Christian Lavell Jennings v. Vandergriff Honda

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Whether the trial court entered judgment despite Appellee initiating the state court action without proper notice to Appellant, and whether this lack of notice constitutes a fundamental procedural defect warranting reversal[;] The alleged contents of the USB drive do not appear anywhere in the record. 3. Whether the trial court violated Appellant’s procedural due process rights by failing to review the full record or provide Appellant with a meaningful opportunity to be heard before rendering the final judgment[;] 4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering judgment while critical dispositive motions—including a Motion to Vacate the Order Granting Retention and a Motion for Sanctions—remained pending, unopposed, and unadjudicated[; and] 5. Whether the trial court failed to address or acknowledge Appellant’s formal and noticed concerns about the misconduct of its own court coordinator Tracy J Laffoon, thereby depriving Appellant of an impartial forum and compounding the denial of procedural due process. Jennings has forfeited her complaints due to inadequate briefing. Notwithstanding Jennings’s forfeited complaints, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it confirmed the arbitration award. A. Standard of Review Texas law favors arbitration. Hoskins v. Hoskins, 497 S.W.3d 490, 494 (Tex. 2016); Brady v. Brady, Nos.

Authorities cited in the passage: Standard of Review Texas law favors arbitration. Hoskins v. Hoskins, 497 S · Brady v. Brady