We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Hon. Stacy Sharp
Judge · Seat 4B
Texas Business Court · Fourth Business Court Division (San Antonio)
Biography
Stacy Rogers Sharp sits in the Texas Business Court’s Fourth Division, which covers 22 counties in South Texas extending from the border south of Laredo to coastal Aransas County. Judge Sharp’s background in commercial litigation derives from her private practice as an appellate lawyer and trial-litigation consultant in civil suits that included contractual breaches, unfair competition, banking disputes, corporate-governance and fiduciary litigation, energy matters, employment law, and intellectual-property matters. She has long served on the faculty of the University of Texas School of Law, having most recently taught advanced writing for litigation. Her publications and papers cover the topics of fraudulent transfers, trade secrets, oil and gas litigation, business torts, rhetorical techniques for handling counterarguments, and the Texas Civil Participation Act. She is former president of the Federal Bar Association’s Austin Chapter and sits on its San Antonio Chapter’s executive board. A 2006 graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, she was a Chancellor, a Teaching Quizmaster, and member of the Texas Law Review. She began her appellate practice at Baker Botts LLP after clerking in the Western District of Texas for the Honorable Lee Yeakel. Before practicing law, she attended Vanderbilt University and served as a math and science teacher. More recently, she served her community on the Board of Trustees for Alamo Heights Independent School District and on the State Bar's Child Abuse & Neglect Committee. After years of serving as a foster parent, she now enjoys volunteering with the National Charity League and Young Men's Service League.
Opinions by Judge Sharp (5)
Rule 91a Does Not Require Dismissal of Fraud-by-Nondisclosure, Tortious Interference, or Aiding-and-Abetting Claims Where Pleadings Allege Sufficient Facts
In Hinds v. Sandman Offshore, the Texas Business Court denied Rule 91a motions to dismiss fraud-by-nondisclosure, tortious-interference, civil-conspiracy, and knowing-participation claims arising from alleged self-dealing by a co-manager who recommended his own drilling company without disclosure. The court held that inaction constitutes adequate reliance for fraud claims and declined to hold that established Texas law precludes a viable aiding-and-abetting claim under Rule 91a's dismissal standard.
Exculpatory Clauses in LLC Agreements Can Eliminate Most Managerial Fiduciary Duties Under Rule 91a
In Hinds v. Sandman Offshore, Division 11 granted partial Rule 91a dismissal of fiduciary duty claims against an LLC manager where the company agreement eliminated all managerial fiduciary duties except those "expressly set forth" in the agreement, preserving only duties not to engage in gross negligence, willful misconduct, or breach. The court also held that LLC voting rights are not tangible personal property supporting conversion claims and that parties to a relationship cannot tortiously interfere with that same relationship.
Shareholder Cannot Bring Individual Conversion Claim for Corporate Property Without Derivative Pleading
In Stratton v. Hogan, the Business Court of Texas granted a Rule 91a motion to dismiss a shareholder's individual conversion claim for physical-therapy equipment that the shareholder's own pleading described as belonging to the jointly owned corporation. The court held that injuries to corporate property must be brought by the corporation or derivatively on its behalf, and that the shareholder failed to plead either derivative standing or facts showing personal ownership of the allegedly converted equipment.
TCPA Motion to Dismiss Granted Against Defamation and Tortious Interference Counterclaims Based on Litigation-Related Customer Letters
In Local Marketing v. Bennett, the Texas Business Court granted a TCPA motion to dismiss counterclaims for defamation and tortious interference, holding that letters sent to customers describing a TRO in the underlying litigation constituted communications "pertaining to" a judicial proceeding under Section 27.001(4)(A)(i). The court found that counterclaim defendants failed to establish a prima facie case for damages or defamation per se with clear and specific evidence, and awarded attorney's fees to the movant.
Rule 91a Motion Denied Where Partnership Dissolution Pleadings Satisfy Notice Standard
In Hensarling v. Carmichael, the Business Court's Fourth Division held it had subject-matter jurisdiction over a partnership dissolution claim because the plaintiff sought dissolution of the entire partnership, satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement even without seeking monetary damages. The court also addressed whether a nonsuit filed two days before the hearing prevented it from ruling on defendants' pending Rule 91a motion to dismiss.