in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson, 01-15-00567-CV

Background:

Plaintiffs (members of the Peterson family) sued Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land alleging false imprisonment, assault and battery, and conspiracy; Silverado moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.
The trial court granted Silverado’s Rule 91a motion and dismissed the challenged causes of action with prejudice on November 10, 2014.
Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.7, the prevailing party on a Rule 91a motion must be awarded all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred with respect to the challenged cause of action (with limited exceptions for governmental entities).
Silverado filed an application seeking fees and costs incurred defending the dismissed claims, submitting affidavits, itemized invoices and time records and using the lodestar method to calculate fees (total requested: $117,183.40; separately identified federal-defenses amount: $18,830.00).
Silverado argued segregation of fees among claims was unnecessary because Rule 91a.7 mandates recovery for all challenged causes of action; it also requested estimated fees for anticipated post-judgment motions and appeals.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 91a.7 mandates an award of fees to the prevailing party on a Rule 91a motion	(Implicit) Rule 91a.7 should be interpreted in context; indigency or other equities may affect fee obligations	Rule 91a.7 is mandatory and requires awarding all costs and reasonable and necessary fees to the prevailing party on the motion	Rule: Courts interpreting 91a.7 (e.g., Drake) treat the award as mandatory; trial court may award fees to prevailing defendant
What evidence/procedure is required to prove reasonable and necessary fees under Rule 91a.7	Plaintiffs may argue that detailed, segregated billing or full lodestar proof is required before award	Silverado contends lodestar evidence—affidavits, invoices, time entries showing who, what, when, and rates—is sufficient; live testimony or hearing is within trial court discretion	Held: Sufficient proof includes contemporaneous time records, who performed work, hourly rates, dates and task descriptions (lodestar); courts have accepted affidavits and testimony rather than rigid formal invoicing
Whether fees must be segregated among dismissed and surviving or unrelated claims	Plaintiffs would argue fees should be apportioned to work solely related to dismissed claims and not to other claims or federal proceedings	Silverado argues Rule 91a.7 authorizes recovery of all fees incurred “with respect to the challenged cause of action” and that segregation is not required here because dismissed claims comprised plaintiffs’ entire case until amendment	Held: Rule 91a.7 authorizes recovery for fees incurred with respect to the challenged causes; where necessary, a court may require segregation, but Silverado provided a segregated amount for federal-related defense as a precaution
Whether fees asserted are reasonable and the appropriate amount to award	Plaintiffs would challenge the reasonableness, hourly rates, total hours, and inclusion of parallel federal-defense costs	Silverado submitted affidavits, firm records, time entries, hourly rates, and an itemized fee calculation applying lodestar; requested additional amounts for anticipated post-judgment work	Held: Determination of the fee amount is within the trial court’s discretion based on submitted evidence; Ridge Oil standard (abuse of discretion) governs review of fee awards

Key Cases Cited

In re Christus Spohn Hosp. Kleberg, 222 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. 2007) (procedural rules are construed using the same principles as statutes)
City of Rockwell v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (statutory construction follows plain and common meaning)
El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) (lodestar supporting evidence requirements for attorney-fee awards)
Ridge Oil Co. v. Guinn Irvin, Inc., 148 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of fee awards)