Joseph E. McClain III v. Dell, Inc., Seaton Corp. D/B/A Staff Management, 07-15-00141-CV

Joseph E. McClain III, pro se and in forma pauperis, filed four lawsuits against Dell arising from the same facts: he was hired by a contractor (Genesis) to train as a sales rep for Dell, missed training, was fired, and never employed by Dell.
First suit (2011) asserted breach of implied contract, wrongful termination, defamation and negligence; ended in summary judgment for Dell.
Second suit (2013) for declaratory judgment was dismissed with prejudice and related mandamus attempt failed; third small‑claims suit was dismissed.
Fourth suit (underlying case, filed Dec. 2014) asserted DTPA and Theft Liability Act claims among others; Dell moved to dismiss under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a, sought sanctions, and asked the court to declare McClain a vexatious litigant.
Trial court granted Dell’s motions: dismissed the fourth suit, declared McClain a vexatious litigant, and awarded Dell $4,000 in attorney’s fees. McClain appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly declared McClain a vexatious litigant	McClain disputed accuracy of records and argued constitutional violations; contested declaration	Dell argued repeated relitigation of same claims after final adverse judgments justified declaration	Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; repeated suits met statutory standard
Whether dismissal under Rule 91a was improper	McClain argued Dell failed to follow Rule 91a procedures and used it fraudulently; certain supporting filings missing from record	Dell argued the claim was baseless under Rule 91a	Court overruled — de novo review; appellant failed to include Rule 91a motion and related documents in record, so court could not evaluate procedural complaint
Whether Texas Citizens Participation Act (Ch. 27) protections were violated	McClain claimed his rights under Ch. 27 were violated	Dell did not invoke Ch. 27; dismissal was based on other grounds	Court held Ch. 27 inapplicable here and overruled McClain’s claim
Whether fourth suit was barred by res judicata	McClain continued to pursue merits; argued various procedural and constitutional defects	Dell asserted res judicata because prior final judgments resolved same transaction/claims	Court held res judicata barred the fourth suit; affirmed dismissal

Leonard v. Abbott, 171 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App. 2005) (standard of review for vexatious‑litigant determinations)
Wooley v. Schaffer, 447 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App. 2014) (Rule 91a review is de novo)
In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (purpose and scope of the Texas Citizens Participation Act)
Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Daccach, 217 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2007) (doctrine and purposes of res judicata)
Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1992) (final judgment extinguishes right to bring suit on the same transaction)