Quoc C. Trinh, Individually and D/B/A Smart Toys v. Adolph Campero, Individually and Campero & Becerra, P.C.
372 S.W.3d 741
Tex. App.2012Background
- Campero is an attorney who represented Trinh in a commercial transaction suit; judgment was entered against Trinh.
- On September 29, 2008, Trinh filed a legal malpractice suit alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.
- The trial court set December 1, 2009 as the deadline to designate testifying experts; Trinh designated an expert (Higginbotham) after the deadline.
- Campero moved for a no-evidence summary judgment; Campero objected to the untimely expert designation and to Higginbotham’s affidavit.
- On February 8, 2010, the trial court granted the no-evidence summary judgment without specifying the grounds.
- On appeal, Trinh challenges the summary judgment and the handling of the expert objections; the court addresses preservation and causation issues and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of objections to expert evidence | Trinh contends Campero’s objections were not ruled on, so error was preserved. | Campero argues the objections should have been sustained or there was an implicit ruling under law. | Objections not preserved due to lack of trial court ruling; no implicit ruling shown. |
| Causation in the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims | Trinh provided expert evidence linking Campero’s conduct to harm. | Campero contends no-evidence shows no causation. | Trinh failed to prove causation; no genuine issue of material fact on causation. |
| Adequacy of expert-designation timing and evidentiary impact | Untimely designation should not bar the expert’s testimony under the record. | Untimely designation merits exclusion under scheduling orders and Rule 193.6/related authorities. | Record shows no explicit ruling on the objection; expert evidence reviewed but not deemed admissible as dispositive by itself. |
| Effectiveness of no-evidence summary judgment in these claims | There is more than a scintilla of evidence supporting negligence and fiduciary breach. | No-evidence summary judgment is proper where essential elements lack evidentiary support. | The nonmovant failed to raise a genuine issue on causation and damages; no-evidence SJ affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. 2006) (elements of legal malpractice require proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages)
- Grider v. Mike O’ Brien, P.C., 260 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (suit-within-a-suit causation requirement in legal malpractice)
- Alexander v. Turtur & Assocs., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2004) (causation in legal malpractice often requires expert testimony)
- Timpte Industries, Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (no-evidence summary judgment standard clarified)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for evaluating evidence on summary judgment)
- Yancy v. United Surgical Partners Int’l, Inc., 236 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2007) (summary judgment review favors nonmovant, with inferences for appellate review)
- Mitchell v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 109 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (need for explicit rulings on objections to preserve error)
- Strayhorn v. Trusty, 87 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (preservation requirements for objections to evidence)