Griffith v. Property and Casualty Ins. Co. of Hartford

No. 517 June 4, 2025 175 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Kevin J. LEE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES, Respondent. Department of Consumer and Business Services INS190008; A182238 Argued and submitted April 1, 2025. Kevin J. Lee argued the cause and filed the briefs pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Hellman, Judge. HELLMAN, J. Affirmed. 176 Lee v. DCBS HELLMAN, J. Petitioner, appearing pro se, seeks judicial review of a final order of the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) that revoked his insurance licenses and assessed civil penalties. On judicial review, petitioner argues that the final order is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. “We review an agency’s order in a contested case for errors of law, ORS 183.482(8)(a), substantial evidence, ORS 183.482(8)(c), and substantial reason.” Dorn v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm., 316 Or App 241, 243, 504 P3d 44 (2021). “Substantial evidence exists to support a find- ing of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482. “Substantial reason exists where the agency has articulated a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclu- sion that the agency draws from them.” Dorn, 316 Or App at 243 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Our review is restricted to the record.” Id. (citing ORS 183.482(7)); see also ORS 183.417(9) (defining “[t]he record in a contested case”). A detailed recitation of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. Petitioner held securities sales, insurance provider, and insurance consultant licenses in Oregon for several years. In 2017, the Federal Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) contacted petitioner to determine if he had violated any federal securities laws when he provided investment advice to his former neigh- bors. In 2018, petitioner filed a resident insurance license renewal application with the state and represented that he had not “been named or involved as a party in an adminis- trative proceeding, including FINRA sanction.” DCBS sub- sequently alleged that petitioner “act[ed] as a state invest- ment adviser in Oregon without a state investment license,” provided “misleading information” on his insurance license applications by not disclosing the FINRA investigation, and that he engaged in “fraudulent, coercive, or dishonest prac- tices.” At the contested hearing, the daughter of petitioner’s former neighbors, petitioner, and a DCBS financial enforce- ment officer testified, and the administrative law judge (ALJ) received into evidence numerous exhibits offered by Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 175 (2025) 177 each party. The ALJ ruled in favor of DCBS and issued a proposed order. DCBS adopted the ALJ’s proposed order as the final order. We have reviewed each of petitioner’s 18 separate arguments concerning the final order and conclude that petitioner presents no basis to reverse. Many of petitioner’s arguments dispute DCBS’s interpretation of the facts, but we do not reweigh evidence on appeal. See Gaylord v. DMV, 283 Or App 811, 822, 391 P3d 900 (2017) (“When in a review role, a court does not review for the better evidence.”). Many of petitioner’s arguments also depend on his testimony— which DCBS found not credible—and we do not revisit cred- ibility on appeal. See id. (“A substantial evidence review does not entail or permit the reviewing tribunal to reweigh or to assess the credibility of the evidence that was presented to the fact-finding body.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)) And petitioner’s arguments do not establish that DCBS committed any legal error in its analysis. In sum, substan- tial evidence supports DBCS’s findings of fact, and the order provides substantial reason for its conclusions. Petitioner has not demonstrated any legal error on DCBS’s part. Affirmed.

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00156-CV TDJ Corporation d/b/a Infinity Nails, Tiffany Thuy Do and Don Kim Do, Appellants v. CBL RM-Waco, LLC, Appellee On appeal from the 74th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Gary R. Coley, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2021-3652-3 JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 11, 2025, the appellants, TDJ Corporation d/b/a Infinity Nails, Tiffany Thuy Do and Don Kim Do, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because the parties have reached a settlement. The motion indicates that the appellants no longer desire to pursue the appeal due to the settlement which resolves all issues and disputes in the case.  The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. Accordingly, pursuant to the written settlement agreement of the parties, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). STEVE SMITH Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 18, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Appeal dismissed CV06 TDJ Corporation v. CBL RM-Waco, LLC Page 2

NUMBER 13-25-00325-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE DAISY FUENTES AND MCCOY CORPORATION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relators Daisy Fuentes and McCoy Corporation contend that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering them to produce “all primary and excess policies of insurance that may provide coverage in this case.” Relators have also filed a motion for emergency stay of the trial court’s order pending the resolution of this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).  A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(f); 194.2(b)(7); In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298, 304 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for emergency stay. L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice Delivered and filed on the 17th day of June, 2025. 2

FILE COPY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Post Office Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 463-1312 Friday, June 13, 2025 Mr. George M. Bishop Mr. Charles Flores Attorney at Law Flores Law PLLC 4191 F.M. 1155 South 917 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Chappell Hill, TX 77426 Houston, TX 77002 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * RE: Case Number: 23-0868 Court of Appeals Number: 10-21-00309-CV Trial Court Number: 18-001344-CV-361 Style: WHITE KNIGHT DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. DICK B. SIMMONS, SR., AND JULIE M. SIMMONS Dear Counsel: Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion and judgment in the above- referenced cause. You may obtain a copy of the opinion and judgment through Case Search on our Court’s webpage at: http://www.txcourts.gov/supreme.aspx. On the Case Search page simply enter the case number and push the Search button to find the docket page for your case. Sincerely, Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk cc: Ms. Sherry Williamson (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) District Clerk Brazos County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Matthew Sharpe (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)