David L. Smith & Associates, L.L.P. v. Stealth Detection, Inc.
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 9060
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- appellants Smith & Associates and Eddie Large received numerous unsolicited faxes advertising Stealth Detection's alarm-monitoring service in 2001–2002.
- Appellants sued Stealth Detection, Inc., David Stull, and Charles Townsend under the federal TCPA and Texas statute, seeking statutory damages for each fax.
- An interlocutory default judgment was entered against Stealth Industries for the same conduct.
- At trial, Stull and Townsend testified that the faxes were sent for Stealth Detection's benefit and described a 'fax blasting' campaign directed by Townsend with equipment operated by Townsend and Stull's group.
- The trial court awarded judgment for appellees and separately entered final judgment for the defaulting defendants, prompting appeal by the appellants.
- The court concluded Stealth Detection, Stull, and Townsend were liable under TCPA and Texas statute, but found no joint-enterprise liability with Stealth Industries and denied some requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of findings of fact and conclusions of law | Smith asserts inadequate findings supporting the verdict. | Defendants contend the court erred in failing to provide sufficient findings. | Findings are insufficient; but reversal and remand for new proceedings. |
| Default judgment against Stealth Detection | Stealth Detection should be held liable notwithstanding defaults elsewhere. | No separate default against Stealth Detection; issues preserved otherwise. | Court did not separately render new damages against Stealth Detection; joint liability addressed elsewhere. |
| Appellees' liability proven | Evidence conclusively proves liability of appellees under TCPA and Texas statute. | Evidence insufficient or not conclusive to prove liability. | Evidence conclusively establishes Stealth Detection, Stull, Townsend liable for TCPA and Texas statutory damages; awards affirmed on this basis. |
| Joint-enterprise liability with Stealth Industries | Stealth Detection and Stealth Industries were in a joint enterprise; liable together. | No proven joint-enterprise relationship; insufficient showing of shared benefits and control. | No proof of joint-enterprise liability; Stealth Detection not jointly liable with Stealth Industries for additional damages. |
| Attorney's fees on Rule 11 enforcement | Rule 11 enforcement should include attorney's fees. | Fees denied due to case-related complaints by counsel. | Rule 11 enforcement fees awarded; trial court erred in denying attorney's fees under section 38.001. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Tricon Tool & Supply, Inc. v. Thumann, 226 S.W.3d 494 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1994) (sufficiency standards for findings and conclusions)
- In re C.A.T., 316 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010) (standard for appellate review of trial court's conclusions)
- Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000) (one-satisfaction rule for damages)
- Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1991) (one-satisfaction rule principle reaffirmed)
- Shoemaker v. Whistler's Estate, 513 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1974) (definition of joint-enterprise liability elements)
- Castleberry v. Branscum, 721 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1986) (piercing corporate fiction considerations)
- Cordova v. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 148 S.W.3d 441 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004) (attorney's fees under Civil Practice & Remedies Code §38.001)