Macina, Bose, Copeland & Assocs. v. Yanez

11 Citing cases

  1. Bratton v. Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC

    No. 01-23-00015-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 18, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    (mem. op.) (quoting Robert Navarro & Assocs. Eng'g, Inc. v. Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, 389 S.W.3d 475, 482 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, no pet.)); Macina, Bose, Copeland & Assocs. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL 4837691, at *7-8 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) (holding trial court abused its discretion by not dismissing claims against two defendants because certificate of merit "did not distinguish between the acts, omissions, and errors of each defendant but collectively assigned the negligence and errors to both of them"). Instead, the certificate of merit should specifically address "the conduct of the professional who provided the service at issue," and "identify each defendant and that defendant's specific conduct."

  2. Bratton v. Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC

    No. 01-23-00015-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 12, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    (mem. op.) (quoting Robert Navarro & Assocs. Eng'g, Inc. v. Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, 389 S.W.3d 475, 482 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, no pet.)); Macina, Bose, Copeland & Assocs. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL 4837691, at *7-8 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) (holding trial court abused its discretion by not dismissing claims against two defendants because certificate of merit "did not distinguish between the acts, omissions, and errors of each defendant but collectively assigned the negligence and errors to both of them"). Instead, the certificate of merit should specifically address "the conduct of the professional who provided the service at issue," and "identify each defendant and that defendant's specific conduct." T & T Eng'g Servs., 2022 WL 3588718, at *7 (quoting Fluor Enters., Inc. v. Maricelli, No. 09-19-00121-CV, 2020 WL 2070257, at *5 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Apr. 30, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.)).

  3. AMEC Foster Wheeler U.S. Corp. v. Maricelli

    NO. 09-19-00122-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 2, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    As to Plaintiffs' reliance on Sawyer's reference to "[t]he firms" in his conclusions, Foster Wheeler argues that, "[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that 'the firms' included Foster Wheeler, . . . this conclusory sentence is a collective assertion of negligence not permitted by Chapter 150 or the case law interpreting same." In its motion to dismiss, at the hearing on the motion, and on appeal, Foster Wheeler cites to three cases in support of this argument: Macina, Bose, Copeland & Assocs. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 10128, at **14-22 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. abated) (mem. op.); DHM Design v. Morzak, No. 05-15-00103-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6255, at **7-8 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 19, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.); and Robert Navarro & Assocs. Eng'g, Inc. v. Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, 389 S.W.3d 475, 480-82 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.).

  4. In re Channelview Flooding Litig.

    No. 01-22-00946-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 31, 2024)

    (mem. op.) (quoting Robert Navarro & Assocs. Eng'g, Inc. v. Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, 389 S.W.3d 475, 482 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, no pet.)); Macina, Bose, Copeland & Assocs. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL 4837691, at *7-8 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.). Instead, the certificate of merit must specifically address "the conduct of the professional who provided the service at issue," and "identify each defendant and that defendant's specific conduct."

  5. Logical Sys. v. Berrios

    No. 05-23-00662-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 9, 2024)

    The answer to that question is just an interrogatory or deposition away and has nothing to do with the ultimate question of design defect. To the extent portions of Macina, Bose, Copeland and Associates v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL 4837691 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.), and DHM Design v. Morzak, No. 05-15-00103-CV, 2015 WL 3823942 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 19, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.), are to the contrary on the facts of this case, they should be overruled. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the analysis in either case withstands LaLonde, 593 S.W.3d 212, Pedernal Energy, LLC v. Bruington Eng'g, 536 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. 2017), and Melden & Hunt, Inc. v. East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corporation, 520 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2017).

  6. James Deaver Servs. v. Mafrige

    No. 01-22-00194-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 13, 2022)

    (mem. op.) (quoting Robert Navarro & Assocs. Eng 'g, Inc. v. Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, 389 S.W.3d 475, 482 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, no pet.) (holding that section 150.002(b) "does not allow for collective assertions of negligence" in certificate of merit); Fluor Enters., Inc. v. Maricelli, No. 09-19-00121-CV, 2020 WL 2070257, at *5 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Apr. 30, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding that certificate of merit must specifically address "the conduct of the professional who provided the service at issue"); Macina, Bose, Copeland & Assocs. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL 4837691, at *7-8 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) (concluding that claims against group of defendants should have been dismissed because certificate of merit "did not distinguish between the acts, omissions, and errors of each defendant but collectively assigned the negligence and errors to both of them"); DHM Design v. Morzak, No. 05-15-00103-CV, 2015 WL 3823942, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 19, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("The plain language of the statute requires the certificate to speak specifically to the conduct of the professional who provided the service at issue in the theory of recovery. . . . The certificate must identify the particular defendant and that defendant's specific conduct."); see also Res. Planning Assocs., LLC v. Sea Scout Base Galveston & Point Glass, LLC, No. 01-19-00965-CV, 2021 WL 1375797, at *16-17 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 13, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (distinguishing Macina

  7. T & T Eng'g Servs. v. Danks

    No. 01-21-00139-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 23, 2022)   Cited 6 times
    In T & T Engineering Services, the plaintiff was injured while working on a drilling rig allegedly designed, fabricated, or manufactured by T&T Engineering and Basic Equipment.

    Our sister courts of appeals have held that section 150.002(b) "does not allow for collective assertions of negligence" in the certificate of merit. Robert Navarro & Assocs. Eng'g, Inc. v. Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, 389 S.W.3d 475, 482 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, no pet.); see Macina, Bose, Copeland & Assocs. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL 4837691, at *7-8 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) (concluding that claims against group of defendants should have been dismissed because certificate of merit "did not distinguish between the acts, omissions, and errors of each defendant but collectively assigned the negligence and errors to both of them").

  8. Aerotek, Inc. v. Josephson Dunlap, LLP

    No. 05-21-00037-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 19, 2022)

    ary judgment is limited to (1) raising the arguments it properly raised in the trial court or (2) challenging the legal sufficiency of appellees' no-evidence motion. See White v. Calvache, No. 05-17-00127-CV, 2018 WL 525684, *5 n.9, *6 n.12 (Tex. App.-Dallas Jan. 24, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (refusing to consider arguments other than legally sufficiency of appellees' no-evidence summary judgment motion for the first time on appeal); Brown v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 01-14-00725-CV, 2015 WL 4760201, at *5 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 13, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Any issues, except legal sufficiency, not expressly presented by the non-movants to the trial court in a written response may not be considered as grounds for reversal on appeal."); see also Jose Fuentes Co. v. Alfaro, 418 S.W.3d 280, 287-88 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2013, pet. denied) (en banc); Macina, Bose, Copeland & Assocs. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180- CV, 2017 WL 4837691, at *5 & n.2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Jose Fuentes). Insofar as the legal sufficiency of a no-evidence summary judgment motion is concerned, "[a] motion for a no-evidence summary judgment must specifically 'state the elements as to which there is no evidence;' there may be no 'conclusory motions or general no-evidence challenges to an opponent's case.'"

  9. Res. Planning Assocs. v. Galveston

    NO. 01-19-00965-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2021)

    We decline to adopt such an approach. In support of their argument, RPA and Shipley rely on Macina, Bose, Copeland and Associates v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL 4837691 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 26 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.). In Macina, the plaintiff sued a group of engineers and architects after her husband was severely injured while working on a construction site.

  10. Fluor Enters. v. Maricelli

    NO. 09-19-00121-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 30, 2020)   Cited 6 times

    "[Section 150.002(b)] has been interpreted to require the affidavit to set forth the asserted negligence of each professional and does not permit collective assertions of negligence." Macina, Bose, Copeland & Assocs. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 10128, at **14-15 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. abated) (mem. op.) (citing Robert Navarro & Assocs. Eng'g, Inc. v. Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, 389 S.W.3d 475, 482 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.)).