Hong v. Havey

18 Citing cases

  1. Sloane v. Goldberg B'nai B'rith Towers

    577 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App. 2019)   Cited 23 times
    Reversing fee award where attorney "conceded that he had not allocated hours spent on particular tasks" and supporting invoices did not break down tasks by time spent

    "[G]eneralities about tasks performed provide insufficient information for the fact finder to meaningfully review whether the tasks and hours were reasonable and necessary under the lodestar method." Long , 442 S.W.3d at 255 ; Hong v. Havey , 551 S.W.3d 875, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). A trial court’s fee award cannot be based on evidence that fails to describe tasks and allocate hours spent on those tasks.

  2. Stover v. ADM Milling Co.

    No. 05-17-00778-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 28, 2018)   Cited 5 times
    In Stover, we relied on the principle that "[t]he jury is presumed to have followed the trial court's instructions," and we concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the exemplary damages award.

    Section 21.223 does not define the phrase "primarily for the direct benefit." See BUS. ORGS. § 21.223; Hong v. Havey, 551 S.W.3d 875, 885 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). However, courts have concluded that evidence showing that funds derived from the corporation's fraudulent conduct were "pocketed by or diverted to" the individual defendant is sufficient to demonstrate the requirement of a direct personal benefit.

  3. Bates Energy Oil & Gas v. Complete Oilfield Servs.

    361 F. Supp. 3d 633 (W.D. Tex. 2019)   Cited 41 times
    Discussing the history of TBOC § 21.223

    More recent cases fail to demonstrate any consensus. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals has followed its TecLogistics opinion in Hong v. Havey , 551 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist. 2018, no pet.). In Argent Holdings LLC v. East El Paso Physicians Med. Ctr., LLC , No. EP-17-CV-00199-ATB, 2018 WL 3328416 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2018) and 2018 WL 548676 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2018), the court applied the longstanding rule that a corporate agent is personally liable for his own fraudulent or tortious acts, even when acting in the course and scope of his employment, to conclude that an individual could be personally liable for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion if the claims were sufficient.

  4. Mintvest Capital, Ltd. v. Coinmint, LLC

    693 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App. 2024)

    "[G]eneralities about tasks performed provide insufficient information for the fact finder to meaningfully review whether the tasks and hours were reasonable and necessary under the lodestar method." Long, 442 S.W,3d at 255; Hong v. Havey, 551 S.W.3d 875, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). A trial court’s fee award cannot be based on evidence that fails to describe tasks and allocate hours spent on those tasks.

  5. GHP Nail Sys. v. Benelux Cosmetics B.V.

    651 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Question 41 tracks Pattern Jury Charges 108.1 and 108.2 addressing standards for piercing the corporate veil based on an alter ego theory. See Comm. on Pattern Jury Charges, State Bar of Tex., Texas Pattern Jury Charges: Business PJC 108.1, 108.2 & cmt. (2018); Hong v. Havey , 551 S.W.3d 875, 881 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the challenged finding and indulge every reasonable inference that would support it.

  6. Valley Forge Motor Co. v. Sifuentes

    595 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. App. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    " Hong v. Havey , 551 S.W.3d 875, 889 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (citing TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE ANN. § 21.223(a)(2) ). As an express exception of the statutory protection, however, subsection (a) of section 21.223 does not apply, "if [an] obligee demonstrates that the holder, beneficial owner, subscriber, or affiliate caused the corporation to be used for the purpose of perpetrating and did perpetrate an actual fraud on the obligee primarily for the direct personal benefit of the holder, beneficial owner, subscriber, or affiliate."

  7. Apache Corp. v. Davis

    573 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. App. 2019)   Cited 7 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Davis, the court held that an employee engaged in a protected activity when she sent an email expressly referencing "age discrimination" and "women discrimination," even though the email did not contain the details of her age discrimination claim.

    Herlong discussed the fee factors generally, but "generalities about tasks performed provide insufficient information for the fact finder to meaningfully review whether the tasks and hours were reasonable and necessary under the lodestar method." Long , 442 S.W.3d at 255 ; Hong v. Havey , 551 S.W.3d 875, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). A trial court's fee award cannot be based on evidence that fails to describe tasks and allocate hours spent on those tasks.SeeHong , 551 S.W.3d at 893.

  8. Apache Corp. v. Davis

    NO. 14-17-00306-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 4, 2019)

    Herlong discussed the fee factors generally, but "generalities about tasks performed provide insufficient information for the fact finder to meaningfully review whether the tasks and hours were reasonable and necessary under the lodestar method." Long, 442 S.W.3d at 255; Hong v. Havey, 551 S.W.3d 875, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). A trial court's fee award cannot be based on evidence that fails to describe tasks and allocate hours spent on those tasks.

  9. Thomas v. Hughes

    27 F.4th 995 (5th Cir. 2022)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reciting the elements for issue preclusion

    This requirement is met where the "evidence show[s] that funds derived from the corporation's allegedly fraudulent conduct were pocketed by or diverted to the individual defendant." Hong v. Havey , 551 S.W.3d 875, 885 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). Hughes contends that the second prong is not satisfied where, as here, an individual purportedly perpetrates a fraud solely to be able to continue to operate a business and continue to receive a salary.

  10. Tierra De Los Lagos, LLC v. Pontchartrain Partners, LLC

    Civil Action 3:21-cv-00298 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2024)

    “The party seeking attorney's fees bears the burden of proof.” Hong v. Havey, 551 S.W.3d 875, 891 (Tex. App-Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.).