Juanita Garofalo v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
05-13-01595-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 7, 2015Background
- Garofalo (pro se) sued Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) in justice court for property damage to her pickup after a collision with a DART bus.
- The justice court rendered a take-nothing judgment; Garofalo appealed to the county court at law and received a de novo bench trial.
- After the de novo trial, the county court again rendered a take-nothing judgment for DART.
- On appeal, Garofalo raised three points: (1) the county court refused to consider certain evidence, (2) the county court denied her motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (a recorded witness statement), and (3) the justice court erred in denying her motion for reinstatement after a missed appearance.
- The appellate court addressed mootness of the reinstatement claim because Garofalo received a de novo trial in county court and therefore could not obtain relief based on the justice-court proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county court improperly refused to consider evidence | Garofalo: court excluded or discounted evidence (including federal regs on drug testing) | DART: trial court properly considered admissible evidence; plaintiff failed to show error | Overruled — point inadequately briefed; no cogent argument or authority shown |
| Whether county court abused discretion in denying new-trial motion for newly discovered evidence | Garofalo: entitled to new trial to admit recorded statement of a nonappearing witness | DART: plaintiff did not meet requirements for newly discovered evidence (diligence, timing, materiality) | Denial affirmed — Garofalo did not show she satisfied elements for new trial; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether justice court erred by denying motion for reinstatement after Garofalo failed to appear | Garofalo: denial of reinstatement led to default/judgment against her | DART: relief unnecessary because plaintiff got de novo county-court trial | Moot — appellate court treated issue as moot because county-court de novo trial cured any justice-court error |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevenson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Austin, 385 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012) (de novo county-court trial moots due-process complaints about justice-court proceedings)
- Roberts v. Roper, 373 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (standard and elements for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (requirements for adequate briefing under appellate rules)