4 Although the Schwartzes do not number their issues in this manner, we have added the bracketed numbers in the quoted information so that we may more easily consider and discuss these issues. –3– ISSUES AND ANALYSIS On appeal, the Schwartzes describe the issues presented as follows: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when granted Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment when genuine issues of fact or law existed refused to recuse herself refused to rule on Appellants’ Motion for New Trial and refused to follow the procedures governing motions for recusal outlined in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure. The Schwartzes’ motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law on October 11, 2021. The trial court did not hear or rule on the motion to recuse and did not refer the motion to another judge for consideration. The motion to recuse was filed by both appellants but was only verified by appellant Lulu Schwartz. In their motion for new trial, the Schwartzes argued, for the first time, the trial judge should recuse herself “because her husband served as an attorney for one of the in the underlying family law matter which is the basis for Petition.” The Schwartzes also made this argument in the Septemhearing but did not file a written motion to recuse until October 21, 2021, twentythree days after the hearing. Appellees filed a response, and the trial court heard the motion on September 28, 2021. Thirty days later, the Schwartzes moved for a new trial. The order did not state any particular reason why the trial court granted the motion. The trial court denied the Schwartzes’ motion for continuance, ruled on their evidentiary objections, and granted summary judgment for appellees on the Schwartzes’ claims in an order signed July 27, 2021. The Schwartzes responded to appellees’ summary judgment motion, objected to certain evidence, and moved for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing. 3 –2– Code § 107.009(a), (2) the Schwartzes’ claims are barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, and (3) the Schwartzes lack standing because appellees owed them no duty as a matter of law. The Schwartzes’ latest pleading describes these causes of action as fraud in the inducement, fraudulent representation, common law fraud, statutory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of fiduciary property, abuse of process, money had and received, civil conspiracy, deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. They asserted three bases for summary judgment, arguing that (1) the Schwartzes’ claims are barred by qualified immunity under Texas Family 2 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, THE TEMPEST, act 2, sc. They filed an original, first amended, and second amended original petition against appellees and assert thirteen causes of action against appellees.3 In June 2021, about two months after the Schwartzes filed their latest pleading, appellees moved for traditional summary judgment on all of the Schwartzes’ claims. ![]() In this case, the Schwartzes essentially claim Johnson and her Firm engaged in “a pattern of ongoing fraud, deceit, negligence, overbilling, misrepresentation” to their own benefit and to the detriment of the Schwartzes and their children. BACKGROUND “isery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows.”2 The Schwartzes-once spouses and later adversaries in an underlying family law proceeding that they claim originated in May 2013-sued Johnson and her Firm in August 2020, asserting multiple tort, quasi-contract, and statutory claims against them based on Johnson’s prior appointment as the amicus attorney for the Schwartzes’ children in the underlying proceeding. We affirm the judgment in this memorandum opinion. DC-20-11113 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Reichek Opinion by Justice Molberg Lulu and Robert Schwartz appeal the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to appellees Jody Lynn Johnson and her law firm on the multiple tort, quasi-contract, and statutory claims filed against them.1 The Schwartzes argue the trial judge abused her discretion by granting summary judgment in appellees’ favor, by refusing to rule on their motion for new trial, and by refusing to recuse herself 1 To the extent we need to distinguish between Johnson and her law firm, we refer to Johnson by name and to her law firm as “Firm.” Otherwise, we refer to them collectively as “appellees.” and follow the procedures in civil procedure rule 18a. C., Appellees On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JODY LYNN JOHNSON AND JODY LYNN JOHNSON P. 05-21-00959-CV LULU SCHWARTZ AND ROBERT SCHWARTZ, Appellants V. Affirm and Opinion Filed AugIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |