David Rogers v. Gregorio "Greg" Casar
03-15-00505-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Appellant David A. Rogers represented Laura Pressley in a 2014 Austin City Council District 4 runoff election contest; appellee Gregorio “Greg” Casar prevailed at trial.
- Casar moved for sanctions against Rogers based on alleged sanctionable pleadings; the trial court awarded monetary sanctions and the appellate panel affirmed in part.
- Rogers challenges the sanctions as legally erroneous and excessive, arguing the trial court misapplied Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 10 (statutory sanctions) and Tex. R. Civ. P. 11 (open‑court agreements).
- Rogers submits post‑trial, sworn campaign finance records from Casar showing substantially lower legal fees/costs actually paid, arguing §10.004(c)(3) limits sanctions to amounts actually incurred because of the sanctionable filing.
- Rogers also contends his CVR (cast vote record) challenges were legally reasonable because a CVR (database record) is not necessarily a ballot image as required by the Election Code; he argues the CVR claim was not found sanctionable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rogers) | Defendant's Argument (Casar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Proper application of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 10 when awarding monetary sanctions | §10.004 requires least severe sanctions; monetary awards to other parties are limited to expenses actually incurred "because of" the sanctionable filing (but/for causation); trial court ignored statute and Low factors | Sanctions were proper and amounts supported by evidence of fees/costs incurred | Appellant argues abuse of discretion: court must limit awards to what was actually incurred and to the least severe sanction; panel and trial court failed to apply the statutory limits (Rogers seeks reversal/reduction) |
| 2. Effect of an open‑court Rule 11 agreement on ability to pursue sanctions | A Rule 11 agreement made and entered in open court closed all issues between the parties and thus foreclosed subsequent sanctions; Rule 11 permits open‑court enforceable agreements without written signatures | Agreement did not bar sanctions; Rule 11 requires written signatures to enforce settlements (per panel) | Rogers contends the oral stipulation recorded at the May 26, 2015 hearing satisfied Rule 11’s "made in open court" exception; he faults the panel for omitting this analysis |
| 3. Legal reasonableness of CVR vs. ballot‑image claim | Statutes require storage/printing of ballot images; a CVR database record is not necessarily a ballot image; arguing otherwise was reasonable and not sanctionable | Casar treated CVRs as sufficient and the CVR theory was part of the contested claims; court found portions sanctionable | Rogers stresses the CVR/ballot‑image distinction was a reasonable statutory interpretation issue and not the basis for sanctions; he relies on plain‑text statutory analysis and election/voting standards to support that view |
Key Cases Cited
- Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (factors and standards governing sanctions under Texas law)
- Alex Sheshunoff Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. 2006) (statutory‑interpretation and related principles)
- AIC Mgmt. v. Crews, 246 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2008) (plain‑meaning rule and statutory construction guidance)
- R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2011) (limited deference to administrative interpretations that contradict plain statutory language)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for appellate review of questions of law and abuse of discretion)
- Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, 145 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004) (reinforcement of the plain‑meaning rule)
- Ebner v. First State Bank of Smithville, 27 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (requirements for a binding open‑court stipulation under Rule 11)