Affirmed and Opinion filed August 28, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00517-CV JOSEPH PRESSIL, Appellant V. JASON A. GIBSON AND JASON A. GIBSON, P.C. D/B/A THE GIBSON LAW FIRM, Appellees On Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013-51350 OPINION In this breach-of-fiduciary-duty case, plaintiff Joseph Pressil sued his former attorney and the attorney’s law firm, alleging that the publicity the attorney garnered for Pressil’s underlying health-care-liability claim caused Pressil to suffer mental anguish and to lose a potentially lucrative employment opportunity. After finding that Pressil fabricated evidence in support of his economic damages, the trial court struck Pressil’s pleadings and rendered a take-nothing judgment against him. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND About four years after his twin sons were born, Pressil discovered a 2007 receipt from a medical laboratory for cryopreservation of a sperm sample. Although Pressil had not sought such services, the receipt listed Pressil as the patient. On further investigation, Pressil learned that the lab is associated with a fertility clinic, and that Pressil’s former girlfriend had conceived the twins through in vitro fertilization. A. The Fertility Lawsuit Pressil contacted attorney Jason A. Gibson at the Gibson Law Firm (collectively, “Gibson”) in early November 2011 to represent him in suing the clinic for performing the fertilization procedure without Pressil’s knowledge or consent. We refer to that case as “the Fertility Lawsuit.” According to Pressil, Gibson knew that the claims against the clinic were devoid of merit, but that the facts of the case would garner media attention. Pressil contends that Gibson coerced him into giving interviews with various news outlets by telling Pressil that the publicity would force the clinic to settle the case. Pressil states that Gibson also disclosed confidential information without Pressil’s consent and sometimes in contravention of Pressil’s express instructions. He alleges that Gibson’s disclosure of confidential information to the press and the resultant “extensive media blitz” caused Pressil to lose an employment opportunity and to suffer mental anguish and emotional distress. The fertility clinic did not settle with Pressil, and Pressil’s claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to provide an expert report. 2 B. The Professional-Negligence Lawsuit After the Fertility Lawsuit was dismissed, Pressil sued Gibson and two other attorneys of the Gibson Law Firm for professional negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. See Pressil v. Gibson, 477 S.W.3d 402, 405–06 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (“Pressil I”). The trial court rendered summary judgment against Pressil on his negligence claims on the ground, among others, that Pressil sustained no recoverable damages. The trial court then severed the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim from the negligence suit, see id. at 405, 408, and Pressil unsuccessfully appealed the summary judgment against him on his negligence claims. See id. at 411. C. The Breach-of-Fiduciary-Duty Lawsuit The present case is the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim that was severed from the professional-negligence lawsuit. Pressil alleges that in November 2011, he had applied and interviewed for a position as project manager ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals