[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6225904,"mediaKeyId","3526379-605c24ceb7f5229a27c90a1a9e101820","parentId",3526379,"title","After jury verdict in landlord-tenant dispute, judge to issue final judgment after reviewing post-trial motions","audioSeconds",2870,"startMs",2401000,"endMs",5271000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3526379-605c24ceb7f5229a27c90a1a9e101820&start=2401&end=5271","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3526379-605c24ceb7f5229a27c90a1a9e101820/thumbnail_2401000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6225904/Texas/After-jury-verdict-in-landlord-tenant-dispute-judge-to-issue-final-judgment-after-reviewing-post-trial-motions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6225904-f43209cbdd30dd8b3b659c45a161ce3b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773574144&Signature=RXqozLZdOVAorSjVAtZfx2DtilDM9JnNQyArcmCvu91-YhP5cY5LmHflLFJxruVPTD5sajXO431bQ7mjewW5dTmMejs3GWs7f31l3TC5HAVe9MuPOqKWUGEmr6yENSs6Ibm5A3npSHBeLP4EI11bv6bwsKOJFKLCNvcyhgjRy6sGafCa9wKdpejo2Y6w-z-yD6jOALIZuckLSRURrZHDjxBiD-Vbm2q-FzuSDhC6QsXcKYtb9AnxpJExp1lZKgdZ6qQc2NVJUypDNa3x2aPFeyn-68mffjZ59vb8MAunRBw6kV9qisGPuiC4Vu2LC23Ee2PFJe8RhBwadC4mSTUivQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-27T19:21:54Z","article","On May 27 the Travis County 201st District Court heard competing post-verdict motions in Bradford A. Clements v. Anne Laurie Kagnar Singh and Harbir Singh and told the parties it would issue a final judgment within the week after reviewing the record and the arguments.

Plaintiff Bradford A. Clements, appearing pro se, moved to disregard certain jury findings (notably question 2 on bad faith and question 11 on attorney's fees) and to enter a proposed judgment that trebled certain statutory damages under the Texas Property Code. Defense counsel Anthony Icenogle argued the jury's findings should stand and that the court should either deny excessive attorney-fee requests or, alternatively, award costs against Clements.

Clements told the court the jury had found in his favor on multiple claims and that the defendants had issued a conditional check he characterized as an accord-and-satisfaction attempt rather than an unconditional refund of the security deposit. Clements asked the court to treat the defendants' partial conditional payment as bad faith under Lost Creek Ventures and related authority and to disregard the jury's negative finding on bad faith. He also contested the defense's argument that only $1,281.95 in recoverable actual damages existed and reiterated that he had received no portion of the disputed deposit as of the hearing date.

Defense counsel responded that the state-law standard for overturning a jury finding requires the court to find insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict and that precedent cited by Clements does not squarely apply. Defense counsel also cited the Texas Supreme Court's analysis in Smith v. Patrick W. Tam Trust (as discussed in counsel's filings) to argue that awarded fees must be reasonable in light of the recovery and the results obtained. Counsel argued the litigation was overlitigated and that the court should consider assessing costs under Rule 131/Rule 141 principles and the Texas Supreme Court's Rogers decision (as counsel framed it) if warranted.

Judge Amy Clark Meacham recorded the jury's answers at the hearing: the jury awarded Clements $7,879.84 in one item and $596.77 for rent in another, and it found $3,500 in reasonable and necessary attorney's fees for Clements. The judge noted the parties' competing proposed judgments and told counsel she would resolve the contested post-verdict motions and any cost allocation after reviewing the record. She advised Clements that if he sought taxed costs she needed an itemized bill of costs from the district clerk to perform the calculation and reminded counsel both sides had proposed different judgment language on taxable costs.

Ending: The judge took the motions under advisement, instructed the parties on evidentiary and filing steps for any taxation of costs, and said she would issue a final judgment in the case within the week.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judge's Personal Meeting Room","oneSentenceSummary","On May 27 the Travis County 201st District Court heard competing post-verdict motions in Bradford A. Clements v. Anne Laurie Kagnar Singh and Harbir Singh and told the parties it would issue a final judgment within the week after reviewing the record and the arguments.","taxTitle","Travis County 201st District Court, District Court Judges, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66312,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6225908,"Court hears unopposed substitution of counsel; orders amended substitute-service filing with process-server affidavit",219,1033000,1252000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3526379-605c24ceb7f5229a27c90a1a9e101820&start=1033&end=1252","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3526379-605c24ceb7f5229a27c90a1a9e101820/thumbnail_1033000.jpg","/articles/6225908/Texas/Court-hears-unopposed-substitution-of-counsel-orders-amended-substitute-service-filing-with-process-server-affidavit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6225908-f671c92e102bc9a5775ac5afd132afee/orig.mp4?Expires=1773574144&Signature=Lo1k~5Hi1zSfFbsvhtwgiufeutLtQZiZqgAXALQPiIUu-E-2KoMDe1eU0gnvRUlxq80FM12xgdb2IlsWKOUMkYqF8898qqmnfipI9DyC2a79MODWCiLaqqvyp-ckdpYUp5fudq50jAgEpUWazRfoucQSvtJAnBJii76waB3XGPST3hkfb3p1XcRz1XHkm~5RvrocRSUdKzM4YfS8~4-~Z5nQ5T40-TX4gk80S8Pl6lhUoZ0mxUp~9QRHxUwGXzvl94hIj8QUtbTQs4H5fN4rz4I-NmnJAy3ldmx7OjPF315kppDwU9RFQ2Fc~w1UYgKb1UdW6YQMNuMrnbDrIfXyEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","In a May 27 hearing in the 201st District Court, Judge Amy Clark Meacham took under advisement an unopposed motion to substitute counsel for Clear Property Management LLC and directed counsel to email a proposed signed order to the court. The judge also asked the moving party to refile and supplement an application for substitute service on third-party Falcon Patrol Protection LLC with process-server affidavits before she would sign an order allowing service by email.

Anna Greenberg appeared for the plaintiff; Caitlin Holscher appeared for defendant Menlo Mueller Austin Apartments; and Rhiannon Jodju appeared for Clear Property Management LLC, which sought substitution of counsel. Jodju said the motion to substitute counsel was unopposed. Judge Meacham instructed counsel to email the proposed order to 201201.submission@traviscountytx.gov and said the court would sign the substitution order if the filing conformed to requirements.

Separately, counsel for Menlo Mueller explained a pending third-party petition against Falcon Patrol Protection LLC and described five unsuccessful attempts at personal service on Falcon's registered agent, Adam Lee; one attempted phone contact produced an email address the agent said could be used while he was abroad. Counsel asked the court to allow substitute service by email under Rule 106(b) because personal service attempts were unsuccessful. Meacham said she needed the process-server affidavits documenting the attempts and asked counsel to refile an amended motion including those affidavits and a proposed order with the email address to be used.

The judge characterized the filing procedure as a submission matter and told counsel to copy all parties and submit through the court's portal so she could consider granting the request. She signaled willingness to grant the motion once the affidavit and proposed order were uploaded but did not sign an order during the hearing.

Ending: Counsel were excused after the court instructed them to email the substituted-counsel order and to refile an amended substitute-service motion with process-server affidavits and a proposed order; the court will act after it receives those documents.","In a May 27 hearing in the 201st District Court, Judge Amy Clark Meacham took under advisement an unopposed motion to substitute counsel for Clear Property Management LLC and directed counsel to email a proposed signed order to the court.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6225913,"Judge orders parties to file Rule 11 and joint scheduling proposal in YMCA child-abuse case",815,154000,969000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3526379-605c24ceb7f5229a27c90a1a9e101820&start=154&end=969","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3526379-605c24ceb7f5229a27c90a1a9e101820/thumbnail_154000.jpg","/articles/6225913/Texas/Judge-orders-parties-to-file-Rule-11-and-joint-scheduling-proposal-in-YMCA-child-abuse-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6225913-377a5c05e361d82ba6469a368ea506df/orig.mp4?Expires=1773574144&Signature=Zu2LtMA7hF7A8K5krkP1YylczJ33glAfrqFU1XjgnJQlc0xRlZI7JDLeb31Mp4eXAJRgbKwZbHIbFlteIppzVtmyOwZUUhITBChfhwyTwx4lG1B-LBGDkAfE5S9i08Nhs8tWiFE4fRwG6wZ0l5cLoTWnnlxRGwg3nYDju2-MIXDhNOSdOsBPoy0-67uERJVlqLnr5GAcmH72dFExZXe8DG4sn1eR8ognQvJCt203kavrEao9eGRF62QzY1Qq2HzaWvzSenntMmaNdjZanYWW13-IYOcqzcDKnKLWFVlTX1t3k3eBC1IZs30lxmEvYERKI9ZVkU~KCG1i2zHlraDaYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Judge Amy Clark Meacham told attorneys in Trevino v. Browning and YMCA of Central Texas on May 27 that she would reissue scheduling deadlines for a jury trial reset to Sept. 22, 2025 if the parties produced a filed Rule 11 agreement and a proposed scheduling order.

The request came at a docket-control conference during which plaintiff's counsel, Ryan Toomey, said the case involves allegations of child abuse in a YMCA classroom and that parties had previously sought a continuance from a May 5 trial setting. Toomey said the parties had been able to conduct substantial discovery, including depositions of the plaintiffs and an upcoming deposition of the YMCA's representative.

Meacham said she found an April 7 order by Judge Cantu Huxell continuing the May 5 jury trial to Sept. 22, 2025 and asked counsel whether the trial had been administratively reset with court staff. After confirming the Sept. 22 setting, the judge focused on what remaining deadlines were necessary to prepare for trial and directed defense counsel to file an amended scheduling order if they sought different deadlines than the plaintiff's proposed order.

The judge also required a Rule 11 agreement to be placed on the court's file before she would sign a differing scheduling order. She told defense counsel, \"You've got homework, Miss Raminelli. You've got two things that you've got to do. You've got to file the Rule 11, and you have to send me a proposed version of a scheduling order that you would like for the court to sign.\" She gave the parties until the close of business the next day and said she would aim to act later that week.

Discussion at the hearing reflected a disagreement about whether all prior scheduling deadlines should be reset. Plaintiff counsel asked that only the remaining pretrial and rebuttal-expert deadlines be set based on the Sept. 22 trial date rather than redoing all earlier deadlines. Defense counsel said they wished to extend other deadlines, including new-parties and expert designation dates, and referenced an independent medical examination (IME) performed April 18 as a basis for an expert-deadline adjustment. The court said it needed the Rule 11 agreement on file and a proposed order that reflected any new dates the parties wanted the court to adopt.

Judge Meacham did not enter a written scheduling order at the hearing. Instead she directed the parties to file the Rule 11 stipulation and submit a proposed scheduling order through the court's submission portal and said she would pick a day later in the week to rule.

Ending: The court set a firm administrative target: file the Rule 11 agreement and any proposed scheduling order by close of business the following day so the judge can issue deadlines necessary to proceed toward the Sept. 22 jury trial.","In a docket-control hearing in Travis County 201st District Court, the judge directed parties in Trevino v. Browning and YMCA of Central Texas to file a signed Rule 11 agreement and a proposed scheduling order by the close of business the next day so the court can set discovery deadlines ahead of the Sept. 22 jury trial.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

After jury verdict in landlord-tenant dispute, judge to issue final judgment after reviewing post-trial motions

Court hears unopposed substitution of counsel; orders amended substitute-service filing with process-server affidavit

Judge orders parties to file Rule 11 and joint scheduling proposal in YMCA child-abuse case