Hector Gonzalez v. Atenea Capital Markets Fund, LP, 04-14-00614-CV

Atenea Capital Markets Fund, LP sued its seven founders, including Gonzalez, for a Ponzi-type scheme and misappropriation of funds.
Atenea alleged fiduciary breach, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, contract breach, civil conspiracy, and accounting failure.
Gonzalez failed to comply with discovery; the trial court imposed death-penalty sanctions striking his pleadings and finding liability.
A bench trial on damages awarded Atenea $4,224,426, jointly and severally against Gonzalez and Gonzalez & Duarte, LLC.
Atenea’s remaining claims against other defendants were non-suited; Gonzalez appeals on standing, ripeness, and one-satisfaction issues.
The court affirmed the judgment, addressing standing, ripeness, and the one-satisfaction rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue	Atenea has standing as the injured party.	Atenea lacks associational standing; sues on behalf of investors.	Atenea has standing.
Ripeness for judicial review	Atenea’s injury already occurred; claims ripe.	Claims are not ripe without investor actions.	Atenea’s claims are ripe.
One-satisfaction rule application	Damages may be recoverable under multiple theories for one injury.	Double recovery possible without election of remedies.	No violation; damages determined as single recovery; record supports judgment.

Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing and jurisdiction principles; burden on pleader; de novo review for subject matter)
R & R White Family Ltd. Partnership v. Jones, 182 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (standing focus on real controversy and justiciable interest)
Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2005) (standing requirement; injury to plaintiff)
State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1994) (standing not presumed; may be raised on appeal)
Nootsie Ltd. v. Williamson Cty. Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. 1996) (personal aggrievement; standing requires actual injury)
Nauslar v. Coors Brewing Co., 170 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) (injury to business entity; recovery belongs to entity)
Wingate v. Hajdik, 795 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. 1990) (injury to corporation; recovery rights)
Fredericksburg Indus., Inc. v. Franklin Int’l, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995) (action for damages belonged to corporation)
Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem’l Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. 1987) (need election of remedies for alternate theories)
Star Houston, Inc. v. Shevack, 886 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (when no election, court must choose greater recovery; can reform on appeal)
Gibson v. Patterson, 22 S.W.3d 851-52 (Tex. 2000) (ripeness; injury shown; claims ripe)