Randolph A. Lopez, D/B/A Brown Hand Center and D/B/A Brown Medical Center v. Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P., D/B/A Austin American-Statesman
03-14-00331-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 17, 2015Background
- Lopez appeals a default judgment against him in a dispute with Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. over advertising services.
- Lopez argues Craddock should govern post-judgment relief when a party discovers a mistake after judgment, not before or at the hearing.
- The bankruptcy suggestion that led to the motion to respond was discovered by Lopez after judgment, not before.
- Lopez contends his mistake was due to accident or miscommunication, not conscious indifference, and seeks a new trial under Craddock.
- The court below treated the issue under traditional standards; Lopez also offers to reimburse Cox’s expenses if remand leads to trial.
- Appellant seeks reversal and remand so the matter may proceed to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Craddock applies when the nonmovant discovers the mistake after judgment | Lopez: Craddock is proper; post-judgment discovery warrants Craddock review. | Cox: Carpenter narrows Craddock usage or may limit its reach; post-judgment discovery not within Craddock. | Craddock standard applies (post-judgment discovery). |
| Whether a meritorious defense may exist if there is a genuine fact issue | Lopez: meritorious defense exists if genuine fact issues could change outcome. | Cox: review limited to pleadings and lack of meritorious defense. | Meritorious defense can be shown where a genuine issue of material fact may exist. |
| Whether Lopez's mistake was genuine or due to conscious indifference | Lopez: mistake/accident; not conscious indifference; relied on clerk discussions. | Cox: mistake appears self-serving or due to negligence; may indicate indifference. | Mistake was genuine and not conscious indifference. |
| Whether Lopez’s challenge to attorney’s fees is subsumed within liability | Lopez: damages and attorney’s fees should be reconsidered; can challenge fees separately in equity. | Cox: fees part of liability; separate challenge not necessary. | Charges/fees considered within the broader liability challenge; proper to address in remand. |
| Whether Lopez should reimburse Cox's expenses as a condition for granting a new trial | Lopez: willing to reimburse Cox’s expenses as equitable relief. | Cox: reimbursement is not a sine qua non for granting a new trial. | Reimbursement offered; not required as sole condition to grant new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 2002) (Craddock standard limited by circumstances; remedy after discovery varies)
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388 (Tex. 1939) (foundational Craddock standard for relief from default judgments)
- Mosser v. Plano Three Venture, 893 S.W.2d 8 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994) (applies Craddock-like analysis in default-summary contexts)
- Washington v. McMillan, 898 S.W.2d 392 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995) (summary judgment standard applied in default context)
- Medina v. W. Waste Indus., 959 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (equitable considerations in default contexts; limits of relief)
- Angelo v. Champion Rest. Equip. Co., 713 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. 1986) (equitable adjustment for new trials; willingness to reimburse expenses)
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (factors for attorney’s fees in equity disputes)