FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
No. 01-14-00969-CV HOUSTON, TEXAS
2/25/2015 1:30:37 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
AT HOUSTON, TEXAS
BRYAN BLACK,
Appellant
v.
SMITH PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.,
Appellee
On Appeal from the 189th Judicial District Court
The Honorable William R. Burke, Judge Presiding
APPENDIX TO CROSS-APPELLANT’S BRIEF
TODD H. TINKER
State Bar No. 20056150
TinkerLaw@TinkerLaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF TODD H. TINKER, PC
P.O. BOX 802606
Dallas, TX 75380
Telephone: (214) 914-3760
Facsimile: (214) 853-4328
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
APPENDIX A - Interlocutory Summary Judgment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
APPENDIX B - Motion for Attorney’s Fee Award.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
APPENDIX C - Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Attorney’s Fee Award. . . . . . . . . . 12
APPENDIX D - Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Attorney’s Fee Award. . 20
APPENDIX E - Order Denying Motion for Attorney’s Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ii
8/18/2014 4:24:01 PM
Chris Daniel •District Clerk
Harris County
£ Envelope No: 2197083
Cause No. 2012-56941
lh By: SWEENEY, PAUL H
BRYAN BLACK, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v. §
189th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR and SMITH §
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.
Defendants. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
INTERLOCUTORY SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CAME BEFORE THE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION the Motions for Traditional
and No-Evidence Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motions”), filed by defendant Smith
'b-\
Protective Services, Inc. (“Smith”).
The Court, having reviewed the Motions, any responses thereto, the pleadings and papers
on file, and having heard arguments of counsel, finds that there are no genuine issues of material
fact regarding plaintiffs inability to establish at least one element in each of the claims he asserts
against Smith. Accordingly, the Motions are well-taken and should be, and are hereby
GRANTED.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff take
nothing by his claims against defendant Smith and that all of plaintiffs claims against Defendant
Smith are hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice to the re-filing of same.
All relief not specifically granted is hereby DENIED.
Signed this 1-c day of 2014.
Honorable William R. Burke, Jr.
Presiding Judge
INTERLOCUTORY SUMMARY JUDGMENT page SOLO
1 Appendix A 621
9/25/2014 11:57:40 AM
Chris Daniel • District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 2619947
By: PAUL SWEENEY
Original File Date: 9/25/201 4 11 :57:40 AM
Cause No. 2012-56941
BRYAN BLACK, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v. §
189th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR and SMITH §
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.
Defendants. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AWARD
Defendant Smith Protective Services, Inc. (“Smith”) files this Motion for Attorney Fees
Award (the “Motion”) and shows as follows:
Certificate of Conference
The undersigned certifies that agreement was sought from plaintiff to the relief requested
herein. Agreement was not reached so this Motion is submitted for the Court’s consideration.
Evidence in Support of Motion
In support of this Motion, Smith refers to the Court to the following documents
attached to the Declaration of Todd H. Tinker in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees Award
(“Tinker Declaration”):
a. Exhibit “A-': Declaration Invoking Settlement Offer Provisions;
b. Exhibit “B”: Settlement Offer Letter.
Basis of Motion
2. On March 1 1, 2014 Smith filed with the Court its Declaration Invoking
Settlement Offer Provisions fEx. “A”1. On March 12, 2014, Smith transmitted to counsel for
plaintiff via facsimile a Settlement Offer offering to settle plaintiffs claims against Smith for
payment by Smith of the total amount of $5,000 [Tinker Declaration ; Ex. “B”1.
MO TION FOR ATTORNEY Tl-liS AWARD page 1 of 1
2 Appendix B 632
3. This Court entered an Interlocutory Summary Judgment in Smith’s behalf on
August 18, 2014, dismissing all of plaintiffs claims against Smith.
4. Pursuant to TRCP 167.2 and Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. C. §42.001 et.seq., because
plaintiff failed to obtain a judgment against Smith that was at least 80% of the amount offered by
Smith in settlement, Smith is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred
subsequent to the March 26, 2014 deadline for plaintiff to accept the settlement offer.
5. From March 27, 2014 through the filing of this Motion, counsel for defendant has
worked approximately 25 hours and Smith has incurred a total of $8793.97 in costs and expenses
during that same time period [Tinker Declaration, If 5]. The reasonable value of the attorney’s
fees provided by the undersigned to Smith is $8,125.00 [Tinker Declaration, If 4].
6. Plaintiff received judgment from defendant Muhammed Zaffar in the amount of
$49,500.00 Accordingly, pursuant to Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. C. §42.004, Smith is entitled to
judgment from plaintiff in the amount of $16,918.97.
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION
Please take notice that this Motion will be determined upon submission on or after 8:00
a.m. on Monday, October 13, 2014.
WHEREFORE, BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, defendant Smith Protective
Services, Inc. requests that, upon notice and opportunity to be heard, the Court grant this Motion,
and grant Smith judgment against plaintiff in the amount of $16,918.97, plus post-judgment
interest at the highest rate allowed by law, and such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to
which Smith may show itself to be justly entitled.
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AWARD page 2 of 1
3 Appendix B 633
Respectfully submitted:
ToddH. Tinker
SBN 20056150
TinkerLaw@TinkerLaw.com
Law Office of Todd H. Tinker, P.C.
P.O. Box 802606
Dallas, Texas 75380
(214)914-3760 (Phone)
(214) 853-4328 (Fax)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing will be served upon all parties and/or
_
counsel upon whom service is required pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as set
forth below on September 25th, 2014.
Todd H. Tinker
Via Email
Patrick G. Hubbard, Esq
phubbard@patrickhubbardlaw.com
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AWARD page 3 of 1
4 Appendix B 634
9/25/2014 11:57:40 AM
-
Chris Daniel District Clerk
Harris County
Envelope No: 2619947
By: SWEENEY, PAUL H
Cause No. 2012-56941
BRYAN BLACK, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v. §
189th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR and SMITH §
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.
Defendants. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECLARATION OF TODD H. TINKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES
My name is Todd H. Tinker, my date of birth is June 5, 1962, and my address is PO Box
6447, San Antonio, Texas, 78209. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
1. I was licensed to practice law in the State of Texas in November, 1989. 1 have
continuously practiced law in Texas since that time. My practice consists primarily of trying
civil cases of various types. In the last 15 years I have tried numerous bench and jury trials
involving personal injury, breach of contract, civil RICO, Title VII, and other various tort cases.
I have been lead counsel on all of these matters. I have tried cases in both state and federal
courts, and have otherwise handled cases in Dallas, Tarrant, Harris, Bexar, Travis, and other
counties in Texas. I am familiar with the range of prevailing legal fees being charged by counsel
of similar experience in Texas, including in Harris County.
2. Since 1994 I have been employed as general counsel for Smith Protective
Services, Inc. (“Smith”). As such, I am compensated on a monthly retainer basis for my services
performed for Smith. From March 26th through the execution of this declaration, this lawsuit was
the primary matter on which I performed services for Smith.
DECLARATION OF TODD H, TINKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES page 1 of 4
5 Appendix B 635
3. Since March 26, 2014, 1 have expended significant time and effort representing
Smith in this lawsuit. Among the tasks that I have performed from then until now are the
following:
a. appearing in Fort Worth for the scheduled deposition of Rhianna Galindo, a
purported fact witness in this case;
b. taking the depositions of plaintiff, plaintiffs expert witness, and Officer Lui from
the Houston Police Department;
c. preparing defendant’s Third Amended Answer;
d. conducting legal research into issues to be including in defendant’s motions for
summary judgment;
e. preparing defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanying
affidavits, and proposed order;
f. preparing defendant’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment;
g- attending mediation;
h. preparing the Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Smith’s Motion for Summary
Judgment;
i. attending the 7/11/14 hearing on Smith’s Traditional Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment;
j- preparing a Second Motion to Dismiss;
k. preparing an Amended Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Expert Witness;
1. attending the 8/15/14 hearing on Smith’s No-Evidence Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment;
m. research for, preparing and filing a new proceeding in Tarrant County to compel
the attendance of Rhianna Galindo for deposition;
n. preparing a Fourth Amended Answer.
DECLARATION OF TODD H. TINKER IN SUPPORT OJ- MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES page 2 of 4
6 Appendix B 636
4. I estimate that, excluding travel time, I have expended at least 25 hours on the
above-referenced tasks and others not listed for this matter. It is my opinion that, were I
compensated by Smith for my representation in this matter at an hourly rate of $325 per hour,
which I believe to be a reasonable rate for an attorney of my experience practicing in Harris
County, Texas, Smith would have paid me at least $8,125 from March 26, 2014 through the
present. This amount is significantly less than Smith has actually paid me for my services during
that time period.
5. In addition, Smith has paid directly or reimbursed me the amount of $5,095.10 for
court reporting, transcription, and service of documents, notices, and pleadings since March 26,
2014. In addition, Smith has reimbursed me the amount of $3,698.87 for filing fees, postage,
travel, lodging, and other expenses incident to and necessary for the services rendered by me for
Smith in this matter since March 26, 2014.
6. Accordingly, it is my opinion that a total amount of $16,918.97 represents a
reasonable and necessary amount to be adjudged against plaintiff for the fees and expenses
incurred by Smith subsequent to plaintiffs rejection of Smith’s settlement offer.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and accurate copy of the Declaration
Invoking Settlement Offer Provisions. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and accurate copy
of the March 12, 2014 Confidential Settlement Proposal sent to counsel for plaintiff.
DECLARATION OF TODD H. TINKER IN SUPPORT Oh MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S l-LLS page 3 of 4
7 Appendix B 637
Executed in Bexar County, State of Texas, on the 25Ul day of September, 2014.
Todd H. Tinker, Declarant
DECLARATION OF TODD H. TINKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES page 4 of 4
8 Appendix B 638
Cause No. 2012-56941
BRYAN BLACK, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v. §
MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR, SMITH § 189th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., and
THE OAKS CONDOMINIUM §
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S DECLARATION INVOKING SETTLEMENT OFFER PROVISIONS
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Defendant Smith Protective Services, Inc. (“Smith”), files this declaration invoking the
settlement offer provisions of Texas law in the above action, and respectfully shows:
Defendant files this declaration pursuant to Tex. CP&RC § 42.002(c) and TRCP
167.2.
2. This declaration is made at least 45 days prior to the trial setting of this cause.
Respectfully submitted:
Todd H. Tinker
SBN 20056150
Law Office of Todd H. Tinker, P.C.
P.O. Box 802606
Dallas, Texas 75380
(214) 914-3760 (Phone)
(214) 853-4328 (Fax)
TinkerLaw@TinkerLaw.com
DI-H-NDANT'S DECLARATION INVOKING SI-TTLHMI-NT OFH-R PROVISIONS page 1 of 2
9 Appendix B
Exhibit A, 639
page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERV ICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing will be served upon all parties and'or
counsel upon whom service is required pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as set
forth below on March 1 1 , 20 1 4. _
Todd H. Tinker
Via Facsimile
(281)358-7008
Patrick G. Hubbard, Esq
Via Certified Mail,
Return-Receipt Requested
Muhammad Zaffar
15335 Park Row Blvd.
#1903
Houston, TX 77084
DI-H-NDANT'S DECLARATION INVOKING SI-TTL1-MI-NT OFFliR PROVISIONS page 2 of 2
10 Appendix B
Exhibit A, 640
page 2 of 2
LAW OFFICE OF
TODDH. TINKER P.C.
P.O. Box 802606 Ph: (214)914-3760
Dallas, Texas 75380 Fax: (214) 853-4328
TinkerLaw@TinkerLaw.com
Confidential Settlement Proposal
March 12, 2014
Via Facsimile
(281)358-7008
Patrick G. Hubbard, Esq.
1075 Kingwood Dr.,
Suite 203
Kingwood, TX 77339
RE: Cause No. 2012-56941; Black v. Zaffar, et.al.
Dear Mr. Hubbard:
This Settlement Offer is made pursuant to TRCP 167 and Ch. 42 of the Tex. Civ. Pract.
& Rem. C.
My client, Smith Protective Services, Inc., offers to pay the amount of $5,000.00 in full
and final settlement of any and all claims against it by your client Bryan Black. Acceptance will
require a complete release of all claims, an acknowledgment of no liability on Smith’s behalf,
indemnity against third-party claims, and dismissal of the pending suit with prejudice. The
parties will bear their own respective costs.
This offer will remain open only until 12:00 noon on Thursday, March 26, 2014.
Respectfully,
Todd H. Tinker
11 Appendix BB, 641
page 1 of 1
Exhibit
10/2/2014 2:54:19 PM
Chris Daniel •Dislrict Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 2702495
By: PAUL SWEENEY
Filed: 10/2/2014 2:54:19 PM
NO. 2012-56941
BRYAN BLACK § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR, SMITH §
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. §
§
§
§
§
Defendants. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT. SMITH
PROTECTIVE SERVICES. INC. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AWARD
And REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING/NOT SUBMISSION
NOW COMES Bryan Black, Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause,
and files this, his Response in Opposition of the Motion for Attorney Fees Award of
Smith Protective Services, Inc. and shows the Court the following:
I.
General Statement of Opposition
The basis for Smith Protective Services, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney Fee Award is that
Smith made an offer to settle during trial, the settlement offer was not accepted, and Smith
prevailed on dismissing the Plaintiffs claims in a summary judgment.
The motion fails as a matter of law for several reasons:
(a) The offer was extended from the original date by a verbal offer, and then withdrawn by way of
an e-mail dated July 22, 2014 by stating that “The settlement offer I conveyed after our last
hearing will be withdrawn if not accepted by 5pm CST this Friday, July 25th. (Exhibit A). The
offer was not accepted by Plaintiff therefore it was withdrawn according to basic contract law.
Plaintiffs Response and Opposition to Motion for Attorney Fees Award Page 1
12 Appendix C 642
(b) Rule 167.3(Withdrawal, Acceptance and Rejection of Offer) provides: An offer can be
withdrawn before it is accepted. Withdrawal is effective when written notice of the withdrawal
is served on the offeree. Once an unaccepted offer has been withdrawn, it cannot be accepted or
be the basis for awarding litigation costs under this rule. If the offer cannot be the basis for
awarding litigation costs under the rule, then Defendant’s motion fails, and Defendant’s motion
should be denied.
(c) A second reason Defendant’s motion should be denied is that Defendant’s Motions for Summary
Judgment were granted prior to the date the Court called the remainder of this case for trial.
Defendant’s counsel for Smith Protective Services, Inc., Todd Tinker, failed to appear at docket
call when the case was set for trial the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m., September 10, 2014.
The Court heard evidence on a default basis against Muhammad Zaffar, and rendered a default
judgment against Zaffar, and also noted that counsel for Smith Protective Services, Inc. did not
appear. Defendant could have presented his motion and evidence on attorneys’ fees at that time,
and had said Smith Protective Services, Inc. appeared, Plaintiff would not have waived a jury, as
they would have wanted a jury to decide any claims involving attorney’s fees. This Court
granted a final judgment and denied any relief not granted at that trial before the bench. A copy
of that judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
II.
In the event the Court does not dismiss Defendant, Smith Protective Services, Inc.’s
motion, then Plaintiff desires to invoke their right to a jury trial on the issue of attorneys’ fees as
a jury fee was paid. “The right to a jury trial is one of our most precious rights, holding a sacred
place in English and American history.” General Motors Corp. v. Gavle. 951 S.W.2d 469, 476
(Tex. 1997). Under article one, section 15 of the Texas Constitution, “[t]he right to trial by jury
Plaintiffs Response and Opposition to Motion for Attorney Fees Award Page 2
13 Appendix C 643
shall remain inviolate” and we closely scrutinize any denial of this important right to a litigant.
See Tex Const, art. I, § 15; City of Garland, 969 S.W.2d 548, 558 (Tex. App. Dallas 1988), —
aff d, 22 S.W. 3d 351 (Tex. 2000). The denial of the constitutional right to a jury trial constitutes
reversible error. McDaniel v. Yarborough. 898 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. 1995). In that case, the
trial court heard evidence of attorneys’ fees without a jury present as fact finder and entered
judgment on its own finding as to the amount of reasonable and necessary fees in this case.
To determine whether the trial court erred by denying the Property Owners their right to a jury
trial on the issue of attorneys’ fees, the Court must first determine whether the statute authorizing
the trial court to award of attorneys’ fees permits a jury trial on the issue.
Here, the statute authorizing attorneys’ fees is the Rule 167.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure which provides in pertinent part that: “ (a) Generally. If a settlement offer made
under this rule is rejected, and the judgment to be awarded on the monetary claims covered by
the offer is significantly less favorable to the offeree than was the offer, the court must award the
offeror litigation costs against the offeree from the time the offer was rejected to the time of
judgment. .” On the face of this provision, it would appear that the trial court, not the jury,
determines the amount of attorneys’ fees in these actions. However, the Texas Supreme Court
has held that, while this statute vests the trial court with the discretion to determine whether to
award attorneys’ fees, the amount of the attorneys’ fees is a question of fact for the jury to
decide. City of Garland. 22 S.W3d at 367-68. Accordingly, the Court held that the Property
Owners had a right to a Jury trial on the issue of the amount of reasonable and necessary
attorneys’ fees to be awarded.
167.5(c) Hearing required. The court must, upon request, conduct a hearing on a request
for an award of litigation costs, at which the affected parties may present evidence. The Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s Response and Opposition to Motion for Attorney Fees Award Page 3
14 Appendix C 644
would also request an adequate time to do discovery, as it appears that Mr. Tinker has a retainer
fee arrangement wherein he is paid a certain fee whether he is engaged in litigation or not, and
that could make a difference in the amount of attorneys’ fees, if any, to be awarded.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that upon hearing hereof the
Court deny the Motion for Attorney Fees or in the alternative, that the Court set a date for
discovery to be completed of at least 60 days, and then a trial date giving the required notice, and
that Defendant take nothing, and that Plaintiff have all relief to which he is justly entitled.
Resi illy submitted,
Ah/
)
By:
Patrick G, Hubbard
m V
Texas Bar No. 10139500
1075 Kingwood Dr, Suite 203
Kingwood, TX 77339
Tel. (281) 358-7035
Fax. (281) 358-7008
Email: phubbard@patrickhubbardlavv.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on October 2, 2014 a true and correct copy of Plaintiff s Response to Motion
for Attorneys’ Fees was served in the manner indicated on:
Mr. Todd FI. Tinker
Law Office of Todd H. Tinker, P.C.
P. O. Box 802606
Dallas, Texas 75380
By Email: TinkeriawfSitinkerlaw.com
Attorney for Smith Protective Services, Inc.
Muhammad Zaffar
15335 Park Row Blvd. # 1903
Houston, Texas 77084
By First Class Mai l
Patrick G. Hubbard
PiamtHF* Response anti Opposition to Motion fot Attorney Fees Award Page 4
15 Appendix C 645
Exhibit A
FW: Black v Zaffar (confidential settlement communication)
Patrick Hubbard
To
---
Me
Today at 12:54 PM
Original Message
From: Todd Tinker [mail to:
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:13 PM
To: Patrick Hubbard
Subject: Black v Zaffar (confidential settlement communication)
Pat,
The settlement offer I conveyed after our last hearing will be withdrawn if
not accepted by 5pm CST this Friday, July 25th.
No subsequent offer will be made as I do not believe your client will be
able to obtain a judgment against Smith greater than the $20,000 that will
be required to prevent an award of fees and costs pursuant to TPRC
42.002 ($15,000 settlement credit for Oaks and $5,000 prior offer of
j udgment ).
Todd Tinker
This message may contain privileged attorney-client information. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this
message. Thank you.
Reply. Reply AH or Forward | More
16 Appendix C 646
fz- - 9/1W20H 11 54 00AIW
Cfms Dame! District Clark Harris County
Envelope No. 255584?
8y PAUL SWEENEY
NO, 2012-56941
fk
BRYAN BLACK § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR, SMITH §
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC'., §
§
§
§
§
Defendants. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
FINAL JUDGMENT
A hearing on this cause was held on September 17. 2014. The Plaintiff appeared and
announced to the Court that they were ready for trial. Defendant, Muhammad Zaffar, although
having filed an answer, failed to appear. Smith Protective Services, Inc. did not appear. The
Court approved a trial amendment for intentional tort and punitive damages. The Court
determined that Muhammad Zaffar and ail other parties had been sent notice of trial, and the trial
coordinator called the phone number associated with Defendant’s answer, and also advised him
of the date and time of trial, and confirmed that the address where Defendant Zaffar had been
served was associated with the phone number on the answer. The bailiff called die name of
Muhammad Zaffar three, times outside the doorway of the courtroom, and there was no response.
A jury was waived, and the Court heard testimony from the Plaintiff.
% The Court has considered the pleadings and official records on file in this cause, the
13-
evidence, and the parties' arguments, and the Court renders the following judgment:
s
f-
1. On the claim of intentional tort for malicious prosecution, the Court finds in favor
3 of Plaintiff, Bryan Black andSÿgainst Defendant, Muhammad Zaffar in the amount of actual
1
zi damages of $29,500.00, and punitive damages of $20,000.00, or a total judgment of $49,500.00
1
5
a EXHIBIT
£
E
*
OXLUCQ
IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED by the Court that Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’
Fees against Plaintiff is DENIED.
SIGNED this 3 day of .,2014.
Judge Presiding
k&‘. Approved*
By:
Patrick G. Hubbard, Attorney for Plaintiff
Texas Bar No. 10139500
1075 Kingwood Dr, Suite 203
Kingwood, TX 77339
Tel. (281)358-7035
Fax. (281)358-7008
Email : phubbard@patrickhubbardlaw.com
•
Ordei Denying Defendant'* Motion Tor Attorney's Pecs
23 Appendix E 655Solo
Page
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF TODD H. TINKER, PC
P.O. Box 802606
Dallas, Texas 75380
(214) 914-3760 (telephone)
(214) 853-4328 (facsimile)
By: ________________________________
TODD H. TINKER
State Bar No. 20056150
TinkerLaw@TinkerLaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-
APPELLANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on the 25th day of February, 2015, a true and correct copy
of the above and foregoing has been served upon counsel of record via e-file and
email as follows:
Via Email
Patrick G. Hubbard, Esq
phubbard@patrickhubbardlaw.com
______________________________________
Todd H. Tinker
24
Bryan Black v. Smith Protective Services, Inc.
Combined Opinion