Shamim Chowdhury and Liza Chowdhury v. Matt Sanders and Dry Force LLC, 05-20-00052-CV

On Oct. 2, 2018 Shamim contracted with Dry Force LLC to remediate water damage; Dry Force began work but Shamim soon terminated service and signed a Certificate of Completion and Satisfaction.
Dry Force later invoiced $2,743.73 balance; appellees filed a mechanic’s lien after appellants did not pay.
Appellants sued Dry Force and its manager alleging an invalid/fraudulent lien and later added DTPA claims; appellees answered and counterclaimed for breach of contract, sworn account, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit.
Appellants failed to respond to appellees’ discovery; the trial court granted a motion to compel and ordered responses and $1,000 in fees; appellants still did not comply.
Appellees moved for sanctions; the court struck appellants’ pleadings, dismissed their claims, rendered judgment on Dry Force’s breach-of-contract counterclaim as a sanction, and awarded $4,500 in attorney’s fees.
Appellants appealed; the court affirmed, finding sanctions justified, service proper, lesser sanctions were imposed first, and appellants failed to preserve and adequately brief many arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether striking pleadings/dismissing claims ("death penalty") was an abuse of discretion	Chowdhury: sanctions excessive; lacked service/notice	Dry Force: appellants repeatedly disobeyed discovery and court orders; lesser sanctions were tried first	No abuse; sanctions justified after continued noncompliance and proper service
Whether trial court was required to file findings of fact supporting sanctions	Chowdhury: court erred by not issuing findings	Dry Force: findings not required and none requested	Findings not required; appellants did not request them
Whether trial court could render judgment on breach counterclaim as a sanction and whether counterclaim was barred	Chowdhury: counterclaim barred by §16.069 and statute of frauds; lacked notice	Dry Force: counterclaim timely and not barred; court may presume defenses lack merit when party refuses to produce evidence	Counterclaim not barred by §16.069 or statute of frauds; court permissibly entered judgment as sanction
Whether appellants preserved and adequately briefed appellate issues	Chowdhury: raised errors on appeal	Dry Force: many complaints were not raised below and briefs lack authority/argument	Appellants failed to preserve error and inadequately brief several issues; thus waived

TransAmerican Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sets standards for death-penalty discovery sanctions and presumption that unproduced evidence undermines defenses)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (trial court should consider lesser sanctions before imposing extreme sanctions)
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (standard of review for sanctions is abuse of discretion)
Am. Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. 2006) (appellate review considers the entire record when assessing sanctions)
Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. 1992) (findings of fact not required when not requested)
Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2006) (discusses limitation periods applicable to breach-of-contract claims)