Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harrell v. S.P. Dairy Ashford

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

March 28, 2017

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL, Appellant
v.
S.P. DAIRY ASHFORD D/B/A SALON PARK & BRINSON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Appellees

         On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2014-68877

          Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Sherry Radack Chief Justice

         This case involves a dispute over the termination of plaintiff-appellant Artis Harrell's lease of a hair-salon workstation. The trial court granted summary judgment on Harrell's claims, concluding they were limitations barred. We affirm.

         PREVIOUS LAWSUIT

         In 2006, Harrell sued the two defendant-appellees in this suit, i.e., S.P. Dairy Ashford d/b/a Salon Park (SPDA) and Brinson Management Corporation (BMC), as well as an individual employee of the company defendants, i.e., Branch Brinson. In that earlier suit, [1] SPDA and BMC claimed that in the seven years that suit was pending, Harrell served only Branch Brinson, but never obtained proper service upon either SPDA or BMC. On March 25, 2013, the trial court granted summary judgment in Branch Brinson's favor on Harrell's claims and dismissed Harrell's claims against SPDA and BMA for want of prosecution.

         On April 5, 2013, Harrell appealed the trial court's March 25, 2013 judgment to this Court. On July 11, 2013, we dismissed his appeal because he "neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs."[2] Harrell then filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's March 25, 2013 judgment, two petitions for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's order sustaining the district clerk's contest to his affidavit of indigence, and a restricted appeal from both the trial court's March 25, 2013 judgment and its order sustaining the district court's contest to his indigence affidavit. We denied all three petitions for writ of mandamus[3] and dismissed the restricted appeal for want of jurisdiction.[4]

         THIS LAWSUIT

         On November 24, 2014, Harrell filed new lawsuit against SPDA and BMC based on the same allegations as his prior lawsuit.[5] Specifically, he alleged that on August 25, 2003, he entered a written lease with SPDA for use of a hair-salon station. The lease was for a four-week term, and it automatically renewed for four-week periods until notice of termination was given by either party. Harrell asserted that, on February 12, 2004, SPDA (through its agent Branch Brinson) terminated the lease agreement without giving him the required 28 days' notice. Harrell sought to hold BMC liable as SPDA's parent company, and to hold BMC liable for wrongfully interfering with his lease with SPDA. He pleaded claims for breach of contract, conversion, tortious interference, and exemplary damages.

         SPDA and BMC filed a general denial and asserted two affirmative defenses: (1) Harrell's claims are barred by the 4-year breach-of-contract and 2- year tort limitations periods, and (2) Harrell cannot prove he suffered any damages, as at all relevant times he was incarcerated.

         SPDA and BMC then filed a traditional motion for summary judgment on all of Harrell's claims, arguing that Harrell's claims accrued on February 12, 2004- the date of the lease termination-and that the statute of limitations had run on all his claims before he filed suit on November 24, 2014. The trial court granted summary judgment, and Harrell brought this appeal.

         SUMMARY JUDGMENT

         In his first issue, Harrell argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for SPDA and BMC because he raised a fact issue as to whether his claims were barred by limitation.

         A.Standard of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.