Jurors in Dallas who were seated for the first Business Court trial there did not end up getting a chance to decide the case.
Trial began Tuesday, and the plaintiff rested its breach-of-contract case just before the lunch break Wednesday. Once the jurors left the courtroom, the defense motioned for a directed verdict on all claims.
Judge Andrea Bouressa heard arguments from counsel on the motion, then took it under advisement and released them for a quick lunch.
When they returned about 30 minutes later, the court granted the motion, resolving the case in exceedingly rare fashion.
Esteban Quintero and ATS Concrete Services filed suit against construction company Urban Infraconstruction and Anup Tamrakar, alleging that Quintero was a member of Urban based on an oral agreement, bringing claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
Solo practitioner Marilyn Lahr urged the court to let the jury decide the case. Lahr argued she had presented enough evidence that Tamrakar breached fiduciary duty by not separating the books and records between ATS and Urban.
Tamrakar’s attorney, Timothy Rothberg of Rothberg Shurtleff Dang, told the court that there was no testimony to support the breach-of-contract claim.
“None of the elements have been met,” Rothberg said.
Judge Bouressa agreed with counsel for the defendant.
“The court is inclined to grant defendants’ motions for directed verdict,” she said. “Even if we did not have issues to contend with concerning oral versus written agreements, with respect to whether Urban is a party to any such agreement, whether it’s a separate agreement from a partnership or membership agreement, even if we take all of that out of it, damages is certainly the most glaringly significant one on which there just was not evidence to support any kind of recovery, that the other grounds were meritorious and independently support the granting of the directed verdict.”
The jurors were dismissed after returning from lunch for what they expected was going to be a three-day trial.
“After the plaintiffs presented their evidence, I had the opportunity to reach certain questions of law, and those questions of law ended up resolving the case. So there are now no longer any factual disputes to put before you, and your service as a juror is now complete,” Judge Bouressa said to the jury. “I hope that you do not feel that your time has been wasted, even though we do not have any questions in fact to submit to you, if you had not been here, procedurally, we would not have gotten to this point, and we would not have gotten to a resolution of the case.”
Counsel were ordered to submit their proposed forms of final judgment to the court within 14 days.
Rothberg said he and his client are pleased with the ruling, noting that it reflects the value of having the Business Court.
“I think it demonstrates one of the upsides of the business court system. You’ve got judges that are prepared to make what could be, interpersonally, a tough decision, but follow the law, and so we’re pleased with the outcome,” Rothberg said.
Lahr said she was already planning to appeal an earlier summary judgment ruling and will be adding the directed verdict ruling to the appeal. She added that she was disappointed in the ruling.
“I felt like we put on enough evidence to raise the issue, get it to the jury. She disagreed with me. She disagrees with me on a lot of things,” Lahr said.
This is the first jury trial for the Texas Business Court to reach a conclusion. The first jury trial, which began last week in Houston, is still ongoing and scheduled to end this week.
William Shurtleff of Rothberg Shurtleff Dang is also representing Tamrakar.
The case is Esteban Quintero, et al. v. Urban Infraconstruction, et al., 25-BC01A-0022.