Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In this employment dispute, Robert Rasmusson appeals a judgment in favor of LBC PetroUnited Inc. on the ground that the trial court erroneously awarded LBC attorney’s fees. HOLDING:The court reverses the portion of the judgment awarding costs to LBC, remands that issue to the trial court for further proceedings and affirms the remainder of the judgment. In a case, such as this, where only one final and appealable judgment can be rendered, a judgment issued without a conventional trial is final for purposes of appeal only if it either actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court or states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all claims and parties (even if it is not). Guajardo v. Conwell, 46 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. 2001); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). Appellate timetables run from the date an order granting a non-suit is signed, rather than the date a non-suit is filed. In Re: Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1997). Rasmusson’s sole point of error challenges the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to LBC on the grounds that: 1. the law does not allow recovery of attorney’s fees incurred in compelling arbitration; 2. the agreement unambiguously provides that each party will bear its own attorney’s fees incurred in any agreement dispute; 3. LBC failed to prove any contract damages supporting an attorney’s fees award; 4. LBC waived its claim for attorney’s fees when it failed to present its breach of contract claim to the arbitrator, asking instead for fees incurred merely to compel arbitration; 5. the attorney’s fees awarded were unreasonable and unnecessary; 6. LBC’s breach of contract claim was never adjudicated, and Rasmusson never got his day in court to assert his defenses to it; and 7. LBC failed to provide any evidence in support of the costs awarded. Rasmusson has not demonstrated that the law precludes a recovery of attorney’s fees in this case. Rasmusson has not demonstrated that the award of attorney’s fees and costs is inconsistent with the agreement. Because LBC sought attorney’s fees in addition to its claim for specific performance of the arbitration provision of the agreement, its failure to recover other money damages did not preclude the award of attorney’s fees. The court cannot say from this record that LBC presented its claim for attorney’s fees to the arbitrator as something other than a breach of contract claim and thereby waived its claim as such. Rasmusson next contends that the amount of attorney’s fees sought and recovered by LBC was unreasonable and unnecessary for preparing and arguing a three-page motion to compel arbitration at a fifteen-minute hearing. However, because Rasmusson filed neither a cross-motion for summary judgment nor summary judgment evidence controverting that supporting LBC’s motion on this issue, the court can neither render judgment in Rasmusson’s favor nor conclude that a fact issue was raised on the reasonableness and necessity of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded. Rasmusson next argues that LBC never had its breach of contract claim formally adjudicated by the arbitrator or trial court and, accordingly, Rasmusson never got his day in court on his defenses to those claims. It is not apparent how LBC’s breach of contract claim was not formally adjudicated by summary judgment in its motion, Rasmusson’s response, and the September judgment. Rasmusson lastly asserts that the trial court erred in awarding costs against him because LBC failed to provide any evidence of those costs. The only summary judgment evidence LBC provided regarding costs was a single sentence in its attorney’s affidavit: “Further, reasonable costs of $403.71 have been incurred in performing the tasks cited above [to compel arbitration].” Because there is no indication of what these costs consisted of, there is no basis to establish whether they were reasonable or necessary other than the conclusory statement of the attorney, which is insufficient to support a summary judgment. The court sustains Rasmusson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s award of costs to LBC. OPINION:Edelman, J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.