Timothy D. Raub and Raub Law Firm, P.C. v. Gate Guard Services, L.P., Sidney L. Smith, and Association Casualty Insurance Company
13-15-00097-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 27, 2015Background
- Raub intervened in Craft’s lawsuit against Gate Guard to protect his contingent-fee interest and reimbursement rights.
- Gate Guard and Craft settled Craft’s claims with Raub apparently excluded from notice, despite Raub’s prior acknowledgment of Raub’s interest.
- Raub subsequently learned of the mediation, settlement, and final judgment that resolved Gate Guard’s liability to Craft, but Raub had no notice of those proceedings.
- Raub alleged Gate Guard tortiously interfered with his contractual and economic interests and sought damages, declaratory relief on the Craft contract, and related claims.
- Gate Guard filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing Raub lacked standing because Raub’s claims were derivative of Craft’s claims; the trial court agreed and dismissed.
- Raub appeals, arguing he has independent personal injuries from Gate Guard’s conduct toward him and that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear his claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Raub have standing to sue Gate Guard for Gate Guard’s own wrongdoing? | Raub suffered a particularized injury from Gate Guard’s acts. | Raub’s claims are derivative of Craft’s, not standing to sue Gate Guard. | Yes; Raub has standing to sue Gate Guard. |
| Does Berry apply to these facts, or does Ginther govern? | Berry is distinguishable; Raub’s claims are independent torts toward Raub. | Berry controls; Raub’s claims are derivative and barred. | Ginther governs; Berry does not control this case. |
| Does Gate Guard’s indemnity clause or lack of contractual privity defeat Raub’s standing? | Indemnity clause does not deprive court of jurisdiction; Raub’s standing arises from Gate Guard’s own torts. | Indemnity and lack of privity undermine Raub’s standing or right to recover. | Indemnity and privity do not defeat standing; Raub may proceed. |
| Is Gate Guard’s plea to jurisdiction properly challenged given Raub’s asserted interests? | Pleading asserts a real controversy and Raub’s personal injury from Gate Guard’s conduct. | Plea to jurisdiction would dismiss if Raub’s claims are derivative. | Trial court erred in dismissing; Raub has standing; reverse and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2005) (standing requires a real controversy and judicially resolvable claim)
- Williams v. Huff, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (standing requires particularized injury and conflict distinct from public)
- Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. 1996) (personal aggrievement standard for standing)
- Ginther, Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Ginther, 72 S.W. 166 (Tex. 1903) (secret settlements; rights cannot be defeated by payment to another)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Benton, 357 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1962) (attorney fees not independently recoverable as client’s claims)
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Valero Energy Corp., 997 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1999) (broad indemnity clauses do not bar standing; liability becomes fixed later)