HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals today held that a trial court properly granted a law firm’s summary judgment motion on a civil barratry claim.
Rocio Reyes sued the Mukerji Law Firm and others alleging claims for civil barratry, civil conspiracy, and vicarious liability.
According to the First Court’s opinion, Reyes and her minor daughter were in an automobile collision. She claims that she was presented with documents that she believed related to her chiropractic treatments but within them was a contingent contract.
“But within the stack of papers was a contingent fee contract and power of attorney, written in English, engaging (Sam) Mukerji as her attorney,” the opinion states. “Reyes does not speak or read English fluently. She signed the contracts, on behalf of herself and her daughter, believing they were related to their medical treatment.
“According to Reyes, she unwittingly retained Mukerji to represent her and her daughter for any claims related to the collision.”
Mukerji did not sign the contracts and they remain undated, the opinion states.
Court records show Mukerji filed a combined motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all Reyes’s claims.
The opinion states that the trial court granted summary judgment without any elaboration, and the record does not reflect that the trial court ever ruled on Reyes’ motion to strike or Mukerji’s motion for leave.
On appeal, Reyes contends that the trial court erred in considering, and not striking, Mukerji’s late-filed summary judgment evidence and in granting Mukerji’s combined motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment.
The 14th Court found no evidence of solicitation on behalf of Mukerji, affirming “the trial court’s summary judgment in all things.”
Appeals case No. 01-22-00430-CV