 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flores v. Rivas8/2/2001
Joe Ruben Flores and Ruth Viagas Flores, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Robert Charles Flores, Deceased (the Floreses), appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Raul Puente Rivas (Rivas) and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., F.K.A. Halliburton Company (Halliburton). We affirm.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Joe Ruben Flores and Ruth Viagas Flores filed a wrongful death and survival action for damages arising out of a February 14, 1996 accident involving an automobile driven by their twenty-one-year-old son, Robert Charles Flores, and a ten-wheel tractor-trailer rig owned by Halliburton and operated by Raul Puente Rivas. Following extensive discovery, the case was set for mediation on July 27, 1999 and for a jury trial on October 11, 1999. During the months preceding that trial setting, however, a serious dispute arose between the Floreses and their attorneys, James C. Barber and Randy Crownover. Barber learned through discovery that five witnesses, including an eyewitness and four DPS troopers, would testify that the vehicle driven by Robert Flores was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident. Believing these facts would have devastating consequences to their case, Barber recommended settlement to the Floreses and he asked for reasonable settlement authority. Extremely dissatisfied with Barber's recommendations, the Floreses ceased cooperating with Barber to the point that they failed to attend their depositions and mediation, refused to provide Barber with an explanation for their failure to appear, and refused to contact him. When Barber discovered that the Floreses had become angry with him over the settlement discussions and had "walked away from the lawsuit," he and Crownover filed a motion to withdraw on July 9, 1999. The trial court set the motion to withdraw for hearing on August 4, 1999. Counsel appeared and testified in support of his motion. While the Floreses' did not appear, they wrote a letter to the trial court, essentially objecting to Barber's withdrawal but also complaining about his loss of motivation and his failure to respond to their request to settle the case for no less than $2 million. They informed the court that they could not attend the hearing in Dallas because their son was attending college and could not drive them to Dallas. Barber disputed a number of assertions in the Floreses' letter both in writing and in his testimony during the hearing. The trial court orally granted the motion to withdraw and then signed an order on August 9 allowing Barber's withdrawal.
On the same day but subsequent to the withdrawal hearing, Halliburton filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which the trial court set for hearing on September 24, 1999. Halliburton served a copy of the motion on the Floreses by certified mail and the return receipt indicated that they received it on August 10. A copy was also provided to Barber. The Floreses retained new counsel on September 17, and on September 20, 1999, Clay Dugas and Charlton Hornsby filed a motion for continuance of the October 11 trial setting and then filed a formal appearance. Unaware that a motion for summary judgment had been filed or that a hearing had been scheduled, they did not file a response, move to continue that setting, or attend the hearing. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Halliburton and Rivas. The Floreses filed an unsworn motion for new trial, alleging that they were not adequately notified of the hearing nor of the necessity for filing a response due to their inability to understand English and their inexperience with the complexities of the law. The trial court denied the motion following an evidentiary hearing on October 2
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|