Bit Parts

The Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court's summary judgment ruling in favor of attorneys sued for malpractice over their representation of a client in concert promotion litigation. Resendez v. Maloney, 01-08-00954-CV. In the underlying case, Paul Resendez and his company had co-promoted Latin music events with Pace Concerts and its successor, SFX Entertainment (today known as Live Nation). After Pace/SFX began co-promoting events for the Hispanic market with Cardenas/Fernandez & Associates, Resendez sued Pace/SFX in Bexar County Court. Pace/SFX responded with a suit in Harris County Court seeking a declaration that it had no partnership relationship with Resendez. Resendez then non-suited the Bexar County complaint and counterclaimed with a fraudulent-inducement-to-contract allegation in the Harris County case. The Harris County judge ruled the statute of frauds barred any partnership agreement between Resendez and Pace/SFX. After losing on appeal, Resendez sued his counsel, Pat Maloney Jr. and James E. Willingham Jr., alleging malpractice in how they presented Resendez's appellate arguments in the concert promotion case. Resendez had claimed to have a 10-year agreement with Pace/SFX, but in deciding the legal malpractice case in favor of the lawyers, the court of appeals noted of the underlying concert promotion litigation: “The letters and memoranda exchanged by [Resendez and Pace/SFX] demonstrate their attempt to negotiate a partnership agreement. For example, Pace Concerts sent Resendez an unsigned memorandum that stated, 'The information contained in this outline should not be construed as a firm offer, but rather as a starting point to determine if all of the related parties are in agreement to move this potential partnership forward.' Resendez later wrote to Pace Concerts and explained his disappointment about the relationship as it had evolved between the parties. He implicitly acknowledged that the parties did not have a written contract when he expressed his reservations about 'going further without a written and specific plan of participation,' and he reiterated what terms of partnership would be acceptable to him. These documents that suggest the parties might enter into a partnership at some time in the future are insufficient to satisfy the writing requirement of the statute of frauds. ' In addition, none of the documents exchanged between the parties and submitted as summary judgment proof were signed by a representative of Pace Concerts or SFX Entertainment.”