In re Butt
495 S.W.3d 455
Tex. App.2016Background
- Arturo and Aurelia Garcia sued H.E.B. after Arturo slipped on a wet floor in an H.E.B. store; their fourth amended petition alleged negligence and spoliation against H.E.B. and named four apex corporate officers individually (Butt, Boyan, Gellhausen, Holguin).
- The Garcias alleged the officers "had control" over store safety practices and failed to exercise reasonable care, but their allegations against the individuals mirrored the allegations against H.E.B. and were made "on information and belief."
- The officers (relators) moved to dismiss the individual claims under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a as baseless; the trial court denied the motion after briefing and a hearing.
- The officers sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals to compel the trial court to vacate its denial, dismiss the individual claims under Rule 91a, and award fees and costs.
- The appeals court reviewed Rule 91a de novo, held discovery was not required before ruling on a Rule 91a motion, and concluded the Garcias pleaded no independent duty owed by the officers separate from H.E.B.’s corporate duty.
- The court conditionally granted mandamus: directing the trial court to withdraw its denial, grant the Rule 91a dismissal of the officers, and hold a hearing to award costs and attorney’s fees to the prevailing relators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corporate officers can be individually liable under pleadings that mirror corporate allegations | Garcia: officers may be liable; mandamus is premature because discovery needed to show job duties | Relators: Rule 91a requires dismissal because the corporate form insulates them absent allegations of an independent duty or personal wrongdoing | Held: Dismissal required under Rule 91a — pleadings show no independent duty or personal tortious acts by officers separate from H.E.B. |
| Whether court must permit discovery before deciding a Rule 91a motion | Garcia: discovery necessary to show officers’ job duties and potential independent duties | Relators: Rule 91a deadlines and rule text prohibit consideration of evidence; decision must be based on pleadings alone | Held: Discovery not required; Rule 91a forbids considering evidence and contemplates early resolution on pleadings alone |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to review denial of a Rule 91a motion | Garcia: mandamus is premature; normal appeal adequate | Relators: denial causes wasted litigation and no adequate appellate remedy | Held: Mandamus appropriate; denial of Rule 91a motion is reviewable and relators lacked adequate appellate remedy |
| Whether prevailing party on Rule 91a motion must be awarded fees | Relators: they are prevailing parties and entitled to fees under Rule 91a | Garcia: (no contrary statutory argument preserved) | Held: Rule 91a mandates award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to prevailing party; trial court must hold a hearing to determine amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Leitch v. Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. 1996) (individual liability for corporate officers exists only when officer owes an independent duty separate from employer)
- Tri v. J.T.T., 162 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2005) (applies Leitch to premises-liability context; distinguishes personal vs. corporate duties)
- In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (mandamus is available to review denial of Rule 91a dismissal)
- Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. 2006) (existence of duty is a threshold question in negligence cases)
- Pico v. Capriccio Italian Rest., Inc., 209 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (affirming no-evidence judgment for corporate president where pleadings failed to allege an independent duty)