No. 14-0767
Click for Official Page
Oral argument was held on February 10, 2016. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on May 27, 2016. File Closed
Tracking 1 article about this case.
January 21, 2016
from SCOTXblog
The article also mentions:| Appellate District: | 11th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Reverse & Render |
| COA Docket No.: | 11-12-00201-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Jim Wright |
| Trial Court: | 201st District Court |
| County: | Travis |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Stephen Yelenosky |
| Trial Docket: | D-1-GN-10-000789 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-09-14 | Mandate issued | ||
| This case was waiting for a possible rehearing motion between June 9, 2016 and September 14, 2016. | |||
| 2016-06-09 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing | ||
| 2016-06-09 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2016-05-27 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | ||
| 2016-05-27 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; remanded to Court of Appeals | |
| 2016-05-13 | Motion to withdraw disposed of | Filing granted | |
| 2016-05-04 | Motion to Withdraw Filed | ||
| This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between February 10, 2016 and May 4, 2016. | |||
| 2016-02-10 | Oral argument | ||
| 2016-02-09 | Exhibits in case/cause filed (Respondent) | ||
| 2016-01-21 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2016-01-21 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2016-01-19 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2016-01-19 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2016-01-19 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| 2015-12-16 | Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2015-12-14 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2015-11-20 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2015-11-20 | Motion to Extend Time to File Reply filed | ||
| 2015-11-03 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2015-11-02 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2015-10-21 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2015-09-15 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2015-09-15 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2015-08-19 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2015-08-19 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2015-08-03 | Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2015-07-31 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2015-06-17 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2015-06-17 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2015-06-17 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2015-05-29 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2015-05-29 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2015-05-01 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2015-05-01 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| This case was waiting for a decision about briefing or a possible grant between February 17, 2015 and May 1, 2015. | |||
| 2015-02-17 | Reply to Response (Petitioner) | ||
| 2015-02-03 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2015-01-30 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-12-22 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response | ||
| 2014-12-22 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-12-01 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-10-23 | Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-10-23 | Notice of Appearance | ||
| 2014-10-23 | Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed | ||
| 2014-09-24 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-09-24 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed |
| Party | Counsel | Role | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DLA Pipers LLP (US) |
|
Respondent | |||||
| Linegar, Chris |
|
Petitioner |
Linegar sued DLA Piper for a variety of claims, including fraud and legal malpractice, related to a business deal that went terribly wrong. The jury found in his favor. DLA Piper argues that Linegar actually lacks standing to bring these claims because the funds he lost were held in a corporate retirement account by Zaychan (a company Linegar) owns. According to DLA Piper, only Zaychan would have standing to bring suit. The court of appeals agreed with DLA Piper, dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction.
Linegar's petition argues that DLA Piper owed duties directly to him, and that he was "personally aggrieved" enough to satisfy the threshold for jurisdictional standing. Because this was Linegar's retirement account, he argues, only he was injured. He is not seeking to recover derivatively for corporate injuries.
The Court has granted the petition for review and set the case for argument in February. If that schedule holds, the Court should announce its decision by summer.
