HealthTronics, Inc. v. Lisa Laser USA, Inc. and Lisa Laser Products, OHG
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7546
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- HealthTronics sued Lisa Laser in Texas for breach of contract and tortious interference; forum-selection clause allegedly required California/ Alameda County venue.
- Trial court dismissed per forum-selection clause; Lisa Laser sought attorneys’ fees under contract; initial fee request denied.
- Appellate panel reversed denial of fees and remanded for amount; on remand, trial court awarded $150,768 in fees plus appellate/related fees.
- Lisa Laser relied on California law for reasonableness of fees; contract clause governed fees; Texas procedure applied to evidentiary issues.
- California trial court later awarded substantial California-based fee recovery for work in Texas; California court noted hours and rates and limited considerations.
- Issue remains whether Korea’s and Davis’s affidavits were admissible and whether the fee award was reasonable and properly allocated across Texas and California work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of attorney affidavits | Korb and Davis affidavits were properly admissible under California law. | Affidavits were unreliable due to self-contradictions and should be excluded. | Affidavits admitted; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Reasonableness of attorneys’ fees | Fees were reasonable based on lodestar and California/Arthur Andersen factors. | Evidence insufficient to prove reasonableness; rates/hours disputed. | Evidence sufficient; fees deemed reasonable and properly supported. |
| entitlement to all Texas-case fees | Contract allows prevailing party to recover fees for all work while Texas case under its jurisdiction. | Fees should be limited to work directly tied to Texas dismissal. | Lisa Laser entitled to fees for all Texas-work under contract and jurisdiction, not limited to dismissal-related work. |
Key Cases Cited
- PLCM Group v. Drexler, 997 P.2d 511 (Cal. 2000) (lodestar-based fee calculation and potential multipliers)
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (Arthur Andersen factors for reasonableness of fees)
- Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 801 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. 1990) (credibility of interested witnesses; standards for evidence)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (no-evidence and factual-sufficiency standards and credibility)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (reliability and admissibility of expert testimony)
- McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1986) (factfinder credibility and resolving witness inconsistencies)
- PNEC Corp. v. Meyer, 118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 730 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (fees for work done while case under trial court’s jurisdiction; broad contract-fee recovery)
- In re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. 2010) (forum-selection clause applies to disputes; mandamus contexts)