Thuy Sunosky v. Allen A. Rad Law Firm
02-15-00330-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2015Background
- Pro se appellant Thuy Sunosky sued Allen A. Rad Law Firm in a Tarrant County statutory county court (County Court at Law) alleging negligent/poor handling of a 2001 automobile-injury matter and seeking monetary damages for lost wages, medical care, and other harms.
- Sunosky initially pleaded monetary relief aggregating $200,000 ("and no more") to fit the county-court-at-law jurisdictional discovery level, but at trial she introduced evidence suggesting damages in excess of $200,000.
- The case was called for trial (January 10, 2013); Rad did not appear; Sunosky testified and presented witnesses; the trial court informed Sunosky the court is of limited jurisdiction (can award no more than $200,000) and warned that seeking more would defeat its jurisdiction.
- The trial court signed an order dismissing the claims for want of jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice.
- On appeal to the Second Court of Appeals Sunosky raised many factual complaints about Rad’s representation (failure to communicate, missed filings, keeping settlement funds), but she did not meaningfully challenge on appeal the trial court’s sole ground for dismissal—lack of jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy.
- The court of appeals construed Sunosky’s filings, found she failed to challenge the jurisdictional ground, and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county court had subject-matter jurisdiction | Sunosky pleaded $200,000 (within county‑court limit) and therefore court could hear case | Rad asserted limitations and that county court lacked jurisdiction for claims seeking over the statutory limit | Trial court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction after evidence indicated Sunosky sought recovery > $200,000; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether evidence at trial altered the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy | Sunosky maintained she sought only monetary relief within the court's limit and contested Rad's conduct | Rad relied on trial evidence and affirmative defenses (limitations) showing greater damages and improper party status | Court treated the trial evidence as showing damages in excess of county‑court maximum, depriving court of jurisdiction |
| Whether appellate review should address additional factual complaints (e.g., attorney misfeasance, withheld funds) | Sunosky argued Rad failed to update/represent her and withheld insurance money | Rad maintained dismissal on jurisdictional grounds; those grounds were central to disposition | Because Sunosky did not challenge on appeal the controlling ground for dismissal, the appellate court would not consider other grounds and affirmed |
| Whether pro se status required courts to develop appellant's arguments | Sunosky presented numerous factual assertions and pro se filings | Rad relied on record and jurisdictional defense | Court noted difficulty faced by pro se litigants but declined to advance arguments for appellant; appellant must brief and press the jurisdictional issue on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Tejas Toyota, Inc. v. Griffin, 587 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1979) (construction of "amount in controversy" for jurisdictional limits)
- Britton v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (appellate court may affirm where appellant fails to challenge on appeal the controlling grounds for the trial-court decision)