James Summersett Iii v. Remi Jaiyeola, M.D.
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 8882
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Jaiyeola sued Summersett and Garza for tortious interference, unfair competition, defamation, and conspiracy; Summersett was Knapp Medical Center's CEO and Garza Knapp's VP of administrative services; Jaiyeola alleged false statements to harm her practice and Knapp profits but did not sue Knapp Medical Center; Summersett moved to dismiss under TCPA and sought leave for the motion; trial court denied leave and did not rule on the motion to dismiss; Summersett argued service issues and late filing; the trial court’s proceedings included sanctions considerations and ultimately denied leave, without a ruling on the motion to dismiss; the appellate court dismissed for lack of TCPA interlocutory-jurisdiction
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TCPA interlocutory appeal is proper | Jaiyeola argues no jurisdiction for this denial/extension issues | Summersett contends appeal of denial by operation of law or timely denial | Appellate jurisdiction lacking; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the denial by operation of law was properly invoked | Jaiyeola asserts denial by operation of law based on untimely ruling | Summersett argues no such operation-of-law denial occurred | No express ruling of denial by operation of law; not proper to treat as such |
| Whether the timing rules for the TCPA appeal were met | Jaiyeola contends timely under §27.008 | Summersett claims no timely appeal under the statute | Timeliness not satisfied; appeal dismissed under TCPA rules |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to file the motion to dismiss | Jaiyeola argues abuse of discretion due to service facts | Summersett asserts good cause supported by the records | No abuse; denial sustained; no proper TCPA appeal basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Koseoglu v. Gloria (Tex. Supreme Court), 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (strictly construes interlocutory appeals; jurisdiction is statutory and narrow)
- Primate Constr. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1994) (return of service constitutes prima facie evidence; service cures by general appearance)
- Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2001) (interlocutory appeals are narrow exceptions to final-judgment rule)
- Dosamantes v. Dosamantes, 500 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. Civ. App. 1973) (personal service presumed when papers placed in respondent’s presence; service can be waived by appearance)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. 1998) (statutory interpretation guiding intent; plain meaning controls)