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.
Mose A. Guillory and Mary Guillory v. Seaton LLC D/B/A Staff Management
Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-14-00379-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 17, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The motion for rehearing filed by Mose A. Guillory and Mary Guillory addresses the dismissal of their claims under the newly adopted Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which became effective on March 1, 2013. The appellants argue that the panel erred in deeming Rule 91a constitutional, as it permits dismissal and imposes fees for claims based on good faith extensions of existing law, potentially violating the Texas Constitution’s Open Courts guarantee. They contend that the rule should not allow dismissal of claims that are justified by existing law or nonfrivolous arguments for evolving the law. If the panel does not agree with this interpretation, they assert that Rule 91a contravenes the Open Courts provision, which ensures access to the courts and prohibits unreasonable barriers to litigation. The motion cites case law establishing that the legislature cannot unreasonably restrict access to the courts and emphasizes the historical significance of the Open Courts guarantee in Texas. Additionally, it argues that Rule 91a(7), which mandates the award of costs and attorney fees upon dismissal, poses an unreasonable financial barrier to access justice, thereby failing the constitutional scrutiny required for such laws. A case can be dismissed and fees awarded under Rule 91a even if the plaintiff presents valid arguments for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law. In contrast, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10 allows for claims that are warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous arguments for changes to the law, protecting plaintiffs from sanctions if they can demonstrate such arguments. Similarly, Section 9 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 only authorize sanctions when a claim lacks a basis in law or fact or is not supported by a good faith argument for legal change. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 similarly allows for nonfrivolous claims challenging existing law. However, Rule 91a imposes a stricter standard, mandating dismissal and fees even when a non-frivolous argument exists, creating a financial barrier that can deter legitimate claims and impede access to the courts, in violation of the Texas Constitution's Open Courts guarantee. The text suggests that this rule could have historically discouraged civil rights litigation. The author urges the court to reconsider the application of Rule 91a to allow claims based on good faith arguments for legal modifications and requests a motion for rehearing.