Stromberger v. Turley

8 Citing cases

  1. Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell

    433 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that a party should be afforded an opportunity to present evidence in support of its claims and analogizing uncontested trials and uncontested hearings

    When a monetary sanction awarded pursuant to Rule 215 “is not tied to any evidence in the record and the basis of calculating the amount is unknown, the sanction constitutes an impermissible arbitrary fine.” Stromberger v. Turley Law Firm, 251 S.W.3d 225, 226–27 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Tyson, 943 S.W.2d 527, 535 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, orig. proceeding)); S. Main Bank, 837 S.W.2d at 741 (“We hold that when a trial court assesses a monetary sanction, there must be some evidence in the record linking the amount awarded to harm actually suffered by the party seeking sanctions.”); see also Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177, 187 (Tex.2012) (“Sanctions for discovery abuse should not be dispensed as arbitrary monetary penalties unrelated to any harm.”). Arbitrary fines “are not susceptible to meaningful review.”

  2. Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell

    NO. 01-11-00292-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 29, 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Vacating sanctions rather than reversing and remanding when record does not show why the trial court chose to impose the amount of sanctions it did

    When a monetary sanction awarded pursuant to Rule 215 "is not tied to any evidence in the record and the basis of calculating the amount is unknown, the sanction constitutes an impermissible arbitrary fine." Stromberger v. Turley Law Firm, 251 S.W.3d 225, 226-27 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Tyson, 943 S.W.2d 527, 535 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, orig. proceeding)); S. Main Bank, 837 S.W.2d at 741 ("We hold that when a trial court assesses a monetary sanction, there must be some evidence in the record linking the amount awarded to harm actually suffered by the party seeking sanctions."); see also Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177, 187 (Tex. 2012) ("Sanctions for discovery abuse should not be dispensed as arbitrary monetary penalties unrelated to any harm."). Arbitrary fines "are not susceptible to meaningful review."

  3. Para-Chem v. S.P.

    No. 01-06-01073-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    When a monetary sanction is imposed, the sanctionable conduct alone does not prescribe the amount of the sanction. Stromberger v. Turley Law Firm, 251 S.W.3d 225, 227 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). "To review the decision of the amount of the monetary sanction imposed by examining only the conduct giving rise to the sanction would permit a `wavering standard of subjectivity' unrestrained by law or statute."

  4. Union Carbide v. Martin

    349 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 21 times
    Reversing sanctions award

    "In examining whether the trial court has abused its discretion, we must be able to determine not only that the trial court's decision to sanction the conduct at issue was proper, but that the sanction the trial court chose was just." Stromberger v. Turley Law Firm, 251 S.W.3d 225, 227 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). An appellate court applies the factors enunciated in TransAmerican Natural Gas to determine whether an imposition of sanctions is just: first, a direct relationship must exist between the offensive conduct and the sanction imposed; and second, a just sanction must not be excessive and "should be no more severe than necessary to satisfy its legitimate purposes."

  5. Gilbert v. Moseley

    453 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    In this case, there was evidence about attorney fees at a level which would readily support the amount of the sanctions award. SeeStromberger v. Turley Law Firm, 251 S.W.3d 225, 226 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2008, no pet.). Even if there was no such evidence, we would be required to assume that the omitted portions of the record supported the award.

  6. Stromberger v. Turley Law Firm

    315 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 11 times
    Upholding sanctions of $5,300 for party’s failure to appear for his scheduled deposition or produce any documents pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum, based on evidence of the amount of time opposing counsel spent on preparing the sanctions motion with a voluminous file

    On appeal, we vacated the order imposing the monetary sanction against Stromberger and his attorney because we concluded that Turley did not submit evidence showing what fees or expenses it incurred as a result of Stromberger's alleged conduct. Stromberger v. Turley Law Firm, 251 S.W.3d 225, 227 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). After our opinion issued, Turley reurged its motion for sanctions in the trial court.

  7. Elgohary v. Tx. Wor. Co.

    No. 14-09-00108-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 10, 2010)   Cited 6 times

    If a monetary discovery sanction is not supported by evidence in the record and the basis of calculating the amount is unknown, the sanction constitutes an impermissible arbitrary fine. Stromberger v. Turley Law Firm, 251 S.W.3d 225, 226-27 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). Arbitrary fines are not susceptible to meaningful review.

  8. S.O.R.M. v. Foutz

    279 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. App. 2009)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that trial court findings similar to those here were sufficiently specific to satisfy chapter 10

    When a sanction is assessed without providing the basis for calculating the amount, the sanction constitutes an impermissible arbitrary fine. See Stromberger v. Turley Law Firm, 251 S.W.3d 225, 226-27 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). Because the trial court did not provide a basis for its calculation, we cannot affirm its sanction.