Email Notice Is Actual Notice of Judgment

• Pages: 24-24
• Date: 01 April 2025
• Published date: 01 April 2025
• Author: Michelle C. Hayes
• Subject Matter: Civil Law

t is common for litigators to receive a large volume of

email each day, and most people can relate to the experi-

ence of having overlooked an email. In Red Bluff, LLC v.

Tarpley, a state appellate court held that an email notice

that a judgment has been signed constitutes actual

notice of judgment, even if the email is unread. ABA Litigation

Section leaders caution that it is necessary to have a system in

place to ensure every email is read and relevant deadlines are

calendared.

A nursing assistant sued her employer for personal injuries

she allegedly sustained when she placed her leg under a falling

bariatric patient to break his fall. After a jury returned a $7.1

million verdict for the nursing assistant, the trial court entered

judgment on the verdict. When it signed the judgment, the

trial court used the proposed judgment the employer’s counsel

submitted.

The trial court signed the judgment on February 4, 2022.

It was undisputed that the trial court clerk did not send the

parties immediate notice of the judgment by rst-class mail

as was required under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306. But

the post-judgment deadlines started to run the date the judg-

ment was signed unless neither the employer nor its counsel

acquired “actual knowledge of the order” within 20 days of

the trial court’s signing.

On February 8, 2022, the Harris County District Clerk sent

an e-notice that a judgment had been signed in the case. The

notice was delivered by email to the employee’s and employ-

er’s respective counsel. Defense counsel stated under oath that

he did not open the email and did not recall seeing it until

after the employee’s attorney mentioned it to him in March

2022.

The trial court held that defense counsel acquired actual

knowledge of the signing of the judgment when he received the

email from the court on February 8. Because defense counsel

received actual notice of the signing of the judgment within

20 days after the judgment was signed, the motion to reset

post-judgment deadlines was denied.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas

agreed and held actual knowledge of the judgment existed

upon receipt of the email notice in defense counsel’s inbox.

Knowledge of the contents of the judgment was not required

to create actual knowledge of judgment.

In Tarpley, the dissenting justice explained that the initial

email notice concerning the judgment was an “unread email.”

The unread email contained notice that a judgment had been

signed, but it did not include a copy of the judgment. Under

these facts, the dissenting justice would have held there was no

evidence that defense counsel received “actual knowledge” of

the judgment when the email was delivered to counsel’s inbox.

The dissent noted that while the majority opinion was

consistent with three prior appellate decisions, there was a

fourth precedent in which the intermediate appellate court

held counsel’s receipt of an email to which a judgment was

attached did not provide actual notice of judgment when the

record showed the email was never opened. As of this writing,

the state supreme court had not addressed this conict among

the intermediate appellate courts.

“In view of the local rules of the trial court, if actual

knowledge was not satised by the email notice in this case,

the rule could operate to extend deadlines indenitely,”

explains Edward A. Marod, West Palm Beach, FL, Co-Chair

of the Litigation Section’s Professional Liability Litigation

Committee. “The dissent is looking out for his brother lawyer,

but the rules are the rules,” notes Marod.

“It’s unfortunate that the deadlines were missed, but

counsel’s oversight does not stop the clock from running on

appellate deadlines,” remarks Tiffany Rowe, Washington,

DC, former Co-Chair of the Section’s Professional Liability

Litigation Committee. “Lawyers have a duciary duty to their

clients,” reminds Rowe. To argue “the email provides no more

than constructive knowledge is misplaced given the height-

ened duty of the attorney-client relationship,” Rowe adds.

An attorney “has a duty to nd a way to be aware of

incoming communications,” explains Marod. For example,

a rm’s “IT department can set up an automatic forward of

every court email to an associate or ofce clerk who will open

and read it” to ensure relevant deadlines are calendared, sug-

gests Marod. “Some jurisdictions allow counsel to designate a

secondary recipient of each attorney’s ofcial correspondence

from the court,” adds Marod. “Electronic notices should be

received by more than one individual,” agrees Rowe.

Going a step further, “all lawyers, whether at large rms

or in solo practice, should have a second individual that fol-

lows all court dates, deadlines, and lings,” counsels Rowe. In

other words, “cases should be double-calendared,” she states.

Best practices would have attorneys put “a system in place at

the rm to comply with the rules” of the courts in which they

practice, concludes Marod.

Email Notice Is Actual Notice of

Judgment

By Michelle C. Hayes , Litigation News Associate Editor

SPRING 20 25 • VOL. 50 NO. 3

24 | ABA LITIGATION SECTIO N

CIVIL PROCEDURE UPDATE

Published in Litigation News Volu me 50, Number 3, Sprin g 2025. © 2025 by t he American Bar A ssociation. Re produced with per mission. All righ ts reserved. Thi s information or an y portion there of may not be copied or

disseminated in an y form or by any means or s tored in an electro nic database or re trieval system wi thout the express w ritten consen t of the American B ar Associatio n.