Richardson v. Foster & Sear, L.L.P.
257 S.W.3d 782, 2008 WL 2330921, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 4141 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A notice letter under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) is sufficient if it advises the defendant in reasonable detail of the specific complaint and damages sought, and a failure to provide adequate DTPA notice does not authorize a court to dismiss a plaintiff's separate, non-DTPA claims.
Facts:
- Willie Richardson hired the law firm Foster & Sear to represent him in a personal injury claim related to asbestos exposure.
- Willie Richardson died before the claim was resolved.
- LaShun Richardson, Willie's son and heir, agreed to allow Foster & Sear to continue representing his interest in the asbestos litigation.
- Richardson alleged that Foster & Sear subsequently settled the asbestos claim without his approval.
- Richardson further alleged that Foster & Sear withheld his share of the settlement proceeds from him.
Procedural Posture:
- LaShun Richardson sued Foster & Sear, L.L.P. in a Texas trial court, asserting claims for DTPA violations, negligence, and breach of contract.
- Foster & Sear filed a plea in abatement, arguing that Richardson failed to provide the required pre-suit notice under the DTPA.
- The trial court granted the plea and abated (paused) the lawsuit until Richardson provided proper notice.
- Richardson sent a one-page letter, and his subsequent motion to lift the abatement was denied.
- Richardson then sent a second, six-page notice letter to Foster & Sear.
- Foster & Sear filed a motion to dismiss the entire suit, arguing the second notice letter was still deficient.
- The trial court granted Foster & Sear's motion and dismissed Richardson’s entire suit.
- Richardson (Appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by dismissing a plaintiff's entire lawsuit, including both DTPA and non-DTPA claims, after the plaintiff, during a court-ordered abatement, provides a detailed letter outlining their specific complaints and the amount of damages sought?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Anne Gardner
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing a plaintiff's entire lawsuit under these circumstances. The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) requires a plaintiff to provide pre-suit notice that details the specific complaint and damages sought to encourage settlement. Richardson's six-page letter, sent during the abatement period, clearly explained his claims—that the firm settled without his permission and withheld funds—and specified the damages he was seeking. This letter met the statute's 'fairly low threshold' by providing sufficient detail for Foster & Sear to evaluate a potential settlement, thereby fulfilling the purpose of the notice requirement. Furthermore, even if the DTPA notice had been deficient, there is no legal authority for a trial court to dismiss separate, non-DTPA causes of action, such as negligence or breach of contract, based on a procedural failure related only to the DTPA claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the DTPA's pre-suit notice requirement is intended to be a functional tool for encouraging settlement, not a rigid procedural hurdle designed to dispose of cases. The court emphasizes a 'reasonable detail' standard, focusing on whether the notice gives the defendant enough information to assess the claim and consider settlement. Crucially, the ruling establishes a clear separation between procedural requirements for statutory claims like the DTPA and common law claims, preventing a procedural defect in one from contaminating the entire lawsuit. This protects plaintiffs from having their entire case dismissed due to a curable error on a single cause of action.
Unlock the full brief for Richardson v. Foster & Sear, L.L.P.