Mailing address:
P.O. Box 224626
Dallas, Texas 75222

Physical address:
2223 W. Jefferson Blvd.
Dallas, Texas 75208

214.946.8000 phone
214.946.8433 fax

tholt@dpslawgroup.com

Tammy Holt, Of Counsel

= read publication
Publications & Presentations

= read opinion
Significant Cases

$19 million settlement in double-fatality trucking case

Congratulations to DP&S lawyers Kirk Pittard and Tammy Holt who were part of a trial team lead by Steve Laird, Robert Collins, Seth McCloskey, and Bracken Millar, that recently settled a double-fatality trucking case for $19 Million (for non-economic damages only) the day before the case was set to go to trial in Tarrant County.

In re C.A., No. 02-21-00018-CV, 2021 WL 2753533 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 1, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

Successfully prevented the deposition of a severely impaired plaintiff before an examination to determine competency. An issue of first impression, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals found that Texas Rules of Evidence 104 and 601 apply to and impose a duty on trial courts to examine a deposition witness to determine his competency before the witness is deposed, and that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling the deposition without first conducting that examination.

In re Jerry Gonzalez, Jr., No. 13-21-00025-CV, 2021 WL 689280 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 23, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

Successfully defended trial court’s order granting motion to quash discovery sought, pursuant to In re North Cypress, “of the fees charged and accepted from other patients for the same medical services that were provided or recommended to the plaintiff,” holding that In re North Cypress was readily distinguishable.

Murphy v. Arcos, 615 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet. denied)

On motion for rehearing en banc, successfully convinced panel to reverse itself and award Plaintiffs the total damages ($1,070,050) awarded by jury, rather than a drastically reduced amount ($200,000) based on the amount originally pled.  The court of appeals rejected its original position that the Plaintiffs’ attempt to amend its petition to be consistent with the jury’s verdict was an impermissible attempt to amend the pleadings “post-judgment.”  A matter of first impression, the court of appeals adopted “the more reasonable view” that, because Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their petition before the Amended Final Judgment was signed, the amended pleading was timely.

Gonzales Nursing Operations, LLC v. Smith, No. 04-20-00102-CV, 2020 WL 5646482 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 23, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op).

Successfully dismissed interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction by independent contractor who contracted with a government entity to manage a nursing home. Claiming derivative sovereign immunity, the contractor sought to appeal the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. Without reaching the substance of the derivative sovereign immunity claim, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that contracting with a government entity did not transform the contractor into a “governmental entity” entitled to appeal under the interlocutory appeal statute.

Pennington v. Fields, No. 05-19-00149-CV, 2020 WL 2611251 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 22, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

Successfully reversed summary judgment in majority shareholders’ favor and rendered summary judgment in favor of minority owner in a closely -held corporation, holding that Retiring Shareholder provision of Cross Purchase Agreement required remaining shareholders to purchase retiring shareholder’s shares.  In doing so, Court of Appeals rejected majority shareholders’ arguments that (1) provision created only an option, but not an obligation, to purchase retiring shareholder’s shares and (2) that minority shareholder was not a “retiring” shareholder because majority shareholders terminated his employment with the closely-held corporation and minority shareholder had taken employment elsewhere.

Osburn v. Baker, No. 04-19-00568-CV, 2020 WL 2441426 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 13, 2020, no pet. h.)

Successfully reversed no evidence and traditional summary judgment in a dog bite case, convincing court of appeals that Plaintiff’s claims of strict liability, negligent handling, and gross negligence were supported by deposition testimony that dog was “leery” around strangers, prone to nip at heels, and that owners considered putting the dog away when plaintiff visited, but decided not to.  The court of appeals also refused to hold that compliance with a local leash law negated an element of plaintiff’s claim when the plaintiff did not allege a violation of the leash law.