David Rodriguez v. Richard R. Storm, Jr.; H-E-B, LP; Law Office of Shelton & Valadez; Mark A. Giltner; William Tate; and Stephen Martinez; and David Rodriguez v. H-E-B, Jointly and Severally; William Tate; Stephen Martinez; Meredith Reid; Debra Ann Godoy; and Mark Giltner

Summary

The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed orders dismissing David Rodriguez’s claims arising from a prior settlement and declaring him a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order. The court held that the trial court properly considered dismissal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 13.001 and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims. The court declined to review challenges to the vexatious-litigant findings because Rodriguez failed to provide the reporter’s record of the relevant hearing.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly considered and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 13.001 because the hearing notice encompassed those motions and section 13.001 was expressly asserted as a ground for dismissal.
2. The trial court was not shown to have a mandatory duty to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in ruling on the section 13.001 motion; in any event, the omission did not require reversal because the trial court's oral statements established the basis for its ruling and Rodriguez was not required to guess at that basis.
3. The court could not review Rodriguez's challenges to the vexatious-litigant order for abuse of discretion or evidentiary sufficiency without the reporter's record of the hearing and therefore presumed the evidence supported the trial court's findings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly considered and granted defendants' motions to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 13.001 when the hearing was also described as involving a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a motion.
2. Whether the trial court was required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law when dismissing Rodriguez's claims under section 13.001.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declaring Rodriguez a vexatious litigant, requiring him to post security, and imposing a pre-filing order.
4. Whether the evidence sufficiently supported the findings underlying the vexatious-litigant order when Rodriguez failed to provide the reporter's record of the hearing.

Disposition

affirmed