Ha Duong Nhu and D&H Restaurant Equipment v. Hunan Ranch Corporation, 03-14-00821-CV

Hunan Ranch sued Duong Nhu Ha and D&H Restaurant Equipment for breach of contract after defendants failed to timely deliver and install a commercial wok central to restaurant operations.
Defendants were served but did not file an answer; the case proceeded to a bench trial on June 30, 2014, and the trial court entered a no-answer default judgment for Hunan Ranch.
The final judgment awarded $38,663.81 in damages and $6,693.75 in attorney’s fees; Hunan Ranch seeks affirmance and additional appellate fees.
Hunan Ranch’s proofs in the certified record include its Original Petition and an affidavit by owner John Chen detailing the delay, the restaurant’s closure (about 8.5 days), and the damages calculation.
Defendants filed a restricted appeal arguing (1) procedural defects for a restricted appeal, (2) insufficient evidence for liability and damages (challenging absence of exhibits and reporter’s record), (3) insufficient proof of damages and causal nexus, and (4) improper award of attorney’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hunan Ranch)	Defendant's Argument (Ha / D&H)	Held (trial court / appellee position)
1. Restricted-appeal prerequisites	Appellants met time/party/nonparticipation elements but error must appear on face of record	Same — they argue error obvious on face of record	Appellee: Appellants met prelims but failed to show error on face of record; judgment should stand
2. Sufficiency of evidence for default judgment	Affidavit + pleadings suffice; no reporter’s record not required when affidavit in record	Insufficient evidence because key exhibits not in record and no reporter’s record of hearing	Appellee: Evidence (petition + Chen affidavit) supports liability and damages; reporter’s record unnecessary; judgment proper
3. Proof of unliquidated damages	Lost profits and economic losses shown by Chen affidavit with reasonable certainty; unliquidated damages proven by affidavit	Damages not proven with required certainty or documentary support; calculation unreliable	Appellee: Affidavit establishes timeline, 8.5-day closure, and damage calculations; damages sufficiently proven
4. Causal nexus & attorney’s fees	Petition + affidavit establish nexus between breach, closure, and damages; fee award authorized under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §38.001	Argue nexus unproven and fee award improper absent proven damages	Appellee: Both nexuses shown; breach caused injury; statute supports contractual fee award; judgment for damages and fees should be affirmed

Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1984) (in a no-answer default judgment, facts properly pleaded are deemed admitted and defendant’s liability is conclusively established except for unliquidated damages)
Texas Commerce Bank, N.A. v. New, 3 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. 1999) (unliquidated damages in default judgment may be proven by affidavits)
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (lost profits need not be calculated with mathematical exactness but must be shown with reasonable certainty)
Whitaker v. Rose, 218 S.W.3d 216 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (lack of reporter’s record does not automatically create error on the face of the record when affidavits support damages)
Fleming Mfg. Co. v. Capitol Brock, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 405 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987) (party who defaults admits factual allegations regarding liability and cannot later contest liability on remand)
Southwest Battery Corp. v. Owen, 115 S.W.2d 1097 (Tex. 1938) (damages must be shown with reasonable certainty)
Norman Commc’ns v. Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. 1997) (elements required for restricted appeal)