X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This case stems from Anderson Courier’s challenge to H.B. 1544, a statute prohibiting the collection and sale of accident reports generated by law enforcement. Anderson Courier filed suit seeking a declaration that H.B. 1544 was unconstitutional, an injunction preventing the state from enforcing the statute, and attorney’s fees. The district court upheld the validity of the statute. On appeal, Anderson Courier asked this court to reverse the district court’s judgment and to remand the case for further proceedings. Anderson Courier did not mention its claim for attorney’s fees. This court agreed with Anderson Courier’s constitutional challenge and rendered judgment declaring that “HB 1544 unconstitutionally regulates commercial free speech.” Anderson Courier did not file a motion for rehearing seeking a remand for the consideration of injunctive relief or attorney’s fees. After the Supreme Court denied the state’s petition for discretionary review, Anderson Courier filed a motion for supplemental relief in the district court seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of H.B. 1544 and an award of attorney’s fees for its prosecution of the entire case. Two months later, Anderson Courier entered into an agreed order in which the Travis County attorney agreed to a permanent injunction against enforcement of H.B. 1544, and Anderson Courier agreed not to seek attorney’s fees from the county. Anderson Courier continued to pursue an award of attorney’s fees against the state. The district court entered judgment ordering the state to pay $368,857 in attorney’s fees as supplemental relief under the declaratory judgment act. HOLDING:The court reverses the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and renders a take-nothing judgment in favor of the state. The court considers whether Anderson Courier’s post-appeal request for its attorney’s fees expended to obtain the initial declaratory relief constituted necessary or proper further relief based on the declaratory judgment. Anderson Courier mistakenly argues that a declaratory judgment action must be separated into a declaratory phase and a remedial phase. Anderson Courier misconstrues a footnote in Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App. – Austin 2000, no pet.), the court states. In that case, the court’s discussion of the trial court’s need to consider whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief as part of the judgment simply does not speak to whether a post-judgment request for attorney’s fees would be necessary or proper, the court states. Further, Caldwell cannot be read to create a post-judgment “remedial phase” in a declaratory judgment apart from a showing that injunctive relief is necessary to enforce the court’s declaratory relief. There is no need for a remedial phase in every declaratory judgment action, because the law presumes that the parties will recognize and respect a declaratory judgment. Injunctive relief is available only upon a showing that a party will not comply with the judgment. The court reviews case law discussing supplemental relief under the declaratory judgment act and concludes that such relief must serve to effectuate the underlying judgment. Section 37.011 of the Declaratory Judgment Act permits a trial court to grant supplemental relief based on a declaratory judgment when further relief is “necessary or proper.” Courts have uniformly explained that such relief must be ancillary to the judgment. However, a declaratory judgment does not necessarily bar supplemental relief even though such relief could have been granted in the original action. Anderson Courier sought attorney’s fees in its declaratory judgment action under �37.009 in the trial court, but did not pursue the issue on appeal. Because the issue was not raised on appeal, there was no reason for this court to remand the case for further consideration after declaring H.B. 1544 unconstitutional. On the appeal from the original judgment, this court did not remand the case as was done in Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation District, 925 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1996) and Amoco Production Co. v. Wood, 113 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2003, no pet.). In those cases, the case was remanded for consideration of attorney’s fees as part of the appellate decision. By contrast, Anderson Courier never discussed the issue of attorney’s fees in its earlier appeal to this court, even on rehearing, and waited until after the mandate had issued to broach the issue with the district court, seeking supplemental relief under �37.011. Anderson Courier also defends the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees as supplemental relief by asking this court to harmonize the Texas declaratory judgment act with federal law. In federal court, a request for attorney’s fees is not considered with the merits of the case and must be sought by separate motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) or other local court rule. These are generally applicable procedural rules, not laws or regulations “on the subject of declaratory judgments and decrees.” Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code �37.002(c). The court declines to diverge from the longstanding Texas practice of submitting the issue of attorney’s fees with the merits of the underlying dispute. By awarding Anderson Courier’s attorney’s fees for the declaratory judgment absent a remand, the district court permitted Anderson Courier to litigate an issue that it had waived on appeal. The award of attorney’s fees did not serve to effectuate the declaratory judgment. The court holds that the award of Anderson Courier’s attorney’s fees in obtaining declaratory relief was not necessary or proper further relief under �37.011 of the declaratory judgment act. OPINION:Smith, J.; Law, CJ, Smith and Puryear, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.