PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera Ex Rel. Rivera
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8769
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Rivera sued PNS in 1998 for premises liability and related claims in Texas; PNS removed to federal court and summary judgment granted in 2000 (without prejudice) then clarified as with prejudice in 2009.
- Rivera refiled in state court in 2000; service on PNS via its registered agent Prentice Hall; notices and acknowledgments were transmitted through Prentice Hall’s system.
- A 2000 default judgment against PNS was entered for Rivera; PNS allegedly did not receive notice of the default or ensuing judgment.
- PNS filed a bill of review in 2009 seeking to overturn the default judgment; Rivera answered and the trial court granted Rivera’s summary judgment motions.
- The trial court ultimately denied PNS’s bill-of-review and extrinsic-fraud defenses, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment.
- The appellate court analyzed whether the federal judgment precluded the state default under res judicata/collateral estoppel, and whether the bill of review was timely or barred by four-year limitations; extrinsic fraud evidence was found insufficient; discovery refusals were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of federal summary judgment on state default | PNS argues federal judgment voids state default via res judicata/collateral estoppel | Rivera contends no jurisdictional voiding effect arises from federal judgment | Res judicata/collateral estoppel do not render state default void; not a jurisdictional defect; default is voidable at most |
| Service and limitations in bill of review | PNS contends lack/improper service and four-year limit violate due process | Rivera argues timely bill but within four-year limit with no extrinsic fraud | Bill of review untimely under four-year limit; no extrinsic fraud shown; no due-process violation shown in applying limits |
| Extrinsic fraud and discovery rulings | PNS claims extrinsic fraud by Rivera or attorney warrants reversal; seeks compelled disclosures | Rivera argues no extrinsic fraud proven; privilege and discovery rulings proper | No actionable extrinsic fraud proven; trial court not required to compel disclosures; issues on discovery denied accordingly |
| Supplemental evidence on extrinsic fraud (bankruptcy, deposition) | PNS seeks to supplement with bankruptcy and deposition evidence to prove extrinsic fraud | Rivera opposes; evidence would not establish extrinsic fraud | Court did not abuse discretion; supplementation denied; no reversal on this basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarrell v. Texas Highway Dept., 418 S.W.2d 486 (Tex. 1967) (res judicata as plea in bar, not lack of jurisdiction)
- Int'l Bank of Commerce v. City of Laredo, 608 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1980) (res judicata/collateral estoppel do not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Exhibitors Poster Exch. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp., 421 F.2d 1313 (5th Cir. 1970) (federal Rule 56 judgment can be final; not necessarily deprive state court of jurisdiction)
- Layton v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp., 141 S.W.3d 760 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2004) (extrinsic fraud requires purpose and procurement impacts judgment; safeguards against fraud in default)
- A.G.G. v. Zarate, 267 S.W.3d 165 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2010) (collateral attack limitations; extrinsic fraud not shown; four-year limit governs)
- Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362 (Tex. 1985) (void judgments limited; other errors render judgment voidable)