Earlier this week, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio declined to alter a $5 million award a jury handed down to a lawyer who alleged opposing counsel had groped her outside the courtroom.
A three-justice panel handed down the ruling upholding attorney Michelle Teresa Acosta’s win May 13, explaining in 19 pages that it was rejecting all five of Allan Roy Manka’s arguments as to why the result had to be overturned.
Three of Manka’s challenges related to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict — arguing Acosta’s failure to claim bodily injury dooms the jury’s assault finding, that there was no evidence his conduct was “extreme or outrageous” that would support a finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that no evidence supports the amount of damages awarded.
For the damages challenge, Manka relied on the Texas Supreme Court’s 2023 holding in Gregory v. Chohan. But the Fourth Court of Appeals noted the ruling is “a plurality opinion lacking precedential value.” Manka argued that comments from Acosta’s lawyer during closing arguments, asking the jury to “punish” him by awarding $25 million in damages, was improper.
“Because the court’s charge asked the jury to consider an award of punitive damages, that line of argument was not inherently improper,” the justices wrote. “However, Acosta’s trial counsel also told the jurors that if they could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether to award punitive damages, they should ‘put the 25 million in mental anguish. That only takes ten [votes].’ Manka did not object to these statements below, and he does not argue on appeal that they amounted to incurable jury argument.”
The justices also determined Manka failed to show there was any reversible error in submitting the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim to the jury, and that there is sufficient evidence to “support the jury’s finding that Manka intentionally or knowingly touched Acosta in a way that he knew or reasonably should have known she would find offensive or provocative.”
“While a showing of bodily injury can support a claim of assault, it is not required where, as here, the plaintiff alleges assault by offensive contact,” the panel wrote.
According to the opinion, Manka and Acosta first met June 13, 2019, inside the Wilson County District Courthouse in Floresville, where they were representing their respective clients in a family law dispute. Acosta was representing her brother, and it marked the first time she would be presenting argument in court. Manka was representing the brother’s ex-wife.
During the hearing, the former spouses decided to try and reach an agreement on their own and conferred privately while their lawyers, Acosta and Manka, waited in the courthouse lobby, according to the opinion. Acosta’s father was also present, there to support both of his children, and waited in the lobby with the lawyers.
As they were making small talk, according to the opinion that cites testimony from Acosta and her father, Manka explained “that when he represents women in family law matters, he likes to put his arms around his clients to make his opposing counsel and his clients’ husbands or ex-husbands uncomfortable.”
Security footage from the encounter shows Manka move next to Acosta, slide his hand across her lower back and around her waist, then walk away before returning a few minutes later, when he then touched her hair and put his arm around her shoulder, according to the opinion.
The former spouses eventually joined the gathering in the lobby and announced they had reached an agreement, at which time Manka again moved to stand next to Acosta.
“Acosta extended her hand toward him, but instead of taking her hand, he leaned into her personal space,” the opinion reads. “Acosta testified that he then grabbed her buttocks and squeezed it. She slapped his chest, and he left the courthouse. Acosta reported the grabbing incident to the Wilson County Sheriff’s Department the next day, and a deputy filed a misdemeanor charge of assault by contact against Manka.”
Manka later pleaded no contest to the criminal charge, according to a footnote in the opinion, but that evidence is inadmissible in a civil trial and the jury was not informed about it.
This civil lawsuit followed in June 2021, where Acosta lodged claims for assault by offensive physical contact and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Manka countersued, bringing claims against Acosta for defamation, business disparagement and tortious interference. The trial judge granted Acosta’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss Manka’s countersuit, according to the opinion.
In September 2024 a Bexar County jury heard Acosta’s claims and found in her favor, awarding her $3 million in past mental anguish damages and $2 million in future mental anguish but declined to award punitive damages.
The jury heard testimony from Acosta about her difficulty sleeping in the wake of the assault, that she suffered from panic attacks and that the assault had re-triggered her post traumatic stress disorder she developed after someone slashed her throat when she was in college. She told jurors about seeking mental health treatment and taking medication for anxiety and depression after the encounter with Manka.
Bexar County District Judge Tina Torres entered final judgment in favor of Acosta in November 2024. Manka requested and was denied a new trial, and then filed his notice of appeal in February 2025. The Fourth Court of Appeals did not hear oral arguments in the case, and neither party requested them.
On appeal, Manka also argued it was error for the trial court to dismiss his counterclaims based on Acosta’s argument that he missed the statute of limitations to bring the claims.
“Because the trial court’s orders do not state the reasons for the rulings, Manka bore the burden on appeal to defeat each of the grounds Acosta raised in her Rule 91a motions,” the panel wrote. “While Manka’s appellate briefing contends that he filed his counterclaims within the applicable statutes of limitations, he does not address any of the other arguments Acosta raised. We will not make those arguments for him.”
In his fifth issue on appeal, Manka argued the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Acosta, post-verdict, to amend her pleadings “to conform to the jury’s verdict.” Acosta’s live petition stated she was seeking “monetary relief of over $250,000 or less, including damages of any kind, penalties, court costs, expenses, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees,” according to the opinion.
“While this phrasing is not a model of clarity, Manka did not specially except to it and thus waived any argument that it did not satisfy Texas’s fair-notice pleading standard,” the panel wrote. “Moreover, Manka himself testified at trial that Acosta was ‘asking for a million dollars[.]’ For these reasons alone, the trial court could have reasonably determined that Manka was not surprised or prejudiced by the requested amendment.”
Counsel for Manka did not reply to requests seeking comment Friday afternoon.
Justices Irene Rios, Lori I. Valenzuela and H. Todd McCray sat on the panel.
Acosta is represented by Beth Watkins and Ajay K. Ketkar of Kelly Watkins McPheeters. The firm issued a statement to The Lawbook Friday afternoon.
“For our client, this case was about accountability more than anything. She was assaulted in a courthouse while doing her job as a lawyer,” the statement reads. “Taking the case to trial gave her the chance to have the facts heard in public, evaluated by a jury, and recognized for what they were. The appellate win matters because it confirms that the jury’s decision was supported by the evidence and that the harm Ms. Acosta suffered was real and unacceptable. We are proud of the result, but mostly we are grateful that our client had the chance to be heard and believed.”
Manka is represented by Jeff Small and Paul M. Burgess.
The case number is 04-25-00089-CV.