in the Matter of the Marriage of Blake Andrew Pratz and Julie Pratz, 12-20-00187-CV

Background

Attorney Sara Razavi Zand, representing Julie Pratz in a divorce, sought testimony from Brittany Norwood, Blake Pratz's girlfriend, who was not a party to the Pratz divorce.
Zand issued subpoenas to Norwood via Norwood's counsel in a different divorce: first to Kelly Norsworthy (Oct 2019) and then to Adam W. Dietrich (Jan 2020); both attorneys advised service on them was improper because Norwood was a nonparty in the Pratz case.
After the October subpoena, Zand asked Norsworthy for Norwood's address and allegedly pressured her; the October hearing was passed. Zand later filed a descriptor information form seeking a capias and issued a third subpoena that led to Norwood's personal service at Blake's address.
Dietrich (movant) filed motions for protection, to vacate any capias, and for sanctions under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13; Norsworthy drafted and argued the sanctions motion at the hearing.
The trial court found the October subpoena groundless and issued in bad faith, the January subpoena groundless and issued for harassment, and awarded $4,800 in sanctions.
On appeal Zand raised four issues: standing of Dietrich to seek sanctions, mootness of the subpoenas, legal sufficiency of evidence supporting sanctions, and sufficiency of proof of attorney's fees underlying the monetary award.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to seek Rule 13 sanctions	Dietrich lacked standing because he was not a party, was not served, and was not personally affected	Rule 13 does not limit who may file a sanctions motion; Dietrich was affected by the subpoenas	Court: Dietrich had standing under Rule 13; overruled Zand's standing challenge
Mootness of subpoenas as basis for sanctions	Because subpoenas were no longer active, sanctions are moot	Rule 13 sanctions serve deterrent/compensatory purposes and survive cessation of the underlying process	Court: Not moot; Rule 13 violation can be punished despite subpoenas being quashed/withdrawn
Legal sufficiency of evidence that subpoenas were groundless/bad faith/harassment	Evidence insufficient: actions were poor judgment, not bad faith; movant didn't personally present evidence	Evidence showed counsel was told service was improper, Zand pressured counsel for Norwood's address, and reissued subpoenas after notice	Court: Evidence sufficient to find subpoenas groundless; October subpoena issued in bad faith; January subpoena issued for harassment; overruled sufficiency challenge
Sufficiency of proof for monetary sanctions/attorney's fees	Dietrich could not recover fees personally (no fees incurred by him); only hearsay/billing directed to Norwood; insufficient proof of reasonable fees	Amount of fees used as measure of appropriate sanction; Norsworthy prosecuted motion on Dietrich's behalf	Court: Monetary award vacated as evidence insufficient to support $4,800 in attorney's fees; remanded for redetermination

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (standing is a prerequisite to suit)
Scott & White Mem’l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. 1996) (purposes of Rule 13 sanctions: deterrence and compensation)
TransAmerican Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions must relate to offending conduct; identify responsible party)
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (sanctioning standards and review for excessiveness)
PR Invs. & Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. State, 251 S.W.3d 472 (Tex. 2008) (burden to prove attorney's fees reasonableness for fee-shifting sanctions)
Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. 2019) (standards for awarding attorney's fees sanctions)
Jackson v. State Office of Admin. Hearings, 351 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2011) (pro se attorneys cannot recover attorney's fees they did not incur)
Nath v. Texas Children's Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions review)