A simple breach of contract case with an already decided partial judgment as to damages has been ordered to go to jury trial against the Plaintiff’s wishes. The Court sided with the Defendant, who filed a demand for jury trial the same day the interlocutory judgment was ordered, despite Plaintiff’s efforts to strike what it alleged was Defendant’s “untimely and improper” demand.
– DETAILS –
1. Plaintiff Files MSJ
On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment offering evidence that it claimed “conclusively establish that Plaintiff has met all elements of the breach of contract” and that “no genuine issue” of fact exists surrounding the Defendant defaulting on his contractual obligations to pay off the credit amount Plaintiff loaned him.
In support of its Motion, Plaintiff stated that Defendant accepted the credit terms “by using the credit card” and the “entire unpaid balance [is] due and owing.” As evidence, Plaintiff attached copies of the loan application, terms sheet, loan summary, bank statements, notice of acceleration, demand letters, billing entries, and an affidavit from Plaintiff’s collections coordinator, attesting to the facts alleged.
Defendant filed his Response on February 26, disagreeing with Plaintiff’s claim that there was no issue of material fact, arguing that the “purported contract…was never signed or verified by a fact witness.”
The Defendant specifically took issue with what he argued was “most obviously a typed signature” and testified he “did not sign” or give his “approval” of it.
The Defendant further objected to the “erroneous amount” Plaintiff contends was owed and the “deficient affidavit” Plaintiff attached, arguing that “all” of the evidence Plaintiff put forth was “thereby controverted.”
2. Judge Grants Interlocutory Order
Plaintiff’s Motion was heard on March 5 by a judge sitting by assignment. It was Ordered that Plaintiff “have and recover from of the Defendant” the full outstanding amount Plaintiff proposed, plus pre-judgment interest.
The judge crossed out and denied every other item Plaintiff included in its proposed order, including wanting Defendant to pay post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, and appeal costs.
The judge also hand-wrote, “This judgment is interlocutory” near their signature.
3. Defendant Files Demand for Jury Trial
On the same day, at 5:34pm, Defendant filed his Demand for Jury Trial and tendered the jury fee to the Court.
A few days later, on March 10, the Court issued updated trial settings, switching the prior non-jury trial to a jury trial and keeping the same trial date.
4. Plaintiff Files Motion to Strike
One week later, on March 17, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Demand for a Jury Trial, stating “the Court set this matter for a non-jury trial” several months earlier and claiming Defendant’s motion was “untimely and improperly filed.”
Plaintiff additionally objected to the new trial notice on the grounds that keeping the same trial date but changing the format would provide Plaintiff “only [28] days to prepare for the new trial format” and “at a minimum,” Texas law requires 30.
Plaintiff also expressed frustration at the Defendant “wait[ing] until the day of Plaintiff’s dispositive hearing” where “the only issue remaining is attorney’s fees” to file such a demand.
On March 24, the Defendant filed his Response and again pointed out issues with the Defendant’s alleged signature. Defendant also stated that “a trial court cannot withdraw a case from the jury docket over the objection of any party” and, because Defendant objects, “this case must be tried to a jury.”
Defendant did not address the timing issues alleged by Plaintiff.
5. Judge Denies MTS, Orders Jury Trial
On April 4, the Court signed an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, and affirming the case is still “set for a jury trial” on the same date as the previously scheduled bench trial.
– CASE INFO –
County:
Dallas
Court:
191st District Court
Judge Presiding:
Sr. Justice (Ret.) Sitting by Assignment
Cause #:
DC-24-03556
Caption:
NASA Federal Credit Union v. Rodrick Levingston
Claims:
Breach of Contract, Attorney’s Fees
Counsel for 𝛑:
Alan B. Padfield, Matthew B. Fronda, and Jessica N. Alt of PADFIELD & STOUT, LLP
Counsel for 𝝙:
Robert M. Clark and Ashley C. Hunter of EDDLEMAN & CLARK