Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin
THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-13-001879, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE
Chief Justice Rose, Justices
Rose, Chief Justice
Bui, acting pro se, sued five parties claiming various
injuries stemming from water damage in his condominium unit.
A jury returned a verdict against Bui and he now appeals,
complaining that the trial court committed reversible error
in its disposition of three pretrial matters. For the reasons
explained below, we will affirm the trial court's
the background of this case is well known to the parties, we
recite only the facts and procedural background that are
necessary to the resolution of this case. See Tex.
R. App. P. 47.1 (directing appellate courts to issue opinions
that are as "brief as practicable" but address
issues necessary to final disposition); id. R. 47.4
(explaining that memorandum opinions should be "no
longer than necessary to advise the parties of the
court's decision and the basic reasons for
it");Spicewood Springs Rd. Tunnel Coal. v.
Leffingwell, No. 03-11-00260, 2013 WL 2631750 (Tex.
App.-Austin June 6, 2013, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.).
2013, Bui sued five parties asserting various causes of
action arising from water-damage repairs to his condominium
unit. On the property-management side, Bui sued Beck and
Company Real Estate Services, Inc.; Seton Avenue Condominiums
Council of Co-Owners, Inc.; and the individual property
manager, Lisa Spearman (collectively, "the HOA").
On the construction side, Bui sued C&D Construction, LLC,
and Jason Wofford, individually, and d/b/a JW Construction
(collectively, "the Contractors").
time the case went to trial on July 11, 2016, only one
defendant remained-C&D Construction. A jury returned a
verdict against Bui, and he now appeals. In his request for
relief, Bui asks us to reverse an order enforcing a Rule 11
agreement that dismissed the other four defendants, to vacate
the judgment on the verdict, and to remand the cause for a
three issues, Bui challenges the trial court's (1) order
enforcing a Rule 11 agreement between Bui, the HOA, and Jason
Wofford, (2) failure to rule on a motion to strike Bui's
amended pleadings, and (3) order quashing Bui's
trial-witness subpoenas. We address each of these in turn.
Rule 11 agreement and the motion to quash
first and third issues complain of the trial court's
order enforcing a Rule 11 agreement between Bui, the HOA, and
Jason Wofford, and its order granting a motion to quash
Bui's witness subpoenas. However, because Bui has not
furnished a reporter's record from either hearing, we
cannot determine that the trial court committed reversible
error. See Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d
842, 843 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that appellant
must provide complete record in order for appellate court to
properly find reversible error); see also Willms v.
Americas Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. App.-Dallas
2006, pet. denied.) (holding that in absence of
reporter's record, appellate court must presume that
evidence heard at hearing supports trial court's ruling).
Accordingly, we overrule Bui's first and third issues.
Second Amended Petition
labels his second issue as a complaint about the trial
court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the HOA,
but we take Bui's complaint here to be that the trial
court erred in not considering Bui's Second Amended
Petition and the HOA's subsequent motion to strike those
pleadings. We characterize the issue as such because Bui does