Jules S. Brenner Clark Hill PLC Also Doing Business as Clark Hill Strasburger And Strasburger & Price, LLP v. Centurion Logistics LLC Directly and Derivatively on Behalf of Centurion Pecos Terminal LLC ( 2020 )

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, Rendered in part, and Remanded, and
Opinion Filed December 14, 2020
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00308-CV
JULES S. BRENNER; CLARK HILL PLC ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS
CLARK HILL STRASBURGER; AND STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP,
Appellants
V.
CENTURION LOGISTICS LLC DIRECTLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON
BEHALF OF CENTURION PECOS TERMINAL LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-15964
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Browning
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
Appellee Centurion Logistics LLC sued appellants, its former lawyer and his
law firm,1 for fiduciary breach, alleging that they worked against Centurion
Logistics’ interests both before and during an underlying lawsuit Centurion Logistics
filed against third parties. Appellants filed a Texas Citizens Participation Act
1
The record indicates that Clark Hill PLC and Strasburger & Price, LLP merged in 2018, and Brenner
worked for Strasburger before the merger and Clark Hill afterwards.
dismissal motion. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 27.001–.011. The trial
court denied the motion, and appellants filed this interlocutory appeal. See id.
§ 51.014(a)(12).
We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss Centurion
Logistics’ claims to the extent they are based on appellants’ participation in the
underlying lawsuit. But the trial court correctly denied appellants’ TCPA motion to
the extent Centurion Logistics’ claims are based on appellants’ other conduct. So
we reverse in part and affirm in part.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Alleged Facts
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are alleged in Centurion Logistics’
live pleading. All quotations come from that pleading.
1. Centurion Logistics’ Business Plan and the Descent into Litigation
Marc Marrocco, Tony Albanese, and John Calce had a business idea: develop
a railway terminal in the Pecos, Texas area to serve oil and gas producers in the
Permian Basin. In September 2013, they formed appellee Centurion Logistics as the
vehicle for this plan and made themselves Centurion Logistics’ managers. In
February 2014, Centurion Logistics entered into a contract to buy a tract in Reeves
County near Pecos. That spring it sought equity investors for the project.
No later than March 2014, Centurion Logistics hired appellant Jules Brenner
and his law firm, appellant Strasburger & Price, LLP, to represent Centurion
–2–
Logistics in all of its corporate, transactional, and litigation matters. Brenner
provided legal services regarding negotiations with potential equity partners for the
project.
In June 2014, Centurion Logistics obtained a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) from Union Pacific Railroad regarding the rail terminal.
Calce introduced Marrocco and Albanese to a potential equity partner named
James Ballengee, and Centurion Logistics decided to go with Ballengee.
In September 2014, Centurion Logistics and a Ballengee company jointly
formed Centurion Pecos Terminal LLC (CPT). Brenner and his firm did the legal
work for Centurion Logistics on the CPT company agreement.
Brenner later represented Centurion Logistics in revising the CPT company
agreement. The revised CPT company agreement was signed in or about August
2015, and CPT’s two members and managers were Centurion Logistics and a
Ballengee company called Stampede.
By late October 2015, Marrocco and Albanese were suspicious of Calce’s and
Ballengee’s intentions regarding the project. Around that time, Calce told Marrocco
that (i) Ballengee was working on a bigger plan than Centurion Logistics had
envisioned, (ii) Centurion Logistics should “trade up” into Ballengee’s plan, and
(iii) Ballengee would strip Centurion Logistics of its interest in the project if
Centurion Logistics didn’t “play ball.”
–3–
In November 2015, Calce said Marrocco and Albanese needed to talk to
Ballengee about how to resolve the conflict. Marrocco and Albanese later had
conversations with Ballengee about the project and Centurion Logistics’ place in it.
In March 2016, Ballengee met with Marrocco, offered Centurion Logistics
4% of Ballengee’s new plan, and “guaranteed Centurion Logistics $15 million in
that project.” Ballengee asked Marrocco to discuss it with Albanese and then give
Ballengee a formal offer or counter-proposal.
Marrocco and Albanese decided that they were prepared to accept Ballengee’s
offer but would first make a counter-offer seeking an $18 million guarantee. But
when Marrocco went to an April 1, 2016 meeting to finalize the deal with Ballengee,
he was confronted with a purported meeting of CPT’s members and managers at
which Calce and Ballengee sought his support for a different transaction involving
CPT. Marrocco “withdrew from the meeting.”
After that meeting, Calce, Ballengee, and their entities performed “maneuvers
and transactions” designed to strip Centurion Logistics and CPT of their interests in
project assets. For example, they attempted to divest (i) Centurion Logistics of its
Union Pacific MOU and (ii) Centurion Logistics and CPT of the rail site land.
In June 2016, Centurion Logistics sued Calce, Ballengee, Stampede, and
others in Dallas County (the Underlying Lawsuit) to stop any further damage to
Centurion Logistics. Centurion Logistics’ live pleading also alludes to other
lawsuits involving the same parties, presumably pending around this same time.
–4–
2. Appellants’ Alleged Misconduct
Centurion Logistics alleges that appellants were involved in the events
described above and breached fiduciary duties to Centurion Logistics both before
and after the Underlying Lawsuit began.
a. Acts Before and Apart from the Underlying Lawsuit
Centurion Logistics alleges three acts whereby appellants were “fanning the
flames” of conflict between Centurion Logistics and the other parties to the project
before the Underlying Lawsuit was filed.
First, appellants aided Calce and Ballengee with their scheme against
Centurion Logistics by helping them form, organize, or reorganize numerous
business entities. Brenner helped one such entity, Centurion Terminals, LLC, in all
its deals and contractual arrangements.
Second, in spring 2016, appellants were involved in an attempt by Calce,
Ballengee, and their entities to divest Centurion Logistics of its Union Pacific MOU
and a more comprehensive rail services agreement Centurion Logistics and Union
Pacific had struck in February 2016.
Third, appellants helped a Calce entity acquire a company called Permian
Crude Transport that owned land adjacent to the tract where Centurion Logistics’
original rail terminal project was to be located. This acquisition conflicted with
appellants’ earlier work on Centurion Logistics’ and CPT’s behalf. Although the
acquisition occurred in 2017 and thus after the Underlying Lawsuit began, Centurion
–5–
Logistics’ live pleading doesn’t suggest any connection between the acquisition and
the Underlying Lawsuit or its outcome.
b. Misconduct Relating to the Underlying Lawsuit
Centurion Logistics alleges appellants committed the following acts regarding
the Underlying Lawsuit.
In July 2016, Brenner and others at his firm began to work for opposing parties
involved in the Underlying Lawsuit without disclosing this fact to Centurion
Logistics. In February 2017, Marrocco and Albanese did not oppose the firm’s
substituting in as counsel for Stampede based on the firm’s representation that
Brenner had no involvement in the case and would not work on it. But subsequent
fee requests by the firm showed that Brenner worked on the case in January 2017
and thereafter.
Also in or before 2017, Brenner and his firm drafted a “Unanimous Written
Consent” that purported to allow (i) Stampede to remove Centurion Logistics as a
CPT member and (ii) CPT to dismiss derivative claims filed in the Underlying
Lawsuit.
Finally, during the Underlying Lawsuit defense counsel told Centurion
Logistics that Brenner had given them confidential information about a 2014
meeting of Marrocco, Albanese, Calce, and Brenner. Defense counsel also said that
Brenner would testify about those facts in the Underlying Lawsuit or another related
lawsuit. Brenner’s conduct was detrimental to Centurion Logistics.
–6–
3. The Underlying Lawsuit’s Conclusion
Appellants filed evidence with their TCPA dismissal motion showing that
(i) Centurion Logistics’ claims in the Underlying Lawsuit were dismissed on pretrial
motions, (ii) the counterclaims against Centurion Logistics were settled, and (iii) the
Underlying Lawsuit ended in July 2019.
B. This Case’s Procedural History
In September 2019, Centurion Logistics sued appellants for fiduciary breach
and sought damages and equitable forfeiture remedies.
Appellants answered and later filed their TCPA dismissal motion.
Centurion Logistics filed an amended petition and a response to the TCPA
motion with evidence. The amended petition added factual details but still asserted
only fiduciary breach claims against appellants. The amended petition continued to
seek both damages and equitable forfeiture.
Appellants replied, and Centurion Logistics filed a surreply.
The trial judge held a nonevidentiary hearing and signed an order denying
appellants’ dismissal motion. The order did not state the trial judge’s reasons for the
ruling. This appeal followed.
II. ISSUES PRESENTED
We quote appellants’ three issues, which correspond to the three steps a TCPA
dismissal motion typically presents:
1. The amended TCPA, effective September 1, 2019, applies to this
action in whole or in part because the action is based on and is in
–7–
response to the Attorneys’ exercise of the right to petition,
specifically the Attorneys’ representation of parties in litigation
adverse to Plaintiff Centurion.
2. The trial court should have dismissed Centurion’s claim because
Centurion failed to provide clear and specific evidence to support
a prima facie case of each element of its breach-of-fiduciary-duty
claim against the Attorneys, particularly with regard to the
elements of proximate cause and damages or, in the alternative,
fee disgorgement.
3. In addition or in the alternative, the trial court should have
dismissed Centurion’s claim because the Attorneys proved their
affirmative defenses of attorney immunity and waiver/quasi-
estoppel as a matter of law.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
This case is governed by the TCPA as amended in 2019. Under the pre-
amendment TCPA, we reviewed de novo the trial court’s determinations that the
parties met or failed to meet their respective burdens of proof under the TCPA. See,
e.g., Kirkstall Rd. Enters., Inc. v. Jones, 523 S.W.3d 251, 253 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2017, no pet.). Although the amendments adjust the parties’ burdens in some
respects, they do not change the de novo appellate standard of review. Accordingly,
we adhere to our prior case law in that regard. See MobileVision Imaging Servs.,
L.L.C. v. LifeCare Hosps. of N. Tex., L.P., 260 S.W.3d 561, 566 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2008, no pet.) (“We may not overrule a prior panel decision of this Court absent an
intervening change in the law by the legislature, a higher court, or this Court sitting
en banc.”); see also Vaughn-Riley v. Patterson, No. 05-20-00236-CV, 2020 WL
–8–
7053651, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 2, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (applying
de novo standard to ruling on TCPA motion under the 2019 amendments).
B. Issue One: Is Centurion Logistics’ legal action based on or in response
to appellants’ exercise of the right to petition?
Yes, in part. To the extent Centurion Logistics claims that appellants breached
fiduciary duties by rendering legal services to Centurion Logistics’ adversaries in
the Underlying Lawsuit, its claims are based on appellants’ exercise of the TCPA
defined right to petition. Appellants satisfied their TCPA step one burden as to those
claims.
However, Centurion Logistics has also alleged fiduciary breaches that
appellants have not demonstrated were exercises of their right to petition. The trial
court correctly refused to dismiss those claims.
1. Applicable Law
The TCPA authorizes a civil defendant to move to dismiss an opponent’s
“legal action” under certain circumstances. See CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 27.003(a). That motion triggers a three-step process. See id. § 27.005(b), (c), (d).
a. Step One
At step one, the movant must “demonstrate[]” that the legal action is based on
or in response to the movant’s exercise of a statutorily defined right or certain other
statutorily defined conduct. Id. § 27.005(b). This provision was amended in 2019.
Previously, the movant’s burden was to “show[] by a preponderance of the
evidence” that the legal action was “based on, relate[d] to, or [was] in response to”
–9–
the movant’s exercise of a protected right. See Citizens Participation Act, 82d Leg.,
R.S., ch. 341, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 960 (amended 2019) (current version at CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(b)).
Before the 2019 amendments, the Texas Supreme Court held that the
plaintiff’s petition is the best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action
for step one purposes. Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex. 2017). The court
said, “When it is clear from the plaintiff’s pleadings that the action is covered by the
Act, the defendant need show no more.” Id.We see no reason to conclude that the legislature intended to overrule Hersh
when it changed the step one test from “shows by a preponderance of the evidence”
to “demonstrates.” “Demonstrate” means to “clearly show the existence or truth of
(something) by giving proof or evidence.” Demonstrate, THE NEW OXFORD
AMERICAN DICTIONARY (2001). We conclude that Hersh is still good law. See Laura
Lee Prather & Robert T. Sherwin, The Changing Landscape of the Texas Citizens
Participation Act, 52 TEX. TECH L. REV. 163, 185 (2020) (opining that Hersh is still
good law after the 2019 amendments); see also Vaughn-Riley, 2020 WL 7053651,
at *2 (referring to Hersh test in case under the 2019 amendments).
Finally, step one requires a statement-by-statement analysis when a lawsuit
involves claims predicated on more than one communication. See Duncan v. Acius
Grp., LP, No. 05-18-01432-CV, 2019 WL 4392507, at *4 n.4 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Sept. 13, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“[W]e take a statement-by-statement approach
–10–
at step one.”); Morales v. Barnes, No. 05-17-00316-CV, 2017 WL 6759190, at *3
(Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (separately analyzing, at step
one, the two letters on which the plaintiff based his claim). Again nothing in the
2019 amendments changes our prior holdings, so we adhere to them and reject
Centurion Logistics’ suggestion that we should treat its fiduciary breach claims as a
single, monolithic unit for TCPA purposes.
b. Steps Two and Three
If the movant carries its initial burden, the burden shifts to the claimant to
establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element
of the claim in question. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(c). If the claimant
doesn’t carry its burden, the trial court dismisses the claim. See id. § 27.005(b), (c).
At step two, we consider only the evidence favoring the nonmovant. D Magazine
Partners, L.P. v. Rosenthal, 475 S.W.3d 470, 480–81 & n.5 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2015), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 529 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2017).
Even if the claimant carries its step two burden, the trial court must dismiss
the legal action at step three if the movant establishes an affirmative defense as a
matter of law. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(d).
2. Applying the Law to the Facts
Appellants argue that they successfully demonstrated that Centurion
Logistics’ legal action is based on and in response to appellants’ exercise of the right
to petition. See id. § 27.001(4). They rely specifically on § 27.001(4)(A)(i), which
–11–
provides that “a communication in or pertaining to . . . a judicial proceeding” is an
exercise of the right to petition. See id. § 27.001(4)(A)(i).
We begin by defining the relevant terms. The TCPA defines
“communication” broadly, stating that the term “includes the making or submitting
of a statement or document in any form or medium.” Id. § 27.001(1). And the
ordinary meaning of the phrase “pertaining to” is “relating directly to or concerning
or having to do with.” Jetall Cos., Inc. v. Johanson, No. 01-19-00305-CV, 2020 WL
6435778, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 3, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem.
op.). Finally, “a judicial proceeding is ‘any proceeding initiated to procure an order
or decree, whether in law or in equity.’” Levatino v. Apple Tree Café Touring, Inc.,
486 S.W.3d 724, 729 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016, pet. denied) (quoting Judicial
proceeding, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014)).
Next, we determine whether appellants carried their step one burden by
demonstrating that Centurion Logistics’ legal action arises from or is in response to
appellants’ communications pertaining to a judicial proceeding. See CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 27.005(b). As explained below, we conclude that appellants carried
their step one burden as to part, but not all, of Centurion Logistics’ legal action.
–12–
a. Appellants met step one concerning participation in the
Underlying Lawsuit.
The Underlying Lawsuit was unquestionably a TCPA “judicial proceeding.”2
Thus, to the extent Centurion Logistics asserts claims that appellants breached
fiduciary duties by making communications in or pertaining to the Underlying
Lawsuit, those claims are based on appellants’ exercise of the TCPA right to petition.
See Youngkin v. Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675, 680–81 (Tex. 2018) (lawyer exercised his
TCPA right to petition by dictating Rule 11 agreement into the record during trial;
thus, subsequent claim that lawyer thereby committed fraud satisfied TCPA step
one).
We outlined Centurion Logistics’ claims that appellants breached fiduciary
duties by their conduct pertaining to the Underlying Lawsuit in Part I.A.2.b above.
To summarize, Centurion Logistics specifically alleges the following four breaches:
• Appellants worked “in the background” on the Underlying
Lawsuit for Centurion Logistics’ opponents as early as July
2016.
• In February 2017, when Brenner’s law firm sought to substitute
into the Underlying Lawsuit for Stampede, it falsely represented
that Brenner had no involvement in the Underlying Lawsuit and
would not work on it. But fee requests by the firm showed that
Brenner worked on the case in January 2017 and thereafter.
2
The First Court of Appeals has held that a lawsuit that has gone to final judgment is no longer a
“judicial proceeding” for TCPA purposes. Russell v. Russell, No. 01-19-00516-CV, 2020 WL 894433, at
*4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 25, 2020, pet. filed) (mem. op.). We disagree. Communications
made in a pending lawsuit are exercises of the right to petition, see CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 27.001(4)(A)(i), and nothing in the TCPA suggests that they cease to be exercises of that right after the
lawsuit concludes.
–13–
• In or before 2017, Brenner and his firm drafted a document that
purported to allow (i) Stampede to remove Centurion Logistics
as a CPT member and (ii) CPT to dismiss derivative claims filed
in the Underlying Lawsuit.
• Finally, Brenner disclosed to Centurion Logistics’ opponents
confidential information about a 2014 meeting of Marrocco,
Albanese, Calce, and Brenner. Defense counsel said that
Brenner would testify about that meeting in the Underlying
Lawsuit or another related lawsuit. This conduct was very
detrimental to Centurion Logistics in the Underlying Lawsuit
because a major issue in the case was who had the right to act on
Centurion Logistics’ behalf.
In all four instances, Centurion Logistics bases its fiduciary breach claims on
appellants’ communications pertaining to a judicial proceeding.
The second and third items directly complain about appellants’
communications pertaining to the Underlying Lawsuit.
The first item necessarily implies that appellants made such communications
because performing legal work on a lawsuit inherently involves communications.
See CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.001(1) (“communication” includes “making . . .
a statement or document”). For example, Centurion Logistics’ live pleading quotes
Brenner’s time records to show his allegedly tortious work on the Underlying
Lawsuit. Those records show that he participated in calls regarding a summary
judgment motion, revised a summary judgment motion, and had discussions and
meetings with various people about the case. Those are all communications under
the TCPA’s broad definition, see id.; Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, LLC, 547
S.W.3d 890, 894 (Tex. 2018) (“Almost every imaginable form of communication,
–14–
in any medium, is covered.”), and they pertain to the Underlying Lawsuit. These
allegations of specific communications also distinguish this case from a recent case
in which we could not discern any communications from the record. See White Nile
Software, Inc. v. Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP, No. 05-19-
00780-CV, 2020 WL 5104966, at *8 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 31, 2020, no pet.)
(mem. op.) (movant didn’t meet step one because nothing in the record showed what
communications were supposedly at issue).
Finally, appellants adequately demonstrated that the fourth item involves
Brenner’s alleged communications regarding the Underlying Lawsuit. Although
Centurion Logistics doesn’t allege the date when Brenner allegedly revealed
Centurion Logistics’ confidences to its adversaries, the context demonstrates that the
communications were made in conjunction with, and pertain to, the defendants’
defense in the Underlying Lawsuit. Accordingly, we conclude that he did so during,
and to aid their defense in, the Underlying Lawsuit.
In sum, Centurion Logistics’ claims that appellants breached fiduciary duties
by participating in the Underlying Lawsuit on behalf of Centurion Logistics’
adversaries are based on appellants’ exercise of the TCPA right to petition.
Appellants carried their step one burden as to those claims.
b. Appellants did not satisfy step one concerning conduct other
than participating in the Underlying Lawsuit.
Centurion Logistics also alleges that appellants committed three fiduciary
breaches with no obvious connection to the Underlying Lawsuit filed in June 2016:
–15–
• Appellants helped Calce and Ballengee form or reorganize
numerous entities. They did “the vast majority of this work” by
early April 2016, but the work continued to mid-2018.
• In spring 2016, appellants were involved in Calce and others’
attempt to divest Centurion Logistics of its Union Pacific MOU
and another agreement with Union Pacific. The last event
Centurion Logistics alleges in this regard is a May 2016 email.
• Appellants helped a Calce entity acquire a company that owned
land adjacent to the tract where the original rail terminal project
was to be located. The acquisition occurred after the Underlying
Lawsuit began.
A § 27.001(4)(A)(i) “judicial proceeding” means an actual, existing judicial
proceeding. Levatino, 486 S.W.3d at 728. Thus, appellants’ communications before
the Underlying Lawsuit existed were not exercises of the right to petition under
§ 27.001(4)(A)(i). See id. at 729 (pre-suit demand letter not a right to petition act).
Accordingly, appellants failed their step one burden as to claims based on (i) the
conduct described in the second item in the immediately foregoing list and (ii) the
“vast majority” of the conduct described in the first item.
As to the conduct described in the first item that allegedly postdated the
Underlying Lawsuit’s beginning and the conduct described in the third item, we
conclude that appellants didn’t demonstrate that this conduct involved
communications in or pertaining to the Underlying Lawsuit. These allegations don’t
mention the Underlying Lawsuit, and appellants have not otherwise shown the
necessary connection. The bare fact that the Underlying Lawsuit was pending while
appellants were allegedly committing this conduct does not demonstrate that any
–16–
communications involved in the conduct were “in or pertaining to” the Underlying
Lawsuit or any other judicial proceeding.
Appellants nonetheless argue that their alleged conduct described above
amounted to an exercise of the right to petition because Centurion Logistics’ trial
brief argued that appellants’ conduct “propelled Centurion Logistics and the
Ballengee parties to litigation rather than keeping them at the settlement table to
resolve their differences.” We disagree. To be an exercise of the right to petition
under § 27.001(4)(A)(i), a communication must be in or pertain to an actual, existing
judicial proceeding. Id. at 728. A pre-litigation communication doesn’t fit that
definition, even if it provokes the subsequent litigation. See id.
c. Centurion Logistics’ Remaining Arguments Concerning
Claims Based on Participation in the Underlying Lawsuit
Centurion Logistics proposes certain global reasons that the TCPA should not
apply to its claims. We reject those arguments regarding claims based on appellants’
participation in the Underlying Lawsuit and do not reach them as to the others.
First, Centurion Logistics argues that the TCPA doesn’t apply to a client’s
fiduciary breach claim against its own attorney. It cites nothing in the statute or any
cases supporting that premise. And the legislature provided that the TCPA does not
apply to a laundry list of claims, and a client’s fiduciary breach claim against its
attorney is not among them. See CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.010(a). We cannot
add to the legislature’s list of exemptions. See Johnson v. Second Injury Fund, 688
–17–
S.W.2d 107, 108 (Tex. 1985) (“The legal maxim Expressio unius est exclusio
alterius is an accepted rule of statutory construction in this state.”).
Second, Centurion Logistics argues that applying the TCPA to its claims
violates the Texas Constitution’s Open Courts Clause. The TCPA requires a
claimant to assemble its proof quickly and limits the discovery that can be performed
once a motion is filed. See CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.003(b), (c); id. § 27.004.
Centurion Logistics argues that the TCPA thus unconstitutionally burdens its
constitutional right to redress, particularly because claims against lawyers typically
must be supported with expert testimony.
We reject Centurion Logistics’ constitutional challenge. We presume statutes
are constitutional. Preston State Bank v. Willis, 443 S.W.3d 428, 433 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2014, pet. denied). Texas appellate courts have upheld the TCPA’s discovery
limitations. See, e.g., Landry’s, Inc. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, 566 S.W.3d 41,
68 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. granted). And they have upheld
statutes requiring expert reports early in medical malpractice cases. See, e.g., Sutker
v. Simmons, No. 05-18-00698-CV, 2019 WL 3001034, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas
July 10, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Ledesma v. Shashoua, No. 03-05-00454-CV,
2007 WL 2214650, at *9 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 3, 2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
Since Centurion Logistics adduced evidence by three expert witnesses, and
assuming the TCPA may in some cases require nonmovants to produce expert
–18–
testimony at step two, we reject Centurion Logistics’ premise that the requirement
violates the Open Courts Clause here.
Finally, Centurion Logistics argues that the TCPA does not apply to its claims
based on appellants’ providing legal services to Centurion Logistics’ adversaries in
the run-up to the Underlying Lawsuit. We agree with that premise, as discussed
above.
3. Conclusion
We sustain appellants’ first issue in part, holding that they satisfied TCPA
step one as to Centurion Logistics’ fiduciary breach claims based on appellants’
participating in the Underlying Lawsuit for Centurion Logistics’ adversaries. We
thus proceed to the remaining TCPA analysis as to only those claims and affirm the
denial of appellants’ TCPA motion regarding Centurion Logistics’ other claims.
C. Issue Two: Did Centurion Logistics produce clear and specific evidence
sufficient to establish a prima facie case regarding its participation in the
Underlying Lawsuit claims?
No, because Centurion Logistics did not produce clear and specific evidence
that (i) appellants’ participation in the Underlying Lawsuit caused Centurion
Logistics any injury or (ii) Centurion Logistics was entitled to a fee forfeiture or
disgorgement remedy based on that conduct.
–19–
1. Applicable Law
Once a TCPA movant satisfies step one, the burden shifts to the nonmovant
to establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential
element of the claim in question. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(c).
“Clear” means unambiguous, sure, or free from doubt. S&S Emergency
Training Sols., Inc. v. Elliott, 564 S.W.3d 843, 847 (Tex. 2018). “Specific” means
explicit or relating to a particular named thing. Id. A prima facie case is the
minimum amount of evidence necessary to support a rational inference that a fact is
true. Id.Bare, baseless opinions do not meet the clear and specific evidence
requirement. In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 592 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding).
Similarly, conclusory statements are not probative and will not suffice to establish a
prima facie case. Dobrott v. Jevin, Inc., No. 05-17-01472-CV, 2018 WL 6273411,
at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.).
A fiduciary breach claim’s elements are (i) a fiduciary relationship existed
between the plaintiff and defendant; (ii) the defendant breached its fiduciary duty to
the plaintiff; and (iii) the defendant’s breach injured the plaintiff or benefited the
defendant. Anderton v. Cawley, 378 S.W.3d 38, 51 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no
pet.). A fiduciary breach claimant must prove proximate causation to recover
damages. See Bos v. Smith, 556 S.W.3d 293, 303 (Tex. 2018).
–20–
Alternatively, a disloyal fiduciary can be required to disgorge any benefit it
received by its breach. Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp., 160 S.W.2d
509, 514 (Tex. 1942). And an attorney who commits a clear and serious violation
of his or her duty to a client can be required to forfeit some or all of his or her fees
for the matter. Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 242 (Tex. 1999).
2. Applying the Law to the Facts
Appellants argue that Centurion Logistics produced no evidence that
appellants’ participation in the Underlying Lawsuit on behalf of Centurion Logistics’
adversaries caused Centurion Logistics any injury. We agree.
Centurion Logistics’ appellate brief doesn’t argue that it produced clear and
specific evidence that appellants’ aiding Centurion Logistics’ adversaries in the
Underlying Lawsuit caused Centurion Logistics any injury. Neither did its trial court
response.
We have reviewed Centurion Logistics’ evidence ourselves, and we conclude
that there is no clear and specific evidence that appellants’ alleged misconduct in
and regarding the Underlying Lawsuit injured Centurion Logistics. We find only a
conclusory and nonprobative statement in Marrocco’s declaration (and a similar one
in Albanese’s declaration), that says:
. . . I also contend that if it had not been for the defendant attorney’s
misconduct as described above, the various lawsuits in which we were
involved with Calce, Ballengee, and their related individuals and
entities, including the Dallas County Lawsuit, would have been
resolved in Centurion Logistics’ favor.
–21–
These speculative and conclusory statements did not carry Centurion Logistics’ step
two burden as to the causation element.
This leaves Centurion Logistics’ claim for a disgorgement or fee forfeiture
remedy. Specifically, Centurion Logistics sought to recover (i) all fees Centurion
Logistics paid appellants, (ii) all fees appellants received from other parties for work
adverse to Centurion Logistics, and (iii) any other secret gain or benefit appellants
derived from their fiduciary breaches. For three reasons, we conclude that Centurion
Logistics did not produce clear and specific evidence to support these claimed
remedies.
First, Centurion Logistics produced no evidence that appellants committed
any fiduciary breaches while earning the fees Centurion Logistics paid them, so there
is no clear and specific evidence that Centurion Logistics is entitled to recover those
fees. Specifically, Centurion Logistics alleges that appellants’ fiduciary breaches
began in late 2015 but its evidence doesn’t show any payments to appellants after
December 2014. Next, Centurion Logistics argues it should be allowed to recover
the fees it paid appellants because their work for Centurion Logistics was
“completely undermined” by appellants’ work for Centurion Logistics’ adversaries.
We disagree. Cf. Gregory v. Porter & Hedges, LLP, 398 S.W.3d 881, 886–87 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied) (client could not recover attorney’s
fees paid for first representation because client’s claims arose exclusively from a
–22–
second representation). Thus, Centurion Logistics did not produce clear and specific
evidence of an entitlement to fee forfeiture regarding the fees it paid appellants.
Second, regarding the fees appellants received from other parties for legal
work that allegedly breached appellants’ fiduciary duties to Centurion Logistics,
courts have held that fee forfeiture does not apply to fees a lawyer received from
someone other than the aggrieved client. See, e.g., id. at 885–86; Elizondo v. Krist,
338 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010), aff’d, 415 S.W.3d 259(Tex. 2013); Swank v. Cunningham, 258 S.W.3d 647, 672–74 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2008, pet. denied). We agree with those courts. Thus, Centurion Logistics cannot
recover those fees under a forfeiture theory.
Finally, Centurion Logistics produced no evidence that appellants received
any benefit from their alleged fiduciary breaches other than the fees they received
for their legal work in the Underlying Lawsuit. We have held that those fees are not
subject to equitable forfeiture. Thus, Centurion Logistics cannot recover them under
a more general equitable theory. Cf. Garcia-Udall v. Udall, 141 S.W.3d 323, 331
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.) (“[A] more specific statute controls over a more
general one.”).
3. Conclusion
Centurion Logistics failed to carry its step two burden regarding its claims
against appellants for participating in the Underlying Lawsuit. Accordingly, the trial
court erred by failing to dismiss those claims.
–23–
D. Issue Three: Did appellants establish affirmative defenses?
Given our prior holdings, we need not and do not address appellants’ third
issue in which they argue that they established the affirmative defenses of attorney
immunity, waiver, and quasi-estoppel.
IV. DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, we (i) reverse the trial court’s order denying
appellant’s TCPA motion to the extent the trial court failed to dismiss Centurion
Logistics’ claims based on appellants’ participation in the Underlying Lawsuit on
behalf of entities other than Centurion Logistics, (ii) render judgment dismissing
those claims with prejudice, (iii) remand the case for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion, including an award of relief under TCPA § 27.009; and (iv) affirm
the remainder of the trial court’s order.
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
200308F.P05
–24–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JULES S. BRENNER; CLARK On Appeal from the 44th Judicial
HILL PLC ALSO DOING District Court, Dallas County, Texas
BUSINESS AS CLARK HILL Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-15964.
STRASBURGER; AND Opinion delivered by Justice
STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP, Whitehill. Justices Schenck and
Appellants Browning participating.
No. 05-20-00308-CV V.
CENTURION LOGISTICS LLC
DIRECTLY AND DERIVATIVELY
ON BEHALF OF CENTURION
PECOS TERMINAL LLC, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we AFFIRM in part
and REVERSE in part the trial court’s February 14, 2020 Order Denying
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to TCPA.
We REVERSE the order to the extent it fails to dismiss appellee Centurion
Logistics LLC Directly and Derivatively on Behalf of Centurion Pecos Terminal
LLC’s claims against appellants Jules S. Brenner, Clark Hill PLC Also Doing
Business As Clark Hill Strasburger, and Strasburger & Price, LLP for appellants’
participation in an underlying lawsuit, Marrocco et al. v. Ballengee et al., Cause
No. DC-16-07706 in the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, on behalf of
entities other than Centurion Logistics LLC, and we RENDER judgment that
those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In all other respects, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.
–25–
We REMAND this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent
with the opinion, including consideration of appellants’ request for relief under
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.009.
It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.
Judgment entered December 14, 2020.
–26–