Manfred Fink v. Joann D. Anderson, Betty Bailey, Doug Bird, Ann Brown, Brad Bullock, M.D., Jim Byron, Mike Clann, Claire Crowder, Evan Quiros, Paul Fulmer, M.D., Eric Geibel, Mark Griffin, Steve Gerguis, Stacey Harvey, Bill Henderson, Allen Holt, Linda Hudson
01-14-00990-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Dr. Manfred Fink is a UT‑Austin professor whose invention was owned by the UT Board of Regents and licensed to IsoSpec under UT System intellectual‑property rules.
- UT’s Office of Technology Commercialization (OTC) and Board of Regents rules govern commercialization and permit faculty to provide input to licensees while UT retains final authority.
- Plaintiffs (Appellees) sued Fink individually alleging intentional misrepresentations related to the technology and IsoSpec.
- Fink moved to dismiss under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(f) (government‑employee immunity for acts within scope of employment); the trial court denied the motion.
- Amicus curiae UT‑Austin filed this brief supporting Fink, arguing his alleged acts arose within the general scope of his employment and thus dismissal under § 101.106(f) is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Amicus Position) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fink’s alleged acts occurred within the general scope of his employment for § 101.106(f) purposes | Acts were personal or for IsoSpec, not UT; thus outside UT employment scope | Fink’s work assisting commercialization of UT‑owned IP is part of his employment; Board rules governed his relationship with IsoSpec | Acts arose within the general scope of employment and § 101.106(f) requires dismissal |
| Whether intentional tort allegations (fraud) defeat immunity | Intentional misconduct is outside immunity and shows personal motives | Intentionality alone does not remove an act from the scope of employment if motivated to any appreciable extent by employer’s business | Intentional torts can still be within scope; immunity applies if conduct served employer’s business to any appreciable extent |
| Whether factual disputes about motive or dual‑employer activity prevent dismissal | Existence of factual disputes about whether Fink acted as IsoSpec employee precludes jurisdictional dismissal | Even if acting partly for IsoSpec, simultaneous service for UT does not defeat scope‑of‑employment finding | Fact disputes about motive or dual purposes are immaterial to § 101.106(f) if UT’s interests actuated the conduct to an appreciable extent |
| Whether IsoSpec’s pleadings (or other evidence) create a triable issue that Fink acted as IsoSpec agent/officer | IsoSpec’s intervention and documents show Fink acted in IsoSpec capacity, creating a fact issue | IsoSpec’s statements are consistent with inventor status under UT’s licensing regime; no evidence of paid officer/employee status or required disclosures | IsoSpec’s pleadings do not negate UT control/ownership or preclude a finding that the conduct arose from Fink’s UT employment |
Key Cases Cited
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (§ 101.106(f) forecloses suit against individual employee acting within scope of employment)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (employer not liable for employee’s complete departure from employment duties)
- Minyard Food Stores, Inc. v. Goodman, 80 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2002) (acts referable to a duty owing the employer can be within scope without express authorization)
- Bull v. Bohnsack (Varco, L.P.), 668 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2012) (alleged misrepresentations may arise within scope of employment)
- Best Steel Bldgs., Inc. v. Hardin, 553 S.W.2d 122 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1977) (motive to benefit self/third party does not necessarily remove act from scope of employment)
- Gulfcraft, Inc. v. Henderson, 300 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1957) (simultaneous service of multiple employers does not alter scope analysis for one employer)
- Anderson v. Bessman, 365 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (acts within the scope if purpose of serving employer’s business motivates employee)