Summary
The Eleventh Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed orders dismissing Mark and Charlotte Carroll’s claims against Emerald Residential Property Management under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a and declaring the Carrolls vexatious litigants. The court held that the pleadings established Emerald was not the landlord, failed to support civil conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, and showed no reasonable probability of success. The court also upheld denial of the Carrolls’ motion to recuse the trial judge.
Holdings
- The regional presiding judge did not abuse his discretion by summarily denying the Carrolls' motion to recuse because the motion was unverified, failed to assert a proper Rule 18b ground, and relied only on unfavorable judicial rulings in unrelated cases.
- The trial court properly dismissed the Carrolls' claims under Rule 91a because their pleadings and attachments affirmatively negated entitlement to relief on the landlord-related claims, failed to plead a legally cognizable civil-conspiracy claim, and failed to plead a legally cognizable IIED claim.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declaring the Carrolls vexatious litigants because there was no reasonable probability they would prevail and the statutory litigation-history requirements were met; Charlotte independently satisfied the requirement based on at least five adverse pro se litigations within the preceding seven years.
Questions Presented
- Whether the regional presiding judge abused his discretion by summarily denying the Carrolls' motion to recuse the trial court judge.
- Whether the trial court properly dismissed the Carrolls' wrongful-eviction, retaliation, security-deposit, civil-conspiracy, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.
- Whether the trial court properly declared the Carrolls vexatious litigants under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 11.054.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (26)
- Drake v. Walker, 529 S.W.3d 516, 528 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, no pet.)(followed)
- Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651, 654 (Tex. 2020)(followed)
- City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)(followed)
- Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., 700 S.W.3d 837, 844 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2023, no pet.)(followed)
- Reaves v. City of Corpus Christi, 518 S.W.3d 594, 608 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2017, no pet.)(followed)
- St. Anthony’s Minor Emergency Ctr., L.L.C. v. Ross Nicholson 2000 Separate Prop. Tr., 567 S.W.3d 792, 797 n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied)(followed)
- McKenzie v. Carte, 385 S.W.2d 520, 528 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.)(followed)
- Westwood Motorcars, LLC v. Virtuolotry, LLC, 689 S.W.3d 879, 885 (Tex. 2024)(followed)
- Dailey v. Thorpe, 445 S.W.3d 785, 789 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.)(followed)
- Gary E. Patterson & Assocs., P.C. v. Holub, 264 S.W.3d 180, 204 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 26.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…