Redmond Legal Group, PLLC, and Jerry Redmond, Jr. v. Carliss Chatman, and Mitra Woody

Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-17-00835-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 27, 2019; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's May 15, 2017 order, which had granted sanctions against appellants Redmond Legal Group, PLLC, and Jerry Redmond, Jr., leading to the dismissal of their claims with prejudice. The appeal arose from a suit initially filed in February 2014 against appellees Carliss Chatman and Mitra Woody, who counterclaimed. A scheduled trial was set for January 18, 2016, but on January 5, Redmond's counsel requested a continuance based on a physician's letter (the "Hyber letter") asserting Redmond's injury and inability to travel. However, in June 2016, Chatman and Woody accused Redmond of submitting a fraudulent Hyber letter to delay proceedings.

During a December 2016 status conference, Redmond's trial counsel admitted the Hyber letter was false and claimed it was not authored by the purported doctor. Following this admission, the trial court expressed concerns over potential fraud and canceled the trial, indicating that sanctions could lead to the dismissal of the case. A subsequent hearing on January 3, 2017, resulted in an order for Redmond to provide evidence of his hospitalization related to the alleged injury. After failing to produce satisfactory evidence, the trial court found the Hyber letter fraudulent and, in May 2017, dismissed all of appellants' claims. The court specifically noted that the letter had been misrepresented as written by Dr. Redmond-Hyber, a pediatrician, who did not author it.

The Court determined that the Plaintiffs submitted a fraudulent Hyber Letter to influence rulings on their Motion for Expedited Hearing and Opposed Motion for Continuance or Abatement, which unnecessarily delayed proceedings, including mediation and responses to Defendants’ discovery requests. It also found that Plaintiff Jerry Redmond provided false testimony regarding the Hyber Letter during a January 2017 hearing and failed to comply with multiple court orders issued in December 2016 and February 2017. As an attorney licensed in Texas, Redmond is subject to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, including the obligation of candor towards the tribunal. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs’ conduct constituted an abuse of the discovery process and violated both the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Disciplinary Rules, rendering their claims meritless. Following the filing of a notice of nonsuit on counterclaims in September 2017, the trial court dismissed those claims, and the Appellants subsequently filed a notice of appeal.

Regarding sanctions, the Court referenced legal standards indicating that sanctions must have a direct relationship to the misconduct and must not be excessive. It noted that lesser sanctions should generally be considered before imposing severe penalties, particularly when the misconduct involves fabrication of evidence. The Court highlighted that flagrant bad faith actions, such as evidence destruction, could warrant severe sanctions, but emphasized that the trial court must evaluate the appropriateness of any sanctions imposed, ensuring that the record reflects consideration of lesser options.

In the case In re RH White Oak, LLC, the appellate court evaluated the appropriateness of sanctions imposed by a trial court. The court referenced multiple precedents where false evidence or affidavits led to case dismissals or severe sanctions. Specifically, in Poff, the submission of a false affidavit of indigence resulted in dismissal as a sanction. In Pressil v. Gibson, a death penalty sanction was upheld for fabricating evidence regarding damages. The court acknowledged that while trial courts possess broad authority to impose sanctions for litigation abuse, such authority is not limitless. The trial court had discretion to impose sanctions against Redmond for the submission of a fabricated letter; however, the order did not indicate that lesser sanctions were considered or how the misconduct related to the plaintiffs' claims. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the imposed sanction constituted an abuse of discretion, reversed the trial court’s order, and remanded the case for further proceedings.