Jorge Guevara, M.D. v. Mark Lackner and Robert E. Lackner
447 S.W.3d 566
Tex. App.2014Background
- L&L Importers, L.L.C. was managed by Robert E. Lackner and Mark Lackner; Guevara became a member in January 2008.
- Guevara loaned L&L approximately $154,000 around the time he joined.
- Two months later Efren Rios joined L&L as a member; Guevara later provided additional funds.
- Guevara alleged he did not receive anticipated payments for merchandise or loan repayment.
- Lackners filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment; Guevara responded with voluminous exhibits and arguments.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Lackners; Guevara appealed seeking reversal on fraud, fiduciary-duty, and conspiracy claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud—affirmative misrepresentation and omissions | Guevara shows representations about experience and S&L’s success. | Lackners show no evidence of false representations. | Affirmative-misrepresentation claims lack probative evidence; omission claims were not properly challenged in motion. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty | Lackners owed a fiduciary duty; control of L&L created duties; defense breached duties. | No fiduciary relationship or breach shown; no injury. | Evidence supports an informal fiduciary duty and breach; summary judgment reversed on this claim. |
| Conspiracy claims | Lackners and Rios conspired to defraud Guevara or breach duties. | Pleading did not support conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties; fraud-based conspiracy lacking. | Conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties not pleaded; conspiracy based on omission may proceed; remand on omitted theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for no-evidence review; evidence must be more than a scintilla)
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (de novo review; no-evidence requires more than a scintilla)
- McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1993) (grounds and issues must be expressly presented in motion/response)
- Arrendondo v. Rodriguez, 198 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006) (appellate review limited to properly cited evidence)