Soon Phat, L.P. v. Alvarado
396 S.W.3d 78
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- This is a consolidated appeal arising from a 2005 incident where a wrecker driver and helper attempted to tow Feliciano Alvarado’s pickup at Charleston Court Apartments, leading to a violent fight with Feliciano and his brother Juvenal.
- Arrow Towing, owned by Dill, towed vehicles at Charleston Court; Soon Phat, L.P. owns Charleston Court Apartments and has a relationship with Dersing, Inc.
- The Alvarados sued Dion, Thompson, Dill, Soon Phat, L.P., and others for assault, false imprisonment, negligent hiring/retention, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution; a jury verdict was entered in 2010.
- The trial court granted judgments notwithstanding the verdict on malicious-prosecution claims and entered a final judgment awarding damages; multiple parties appealed.
- The appellate court addressed whether malicious prosecution claims were foreclosed, the propriety of joint and several liability and vicarious liability, and the viability of punitive-damages awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution terminated in plaintiff’s favor | Alvarados: Juvenal’s prosecution terminated in his favor; plea did not negate facts. | Appellants: plea bargain meant no favorable termination. | Foreclosure of malicious-prosecution claim; termination not in favor; judgment not in favor affirmed. |
| Soon Phat, L.P. liable on final judgment for assaults/false imprisonment | Alvarados: joint/several liability supported by Questions 26, 34, and 13. | Charleston Court Appellants: insufficient bases to impose JV liability on Soon Phat, L.P.; no valid agency basis. | Sustain issues that reject joint/several liability against Soon Phat, L.P. for assaults/false imprisonment; take-nothing on these claims. |
| Dill’s joint and several liability for assault/false imprisonment | Alvarados: Dill liable for acts of Dion/Thompson; joint enterprise may extend liability. | Dill: limited to direct liability or proper theories under the charge. | Question 33 supports Dill’s joint/several liability for assault; sustain Dill’s liability for assault; other routes not affirmatively supported. |
| Punitive damages against Dion/Thompson upheld based on malice | Alvarados: punitive damages proper given malice; net-worth proof not required for recovery. | Dion/Thompson: insufficient evidence of malice, lack of proper apportionment, and no net-worth basis. | Exemplary damages upheld for malice; jury findings show clear-and-convincing malice; net worth not required for award here. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex.2005) (legal-sufficiency standard; evidence review focused on reasonableness)
- Davis v. Prosperity Bank, 383 S.W.3d 795 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (malicious-prosecution elements; termination and damages considerations)
- Izen v. Catalina, 256 F.3d 324 (5th Cir.2001) (termination in favor may occur where charges dismissed or cannot be revived)
- Sullivan v. O’Brien, 85 S.W.2d 1106 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1935) (termination element in malicious-prosecution claims; dismissal as favorable termination)
- Martinez v. English, 267 S.W.3d 521 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008) (plea/settlement considerations in malicious-prosecution context)
- Buck v. Blum, 130 S.W.3d 285 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (agency/ownership considerations in liability theories)
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 660, (1977) (—) (terminations and terminus of malicious-prosecution claims; customary guide)