Filed:
04/03/20259:39AM
Casie
Walker,DistrictClerk
Burnet
County,Texas
Emily
Deputy:Smallwood,
CAUSENO.54561
SHANA
MYCUE,
§INTHE
DISTRICTCOURTOF
Plaintiff,§
§
v.
§
§BURNET
COUNTY,TEXAS
DANT.KEENANDKEEN'S
§
EQUINESERVICES,INC.
§
Defendants.§424111JJUDICIALDISTRICT
ORDERGRANTINGPLAINTIFF'SMOTIONFORSUMMARY
PLAINTIFF'SMOTIONTODISMISSUNDERTHE
TEXASCITIZENS
PARTICIPATION
ACT,ANDFINALJJUDGMENT
JUDGMENT,
On
April3,2025,theCourtheardPlaintiffShana
MyCue'sMotionfor
SummaryJudgment
andherMotiontoDismissUndertheTexasCitizens
ParticipationAct.TheCourt
having
consideredtheentirecasefile
includingthemotionsandthe
responsestothemotions
(if
any),the
argumentsof
counsel,andrelevant
authorityfindsthatthemotionsmeritoriousandin
all
things
shouldbeGRANTED.
It
istherefore
ORDERED,thatPlaintiff'sMotiontoDismissUndertheTexasCitizens
ParticipationActis
isfurther
It
NoticeofCounterclaimsfiledon
GRANTED;
ORDERED,thattheclaims
againstPlaintiffShana
MyCuein
January14,2025,are
herebydismissed;and
Defendants'
It
isfurther
ORDERED,
pursuantTEX.CIv.PRAC.&REM.CODE
§27.009andthisCourt's
inherent
powerunderthat
law,thatDefendantsshall
payPlaintiff'sreasonableand
attorneys'feesin
$3,722.50whichwereincurredwith
respectto
necessary
theamountof
defendingagainst
Defendants'counterclaims.
1
It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall pay Plaintiff Shana MyCue sanctions in the
amount of $5,000 which constitutes a fair, proportional and reasonable amount for deterring future
frivolous claims.
It is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED;
IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED as follows:
1. Dan T. Keen was an owner and agent for Keen's Equine Services, Inc., during the
relevant time period.
2. The contract for the purchase of a gelding, King, ("Contract") agreed to by Plaintiff
Shana MyCue ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Dan T. Keen and Keen's Equine
Services, Inc. ("Defendants") is a valid contract as a matter of law.
3. Defendants made material misrepresentations to Plaintiff regarding King's
temperament, training, and lineage. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented King
was a descendant of the famed King Ranch and was safe to be ridden by riders of
all ages and skill levels.
4. Defendants knew these representations were false at the time and intended Plaintiff
to rely upon them when agreeing on the purchase price of $15,000 for King.
5. Plaintiff fully performed its obligations under the Contract as a matter of law by
paying the agreed upon $15,000 price for King.
6. Defendant failed to perform and materially breached the Contract as a matter of law
by providing a horse that was not what was promised--a registered quarter horse
from the famed King Ranch, which could be safely ridden by novice riders of all
ages.
2
$70,347.50 7. Had Plaintiff known that King was not from the King Ranch and was unsafe for her
family to ride, she would not have paid Defendants for King.
8. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendant's false representations
when paying $15,000 for King.
9. Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations and breach of contract caused actual
damages in the amount of $13,942.75.
10. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover actual damages in the amount of $13,942.75
from the Defendants.
11. In addition, because the violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act have
been proven by clear and convincing evidence, Plaintiff is entitled to $27,885.50 in
treble damages.
12. Defendants caused Plaintiff to incur for reasonable and necessary
attorneys' fees to present her breach of contract and DTPA claims.
13. Plaintiff has proven entitlement to contingent appellate fees in the amount of
$25,250 at the Court of Appeals if an unsuccessful appeal is filed by either or both
of the Defendants; $8,000 for contingent attorneys' fees if the Court of Appeals
requires oral argument; $16,000 if Defendant files an unsuccessful petition for
review at the Supreme Court of Texas; $31,000 for contingent attorneys' fees if
Defendant is unsuccessful and the Texas Supreme Court orders briefing on the
merits; and $8,000 for contingent attorneys' fees in Defendant is unsuccessful and
the Texas Supreme Court grants oral argument.
Based on the evidence, the Court concludes that Plaintiff prevailed on its breach of
contract, fraud, and violations of the DTPA claims against Defendants. Further, the Court
3
concludes Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-suit for her Money Had and Receive/Unjust
Enrichment claim. Additionally, the Court concludes that all counterclaims asserted by
Defendants have been dismissed. Therefore, the Court concludes that all other claims and parties
have been disposed of in the present litigation.
Accordingly, the Court now renders judgment as follows:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff have judgment against
Defendants on Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the DTPA.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, read more