary judgment on conversion	Affirmed for Dolcefino; injunction failed without proof of wrongful act
Whether CCEMS was entitled to full Rule 91a attorney's fees	CCEMS: prevailing party entitled to all reasonable necessary fees ($23,897.50)	Dolcefino: fees excessive, include work not tied to Rule 91a, and CCEMS partly caused litigation by counsel’s mistake	Affirmed: trial court awarded $850; award discretionary on amount and not an abuse of discretion

Freezia v. IS Storage Venture, LLC, 474 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (elements of conversion)
Texaco, Inc. v. Phan, 137 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (presumption of receipt from properly mailed letter; denial rebuts presumption)
Lightning Oil Co. v. Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, 520 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. 2017) (no‑evidence summary judgment legal-sufficiency standard)
Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. 2008) (no-evidence summary judgment after adequate time for discovery)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard for summary judgment)