Opinion
05-23-00400-CV
01-30-2024
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Appellant v. HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC. AND AGUIRRE & FIELDS, LP, NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY, PRAIRIE LINK CONSTRUCTORS JV, FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., AND BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-13917
Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CORY L. CARLYLE, JUSTICE
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. sued Halff Associates, Inc. for breach of contract, contribution and proportionate responsibility, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and indemnification related to a construction project. On appeal, AECOM argues the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to grant AECOM's third request for an extension of time to file a certificate of merit. We affirm in this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
AECOM sued Halff on October 10, 2022, the same day that the ten-year statute of repose on the underlying construction project expired. AECOM's claim involved damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional and therefore required a certificate of merit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002(a). AECOM requested a 30-day extension to file its certificate of merit and its request was granted. Id. § 150.002(c). AECOM subsequently requested an additional 90-day extension and it was also granted. Id.
On the day that its second extension expired, AECOM filed a request for an additional 60-day extension. This time, it argued its experts had only recently become aware of subsequent relevant work by a different company that materially impacted their respective analyses. Halff countered that AECOM's third request for an extension of time should be denied and submitted evidence supporting a conclusion that AECOM had notice of the work that purportedly impacted its experts' analyses by June or July of 2021. Specifically, Halff introduced affidavits from its counsel that stated (1) an outside engineering firm was hired by AECOM and Halff to investigate issues relevant to AECOM's claims against Halff; (2) that outside engineering firm emailed a PowerPoint presentation to Halff's counsel, AECOM's in-house lawyer, and AECOM's Vice-President on June 17, 2021; (3) that PowerPoint presentation contained a five-page section titled "Pavement Design Report SH-161 Pavement Widening"; (4) the outside engineering firm presented its findings to both Halff and AECOM via videoconference on July 28, 2021; and (5) during that conference, the outside engineering firm specifically "discussed whether the NTTA widening project would have affected the alleged movement of the MSE walls." The trial court denied AECOM's request for a third extension of time and granted Halff's motion to dismiss.
"A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles." Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1998). There is no abuse of discretion when the court's decision is based on conflicting evidence, some of which reasonably supports the decision. RSR Corp. v. Siegmund, 309 S.W.3d 686, 709 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). "An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial judge reaches a decision that is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear error of law or violates a ministerial duty." In re Alford, 645 S.W.3d 315, 316 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2022, no pet.). When analyzing whether an abuse of discretion occurred, we must decide whether (1) the trial court had sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion and (2) failed to make a reasonable decision. Interest of J.A.A., No. 05-22-00578-CV, 2023 WL 4944505, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 3, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). To find an abuse of discretion when factual matters are in dispute, we must "conclude that the facts and circumstances of the case extinguish any discretion in the matter." Samlowski v. Wooten, 332 S.W.3d 404, 410 (Tex. 2011).
The record before us contains an affidavit from Halff's attorney that provided the trial court with sufficient information warranting its exercise of discretion. See Interest of J.A.A., 2023 WL 4944505, at *1. This affidavit is evidence of a substantive and probative character that supports the trial court's decision. See Interest of S.B., No. 05-20-00338-CV, 2023 WL 6284703, at *4 (Tex. App.-Dallas Sept. 27, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh'g). When viewed in conjunction with the remainder of the record, this affidavit presented the trial court with several factual disputes, including (1) whether AECOM had sufficient notice of the subsequent work that did not justify granting a third extension of time; (2) whether AECOM's experts' lack of timely knowledge concerning subsequent work was attributable to AECOM; and (3) whether AECOM's experts acted with insufficient diligence in discovering the subsequent work and the potential impact thereof on their respective analyses. Thus, the facts and circumstances of this case did not extinguish any discretion concerning the trial court's ruling. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied AECOM's third request for an extension of time to file its certificate of merit. See Samlowski, 332 S.W.3d at 410.
We overrule AECOM's sole issue on appeal and affirm the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC. AND AGUIRRE & FIELDS, LP, NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY, PRAIRIE LINK CONSTRUCTORS JV, FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., AND BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. recover their costs of this appeal from appellant AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
Judgment entered this 30th day of January, 2024.