February 2025 Jury Trial Verdicts

CIVIL/FAMILY

CAUSE NO.: D-1-GN-23-002369; DENA SESSIONS v. ABBY ARGO, CHAMPAGNE CAMPAIGN, LLC; AMAZING REALTY, LLC, JACOB SOLIZ, GENA CARTER; KW ATX BROKER, LLC

JUDGE: MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE

DATES: Feb. 10 – 18, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff: R. Alex Conant/Walter Williams/Hayden Prosise, Amini & Conant, LLP (Austin)

Defendant: Kevin F. Lee, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, LLP (Austin)

SUMMARY: This case arises from the sale of residential property located in the 78736 zip code. Defendant Champagne Campaign LLC was the seller, Plaintiff Dena Sessions was the buyer, Defendant Amazing Realty LLC was the listing broker firm, and Defendant Abby Argo was the listing associate. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants misrepresented the condition of the home in several aspects.

A jury of 11 found that the Defendant Argo committed fraud against the Plaintiff, but the Defendants Soliz and Carter did not commit fraud. For this specific charge, jury awarded: Past loss of benefit of the bargain – $642,000; future loss of benefit of the bargain – $0; past out-of-pocket damages – $0; future out-of-pocket damages – $0; past loss of use of the property – $0; future loss of use of the property – $0; past loss of use of funds – $0; future loss of use of funds – $0; past mitigation expenses – $23,500; future mitigation expenses – $0.

Further, the jury found Argo was acting within the scope of her agency relationship with Champaign Campaign, LLC and Amazing Realty, LLC; Argo engaged in false, misleading/deceptive acts that Sessions relied on to her detriment by causing confusion to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods/represented that goods/services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, which they do not have; represented that goods/services are of a particular style when they are of another; failed to disclose information concerning goods/services that was known at the time of the transaction with the intention to induce Plaintiff into a transaction into which Plaintiff would not have entered had the information been disclosed; made a false representation of a past or existing material fact when the false representation was made to Plaintiff for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to enter into a contract and was relied upon by Sessions in entering the contract.

For the previous charges, jury awarded: past loss of benefit of the bargain – $642,000; future loss of benefit of the bargain – $0; past out-of-pocket damages – $0; future out-of-pocket damages – $0; past loss of use of the property – $0; future loss of use of the property – $0; past loss of use of funds – $0; future loss of use of funds – $0; past mitigation expenses – $23,500; future mitigation expenses – $0; past lost time – $70,000; future lost time – $0; past diminished marked value – $642,000; future diminished market value – $0.

Defendants Soliz, Carter, and Slusher Group did not engage in false, misleading/deceptive acts that Plaintiff relied on to her detriment by causing confusion to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods/did not represent that goods/services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, which they do not have; did not represent that goods/services are of a particular style when they are of another; did not fail to disclose information concerning goods/services that was known at the time of the transaction with the intention to induce Plaintiff into a transaction into which Plaintiff would not have entered had the information been disclosed; did not make a false representation of a past or existing material fact when the false representation was made to Plaintiff for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to enter into a contract and was relied upon by Plaintiff in entering the contract.

Argo was acting with the scope of her agency relationship with Champaign Campaign, LLC and Amazing Realty, LLC. Argo engaged in conduct knowingly; Soliz, Carter, and Slusher Group did not engage in conduct knowingly; damages for the knowingly conduct: $100,000; Argo committed fraud against Sessions by making a material misrepresentation; failed to disclose a material fact within the knowledge of that party; damages for those specific charges: past loss of benefit of the bargain – $642,000; future loss of benefit of the bargain – $0; past out-of-pocket damages – $0; future out-of-pocket damages – $0; past loss of use of the property – $0; future loss of use of the property – $0; past loss of use of funds – $0; future loss of use of funds – $0; past mitigation expenses – $23,500; future mitigation expenses – $0.

Argo was acting with the scope of her agency relationship with Champaign Campaign, LLC and Amazing Realty, LLC. Plaintiff relied upon negligent misrepresentation by Argo but not Soliz and Carter. Difference between the value of what Plaintiff received in the transaction and the purchase price given – $642,000; past economic loss suffered as a consequence of Sessions’ reliance on the misrepresentation – $23,500; future economic loss suffered as a consequence of Sessions’ reliance on the misrepresentation; Argo was acting with the scope of her agency relationship with Champaign Campaign, LLC and Amazing Realty, LLC; the negligent supervision of Amazing Realty, LLC caused the occurrence in question; past loss of benefit of the bargain – $642,000; future loss of benefit of the bargain – $0; past out-of-pocket damages – $0; future out-of-pocket damages – $0; past loss of use of the property – $0; future loss of use of the property – $0; past loss of use of funds – $0; future loss of use of funds – $0; past mitigation expenses – $23,500; future mitigation expenses – $0;

Champagne Campaign, LLC did fail to comply with the agreement One to Four Family Residential Contract; past loss of benefit of the bargain – $642,000; future loss of benefit of the bargain – $0; past out-of-pocket damages – $0; future out-of-pocket damages – $0; past loss of use of the property – $0; future loss of use of the property – $0; past loss of use of funds – $0; future loss of use of funds – $0; past mitigation expenses – $23,500; future mitigation expenses – $0.

Argo was 100% responsible for the damages to the Plaintiff; Argo, Amazing Realty, LLC did not by clear and convincing evidence harm the Plaintiff which resulted from malice, or gross negligence. (Jury Charge was 36 pages).

CAUSE NO.: D-1-FM-21-000977; IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF BRIAN R. FOLLETT and BERNICE FOLLETT et. al.

JUDGE: JESSICA MANGRUM

DATES: Feb. 10 – 19, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Petitioner: Richel Rivers/Mary Evelyn McNamara, Rivers-McNamara, PLLC (Austin)

Respondent: Deanna B. Hogan/Caroline McClimon, Tuck McClimon, PLLC (Bastrop)

SUMMARY: The petitioner filed for divorce and conservatorship of the children. The Respondent filed a counter-petition requesting divorce and asserted the grounds of cruel treatment. A unanimous jury found that grounds exist for no-fault divorce but not due to cruelty by Brian Follett toward Bernice Follett. The jury further found that Brian Follett should be appointed the managing conservator for the children – two boys and one girl; Brian Follett could designate primary residence with a geographic restriction of Travis County and contiguous counties.

CAUSE NO.: D-1-GN-23-001607; STEVEN THOMPSON v. BRAYLON JAMES

JUDGE: LAURIE EISERLOH

DATES: Feb. 11 – 13, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff: David Round, Law Office of Thomas J. Henry

Defendant: J. Hampton Skelton, Skelton and Woody, PLLC (Austin)

SUMMARY: This case involves a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on Feb. 11, 2022. A unanimous jury found that neither party was responsible for the occurrence.

CAUSE NO.: D-1-GN-22-004572; PHILIP D. EDWARDS vs. LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGE: MARIA CANTU HEXSEL

DATES: Feb. 11 – 18, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff: J.R. ‘Rusty’ Phenix/Ryan Haun, Phenix and Crump, PLLC (Henderson)

Defendants: Catherine Hanna/Jessica Bigbie, Hanna and Plaut, LLC (Austin)

SUMMARY: The plaintiff claimed that the defendant refused to abide by the insurance policy and pay for the repairs to the vehicle by declaring the vehicle a total loss. A jury of 10 found that Liberty did comply with the policy, Liberty did not engage in unfair and deceptive practice that was the producing cause of damage to the Plaintiff but did make misrepresentation relating to the policy and awarded $19,500.96 for this specific finding; Liberty did not engage in unfair or deceptive practice knowingly, nor did Liberty fail to pay Edwards all of the proceeds due to him within 60 days; Liberty did not fail to timely pay Edwards claim. Attorney’s fees awarded for Plaintiff: trial court – $29,541.76; court of appeals – $25,000; review stage in the Supreme Court of Texas – $15,000; merits briefing stage in the Supreme Court of Texas – $10,000; oral argument and completion of proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas – $10,000.

CAUSE NO.: C-1-CV-23-000363; EMILY LEVENE v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGE: TODD WONG

DATES: Feb. 24 – 26, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff: Jarrett Stone, Stone Firm, PLLC (Dallas)

Defendant: Lily Wilson, Skelton and Woody, PLLC (Austin)

SUMMARY: This case involves an underinsured claim due to a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on May 20, 2021. The underlying insurance policy was $30,000. A unanimous jury of six found for the plaintiff and awarded the following damages: past physical pain – $72,000; future physical pain – $72,000; past physical impairment – $72,000; future physical impairment – $36,000.

CAUSE NO.: D-1-GN-23-000873; MARIA CAMPBELL v. VIRGILIO HINOJOSA III BRAYLON JAMES

JUDGE: LAURIE EISERLOH

DATES: Feb. 24 – 26, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff: David Donnel, Law Office of Thomas J. Henry (San Antonio)

Defendant: Mark Siefken, Siefken & Associates (Austin)

SUMMARY: This case arises from a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on Sept. 20, 2021. A unanimous jury found that negligence from the defendant, Virgilio Hinojosa, did not cause the occurrence in question.

CAUSE NO.: D-1-GN-22-003770; PRAVIN REDDY, MD and BROOKHAVEN AESTHETICS INSTITUTE LLC d/b/a REDDY AESTHETICS INSTITUTE v. HIGH TECH DESIGN SAFETY LLC d/b/a DBS PROTOTYPES LLC

JUDGE: JESSICA MANGRUM

DATES: Feb. 24 – 27, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff: Brian Smith/Cooper Fyfe, Dunn Smith LLP (Austin)

Defendant: Artie Pennington, Artie Pennington Law Offices, PLLC (Kyle)

SUMMARY: The plaintiffs claim that the defendant breached agreement, committed fraud, violated the Texas Theft Liability Act, and wrongfully exercised dominion over the plaintiffs’ money regarding the design and production of a pill sorter and dispenser. A jury of 10 found the following: Defendant failed to comply with the agreement, awarded $84,500 (difference between the amount the plaintiffs paid to defendant and the value of the work and services defendant provided), to compensate the plaintiffs; defendant’s failure to comply with the agreement was not excused by modifications or ratifications, defendants committed fraud and jury awarded $92,250; plaintiffs’ acts/omissions did contribute to the damages – 20 percent and Defendants 80%; and defendant’s fraud was not excused by plaintiffs’ acceptance of the benefits of the agreement after the plaintiffs’ full knowledge of defendant’s fraud.

CAUSE NO.: D-1-GN-22-000304; JOANNE ANTRIM, Ind. and Executor of the Estate of PAUL ANTRIM, Deceased v. TEXAS ONCOLOGY, P.A.; JOHN NEAL RUTLEDGE, M.D.; and AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

JUDGE: DANIELLA DESETA LYTTLE

DATES: Feb. 24 – March 4, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff: Mark McLean/Meredythe Heaton, Heaton McLean, PLLC (Austin)

Defendants: Paula Hale/Terri Harris, Steed Dunnill Reynolds Bailey Stephenson, LLP represented Texas

Oncology, P.A.

Todd Allen/Peter Anderson, Kershaw Anderson King, PLLC, represented John Rutledge, MD and ARA.

SUMMARY: The plaintiff brought a health care liability claim against the defendants alleging that the negligent care caused the death of Paul Antrim on Jan. 21, 2020. A unanimous jury found that Texas Oncology, P.A., by and through the acts of Kimberly Brooks, MSN, AGCNS-BC, AOCNS, and John Neal Rutledge, MD, were not negligent in the death of Paul Antrim.

CAUSE NO.: D-1-GN-21-001549; RAUL GARCIA v. D.A. ROGERS ENTERPRISE, INC. and EDGAR M. HERNANDEZ

JUDGE: AURORA MARTINEZ JONES

DATES: Feb. 25 – March 3, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff: Courtney Graham/Brad Bonilla, Bonilla Law Firm, PLLC (Austin)

Defendant: Samantha Jeffers, Germer Beaman & Brown, PLLC (Austin)

SUMMARY: This case involved a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on May 1, 2019. A unanimous jury found Edgar Hernandez 20 percent and D.A. Rogers Enterprises, Inc. 80 percent responsible for the occurrence. Jury awarded: past physical pain and mental anguish – $75,000; future physical pain and mental anguish – $25,000; past physical impairment – $5,000; future physical impairment – $5,000; and past medical care expenses – $100,000. The jury did not find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to Raul Garcia was from the gross negligence of D.A. Rogers Enterprises, Inc.

CRIMINAL

CAUSE NO.: D-1-DC-23-200830; D-1-DC-23-301142; D-1-DC-23-900109; D-1-DC-24-900025; STATE OF TEXAS v. MIGUEL DIAZ

JUDGE: KAREN SAGE

DATES: Feb. 4 – 11, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

State of Texas: Matthew Foye, Asst. District Attorney

Defendant: Charles Baird (Austin)

SUMMARY: Defendant was charged with accident involving the death of two persons; accident involving injury to one person; reckless injury to a child; and aggravated assault to two persons. The jury was not able to reach a unanimous decision on the six counts, so a mistrial was declared. (The jury deliberated until 8 pm)

CAUSE NO.: D-1-DC-22-300864; STATE OF TEXAS v. JUAN WILKINSON

JUDGE: MIKE DENTON

DATES: Feb. 24 – 25, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

State of Texas: Dominic Selvera, Asst. District Attorney

Defendant: Eric McDonald (Austin)

SUMMARY: Defendant was indicted for criminal mischief, damaging or destroying property valued between $2,500 and $30,000. The jury was not able to reach a verdict; an Allen charge was given; the jury again could not reach a verdict, so a mistrial was declared. The case is reset for March 20, 2025.

CAUSE NO.: D-1-DC-25-904012; STATE OF TEXAS v. BARTY SHARP

JUDGE: CHANTALL ELDRIDGE

DATES: Feb. 24 – 26, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

State of Texas: Jacques A. Roussel, Asst. District Attorney

Defendant: Geoffrey Puryear, Cofer & Connelly (Austin)

SUMMARY: Defendant was charged with three counts of sexual assault. The jury found the defendant not guilty in all counts.

CAUSE NO.: D-1-DC-22-900029; STATE OF TEXAS v. HENRY HOUSTON

JUDGE: BRENDA KENNEDY

DATES: Feb. 4 – 25, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

State of Texas: Brenda Gann, Asst. District Attorney

Defendant: Christopher Holub (Austin)

SUMMARY: Defendant was charged bail jumping on or about Jan. 5, 2021. The jury found the defendant guilty of the offense of bail jumping – failure to appear. The jury assessed the punishment of eight years and six months in TDCJ and a $10,000 fine.

CAUSE NO.: C-1-CR-20-600066; C-1-CR-24-004963; STATE OF TEXAS v. CHAD EDWARD LYNDEEN

JUDGE: KIM WILLIAMS

DATES: Feb. 24, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

State of Texas: Trevor Mathes, Asst. County Attorney

Defendant: Juan Val Antonio (Austin)

SUMMARY: Defendant was charged with theft of property valued at greater than $100 and less than $750. A jury of six convicted the defendant, and he was confined to 90 days in jail.

CAUSE NO.: C-1-CV-21-0004045; CITY OF AUSTIN, Condemnor v. LADIES OF THE EIGHTIES, INDEPENDENT BANK n/k/a INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL, AMARILLO NATIONS BANK, Condemnees

JUDGE: TODD WONG

DATES: Jan. 27 – 30, 2025

ATTORNEYS:

Condemnor: Kristina W. Silcocks/Angela Rodriguez, Phelps Dunbar LLP (Houston)

Condemnee: Matthew Harrier/Brent Hamilton, Brady and Hamilton, LLP (Austin)

SUMMARY: On Aug. 25, 2021, the City of Austin filed the petition for condemnation to acquire fee simple title to property. A unanimous jury of six found that the difference between the fair market value of the property as of March 14, 2022, and the fair market value of the remainder property as of March 14, 2022, immediately after the city’s acquisition of the property – $500,000.