14-14-00785-CV
Tex. App.May 25, 2015Background
- Haase, pro se appellant, appeals No. 14-14-00785-CV from the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) after proceedings in Fort Bend County’s 240th District Court; Hychem, Inc. is appellee.
- Haase asserts fraud-upon-the-court, supremacy/case-law issues, Hychem’s liability, Haase standing, and Texas jurisdiction over federal/non-exclusive claims.
- Haase alleges Hychem’s mislabeling/misrepresentation of polyDADMAC, with certificates of analysis attributed to Hychem and Moon Chemical Company acting as Haase’s agent.
- Haase contends Moon operated as an agent for Haase and CVI, giving Haase standing in derivative-type claims as a significant CVI shareholder.
- Haase seeks reversal and remand for a trial on the merits, arguing that summary-judgment-style conclusions are improper where genuine material facts exist; he also asserts there is no statute of limitations for Fraud-Upon-the-Court.
- Haase cites significant damages including sanctions, lost customers, and potential patent-related economic harm, and frames these as consequences of Hychem’s allegedly out-of-spec polyDADMAC shipments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud-upon-the-court exists | Haase claims Hychem’s actions and related actors committed fraud in court proceedings. | Hychem argues no fraud occurred that would implicate the court derivately. | To be determined (issue framed for appeal; no final ruling stated). |
| Law of the Case and supremacy | Haase asserts federal law on Law of the Case and supremacy overrides state rulings. | Hychem contends Texas law governs and consistent with state/federal precedents. | To be determined (issue framed for appeal; no final ruling stated). |
| Hychem’s liability under TX UCC and labeling/warranties | Hychem is a seller/merchant liable for express/implied warranties given labeling and analysis certificates. | Hychem disputes liability allocation, especially given SNF’s role. | To be determined (issue framed for appeal; no final ruling stated). |
| Haase standing | Moon and CVI relationships grant Haase standing as a shareholder/agent. | Hychem contends no standing based on CVI vs. Moon interactions. | To be determined (issue framed for appeal; no final ruling stated). |
| Texas jurisdiction over federal/non-exclusive claims | Texas courts have jurisdiction absent exclusive federal preemption. | Hychem argues lack of exclusive federal jurisdiction over certain claims. | To be determined (issue framed for appeal; no final ruling stated). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1859) (Supremacy and conclusive force of federal law over state actions)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (Fraud-on-the-court concept discussed by Supreme Court)
- In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. 2003) (Standing and derivative-proceedings considerations in Texas)
- Fuhrman v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2006) (Preemption and federal-state interplay in jurisdictional questions)
- Subaru of America v. David McDavid Nissan, 84 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2002) (General-jurisdiction presumption for Texas courts; subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Gibson v. Bostick Roofing and Sheet Metal, 148 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004) (Texas appellate treatment of warranty-related issues in contracting)