Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Shayn a Proler v. City of Houston
Citations: 499 S.W.3d 12; 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 7523; 2016 WL 3901944Docket: 14-15-00387-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 14, 2016; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The June 14, 2016 Memorandum Opinion has been withdrawn, and the Motion for Rehearing has been denied. A new opinion and judgment were issued on July 14, 2016, affirming the trial court's decision. The case involves Shayn Proler's appeal against the City of Houston, stemming from a trial court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees following the City’s nonsuit of its declaratory judgment action. The appeal originated from events on remand from the Texas Supreme Court, with prior relevant cases establishing the procedural history. Proler, a firefighter, was reassigned to the fire training academy after issues with his performance. He filed a grievance against this reassignment, which was unsuccessful. An independent hearing examiner later ordered his reassignment back to a fire suppression unit and mandated compensation for lost wages. The City appealed this decision to the 234th District Court under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, claiming jurisdiction issues. Proler counterclaimed for disability discrimination, leading to a jury finding in his favor but awarding no damages. The trial court, however, awarded attorney's fees for both the discrimination claim and the dismissed declaratory judgment action. The City appealed, arguing errors in dismissing their petition and awarding attorney's fees. This court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the City’s petition and the attorney's fees related to the declaratory judgment action, while affirming the trial court's judgment on Proler’s disability claims. The City subsequently appealed this court's ruling on the disability counterclaims to the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed Proler’s discrimination claims against the City but did not assess the reversal of the City’s declaratory judgment action or the $67,106 fee award, noting Proler waived any challenge to that reversal. The Court found Proler's discrimination claims meritless, reversed the judgment affirming the trial court’s relief grant, and issued a take-nothing judgment on those claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the City's claim, after which the City nonsuited its declaratory judgment claim. Proler then filed a motion for attorney’s fees under section 37.009 of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, requesting restoration of the original fee award due to the City's nonsuit. The City opposed this, arguing Proler's request was not a "claim for affirmative relief" as delineated by Texas Rule of Procedure 162. The trial court denied Proler’s motion, leading to a timely appeal. The appellate review standard for denial of attorney's fees is abuse of discretion. Proler claimed the denial was arbitrary and inequitable, arguing that a pending claim for affirmative relief remained following the remand. However, while a nonsuit does not impact such claims, a trial court is not required to grant fees merely because a claim was pending before the nonsuit. Rule 162 allows for hearings on attorney’s fees but does not mandate their award. The Declaratory Judgments Act also grants discretionary authority to the trial court regarding fee awards. The appellate court found no egregious abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Proler's motion and affirmed the decision.