Total E&P USA, Inc. v. Mo-Vac Services Company, Inc., 13-15-00348-CV

This is Total E&P USA, Inc.'s reply brief challenging a second-trial award of attorneys’ fees to Mo-Vac Services after an earlier multi-claim trial and an appeal that left only Mo‑Vac’s breach of confidentiality claim against Total intact.
On remand the sole issue was reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees for the surviving confidentiality claim; Mo‑Vac sought re‑entry of the earlier, larger fee award that had been reversed as to other claims/defendants.
At the second trial Mo‑Vac called Total’s lead counsel (Edmundo Ramirez) and questioned him about an expert fee opinion he had given in an unrelated case (the Playboy case); Total objected that Ramirez was not an expert in this retrial.
Mo‑Vac’s fee proof relied primarily on a post‑hoc “compilation” of hours by Mo‑Vac’s prior trial counsel (Adrian Martinez), testimony attributing ~90% of the work to the confidentiality claim, and expert testimony from Mo‑Vac’s counsel; Total’s expert criticized the lack of contemporaneous, itemized records.
The jury awarded $370,375 in fees (plus conditional appellate and Supreme Court fees); the trial court entered final judgment and denied Total’s new‑trial motion. Total argues the admission of the unrelated‑case impeachment was prejudicial and that the fee award was unsupported and grossly excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mo‑Vac)	Defendant's Argument (Total)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting Mo‑Vac to impeach Total’s counsel with his expert opinion from an unrelated case	Mo‑Vac contends impeachment was proper and relevant to credibility; similar testimony about the Playboy case was admitted via experts without objection	Total argues Ramirez was not offering expert testimony in this retrial, so questioning about his unrelated expert opinion was irrelevant, inadmissible, and highly prejudicial under Rule 403	Trial court allowed some of the questioning; jury heard the impeachment evidence (objections partly overruled)
Whether the attorneys’‑fee award was supported by sufficient evidence and was reasonable (including proportionality to the $100,000 damages)	Mo‑Vac contends the compilation and Martinez’s opinion (plus expert testimony) were adequate to support the fee award; prior higher fee award also bears on reasonableness	Total argues Mo‑Vac lacked contemporaneous, segregated time records, relied on flawed after‑the‑fact summaries, and that the $370,375 fee is grossly disproportionate to the $100,000 recovery	Jury awarded fees and trial court entered judgment for $370,375 (and additional appellate/Supreme Court contingency amounts); Total seeks reversal or new trial on appeal

El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) (lodestar requires contemporaneous or reliable time records; generalized estimates may be insufficient)
City of Laredo v. Montano, 414 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. 2013) (attorney testimony about unbilled, contemporaneous work may support fees; non‑contemporaneous generalized testimony may not)
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (sets out multi‑factor reasonableness test for attorneys’ fees)
Smith v. Patrick W.Y. Tam Trust, 296 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. 2009) (consider amount involved and results obtained when evaluating fee reasonableness)
Editorial Caballero, S.A. de C.V. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 359 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. 2012) (context for discussion of fees in the unrelated Playboy matter referenced at trial)
Wythe II Corp. v. Stone, 342 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (review of disproportional fee awards and proper application of fee factors)
Owens‑Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 916 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1996) (permitting calling opponent’s expert for impeachment where prior testimony exists)
Tony Gullo Motors, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (discussion of fee‑award considerations and related evidentiary principles)