Girlfriend sued her Boyfriend for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement after their relationship ended. The trial court granted Boyfriend’s motion for summary judgment, affirming the judgment but reversing the sanctions award. Girlfriend appealed the trial court’s decision, claiming the court improperly denied her motion to compel and granted Boyfriend’s motion for sanctions.
Girlfriend’s Motion to Compel was denied due to the inclusion of intimate visual material without consent, violating Texas Penal Code section 21.16. Boyfriend’s Motion for Sanctions was granted, resulting in a $5,850 award for attorney’s fees incurred in addressing the Motion to Compel. Girlfriend filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing the trial court abused its discretion and improperly denied her Motion to Compel.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Girlfriend’s Motion to Compel, as the requested documents were irrelevant to the case. Boyfriend’s Notice of Oral Hearing was served electronically to Girlfriend’s attorney, and the presumption of receipt was not rebutted by evidence of nonreceipt.
Girlfriend’s Motion to Compel was denied due to her failure to appear at the hearing and her attorney’s admission of missing the Notice of Hearing. The trial court awarded $5,860 in sanctions to Boyfriend for responding to the Motion to Compel, which included sexually explicit photographs, finding it groundless and brought in bad faith. The sanctions order was upheld as the trial court provided particularized findings of good cause.
The trial court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions under Rule 13 and Chapter 9 without proper findings. The court also abused its discretion by denying a motion for continuance without a hearing and by denying a motion to take a deposition without explaining the diligence used to schedule it.
Girlfriend’s motion for continuance was denied due to her failure to demonstrate diligence in procuring a deposition. The trial court also denied her motion to depose Boyfriend after the discovery deadline, as she failed to establish diligence in seeking his deposition. Boyfriend’s amended answer was not implicitly granted leave, as Girlfriend failed to present her motion to strike it to the trial court.
Girlfriend sued Boyfriend for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, claiming he promised to pay her $250,000 for deactivating her dating profile and entering a relationship with him. However, the court ruled that there was no evidence of consideration by Girlfriend, as the promises were made after they were already in a relationship and did not require any performance by her. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Boyfriend’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment on both claims. The Court upheld the trial court’s No Evidence Summary Judgment for Boyfriend, but reversed the sanction award because the record didn’t include or support a finding that the Motion to Compel was groundless.
