Texas SC opts not to hear NISD’s petition to enforce settlement

By David Yates | Jul 7, 2015

The Nederland Independent School District had no luck appealing to the Texas Supreme Court, with the high court recently deciding not to hear NIDS’s petition for review.

Not happy with her $20,000 settlement, plaintiff Irma Barragan, who sued NISD following a collision with a bus, appealed. On Feb. 5, the Ninth Court of Appeals reversed the order enforcing the settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Two months later, NISD filed a petition for review, asking whether the high court should grant the petition in order to establish an abuse of discretion standard of review to motion to enforce orders and create a uniformity of motion to enforce practice that can be relied on in the future.

Nevertheless, on June 5 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition, court records show.

In 2012, Barragan brought suit in Jefferson County against NISD and its employee – a bus driver who allegedly made an improper left turn and struck Barragan, inflicting damages on her in excess of $100,000, court records show.

On Sept. 25, 2012, Barragan’s former attorney, Cynthia Frederick, signed and e-filed a letter agreeing to settle the claim for $20,000.

However, the letter did not contain Barragan’s signature. Two days later, Barragan filed a motion to substitute Paul Ferguson of the Provost Umphrey Law Firm as her attorney, citing as grounds Frederick’s failure to communicate as the reason.

The following day, NISD filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, asserting the letter signed by Frederick constituted “an enforceable settlement agreement in accordance with Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,” court records state.

On Nov. 27, 2012, Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, granted NISD’s motion, but declined to state any factual findings or order Barragan to take any particular action.

Floyd also awarded NISD more than $5,000 in court costs and attorney’s fees, plus additional fees if Barragan opted to appeal his finding.

“The trial court (Floyd) did not resolve any factual issues, nor did it determine that no genuine issues of material fact exist,” stated the Ninth Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Charles Kreger.

“We conclude that the trial court erred by adjudicating the validity of the Rule 11 agreement and dismissing Barragan’s case with prejudice without either following proper procedures for a final pretrial disposition or conducting a bench trial.”

Justices reversed Floyd’s order granting NISD’s motion and awarding of attorney’s fees, remanding the cause for further proceedings.

Trial case No. E191-975

Appeals case No. December 31, 2009350-CV

Supreme Court case No. 15-0322

Want to get notified whenever we write about Texas Supreme Court ?

Sign-up Next time we write about Texas Supreme Court, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Texas Supreme Court

More News

The Record Network