HOUSTON - The Fourteenth Court of Appeals has reversed a summary judgment award of more than $291,000 against United Waterworks and its manager, Gary Tompkins.
Court records show that on July 19, 2024, Pranesh Jayaprakash filed suit against United Waterwork, alleging that, after a routine service visit by a technician, the water softener system in his home began leaking and ultimately caused significant damage.
He asserted claims for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and requested treble damages under the act, as well as mental anguish damages and attorney’s fees.
Jayaprakash served separate requests for admissions from the defendants through email, but neither United Waterworks nor Tompkins supplied timely responses.
Court records show that on April 15, 2025, Jayaprakash filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to establish liability under the DTPA and for negligence. The sole evidence provided in support of the motion was the two sets of deemed admissions.
Neither defendant responded to the motion, which the trial court granted on May 12, 2025. In its final judgment, the court awarded Jayaprakash $200,114.97 in DTPA treble damages, $50,000 in mental anguish damages, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest, for a total award of $291,593.10.
On June 23, 2025, the defendants filed a combined motion to strike the deemed admissions, motion for reconsideration, and motion for new trial, arguing that there was good cause to do so, such as their counsel’s use of a faulty email organization system.
The trial court denied the motion, leading to the appeal.
On Aug. 20, the 14th Court concluded that the trial court should have struck the deemed admissions, reversing the judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Justices found that there was no evidence of flagrant bad faith or callous disregard for the rules, and nothing in the record justified the presumption that the defendants’ defenses lack merit.
“Jayaprakash urges that counsel should have been monitoring the ongoing litigation more closely so that the failures to timely respond would have been noticed earlier,” the opinion states. “We note, however, that counsel’s use of a faulty email organization system was the root of all the problems; thus, in effect, it was one poor decision or mistake that caused the successive failures to respond.
“This is not a case where a party failed to timely raise the issue of deemed admissions once put on notice of the failure to respond to requests for admissions.”
Appeals case No. 14-25-00821-CV
