basis of a fraud claim in Texas

2016See Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C., 178 S.W.3d 398, 408 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (holding that litigation privilege bars fraud claim based on actions such as filing lawsuits and pleadings, providing legal advice, and awareness of settlement negotiations); White v. Bayless, 32 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. *288 dism’d w.o.j.) (holding that claim of conspiracy to commit fraud was barred by litigation privilege because attorneys’ actions of preparing and filing various pleadings were “actions taken as attorneys representing their client”).

2009See Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C. , 178 S.W.3d 398, 408 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (holding that litigation privilege bars fraud claim based on actions such as filing lawsuits and pleadings, providing legal advice, and awareness of settlement negotiations); White v. Bayless , 32 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (holding that claim of conspiracy to commit fraud was barred by litigation privilege because attorneys' actions of preparing and filing various pleadings were "actions taken as attorneys representing their client").

2016See Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C., 178 S.W.3d 398, 408 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (holding that litigation privilege bars fraud claim based on actions such as filing lawsuits and pleadings, providing legal advice, and awareness of settlement negotiations); White v. Bayless, 32 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. *288 dism’d w.o.j.) (holding that claim of conspiracy to commit fraud was barred by litigation privilege because attorneys’ actions of preparing and filing various pleadings were “actions taken as attorneys representing their client”).

2009See Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C. , 178 S.W.3d 398, 408 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (holding that litigation privilege bars fraud claim based on actions such as filing lawsuits and pleadings, providing legal advice, and awareness of settlement negotiations); White v. Bayless , 32 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (holding that claim of conspiracy to commit fraud was barred by litigation privilege because attorneys' actions of preparing and filing various pleadings were "actions taken as attorneys representing their client").

2015He asserts that “[t]he only evidence that NCI cited to show that ... [he] w[as] aware of the falsity of [his] representations concerning competition was the fact that [he] did eventually compete over a year later.” “A promise of future performance' constitutes an actionable misrepresentation if the promise was made with no intention of performing at the time it was made.” Aquaplex, 297 S.W.3d at 774 (internal quotations omitted); However, “[p]roving that a party had no intention of performing at the time a contract was made is not easy, as intent to defraud is not usually susceptible to direct

2015He asserts that “[t]he only evidence that NCI cited to show that ... [he] w[as] aware of the falsity of [his] representations concerning competition was the fact that [he] did eventually compete over a year later.” “A promise of future performance' constitutes an actionable misrepresentation if the promise was made with no intention of performing at the time it was made.” Aquaplex, 297 S.W.3d at 774 (internal quotations omitted); However, “[p]roving that a party had no intention of performing at the time a contract was made is not easy, as intent to defraud is not usually susceptible to direct

2015See Garza v. Carmona, 390 S.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2012, no pet.) (“Myers’s [certificate of merit] does not identify or otherwise discuss the Carmonas’ claims for common-law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or breach of contract.”).

2015They assert, however, that the certificate does not meet the requirements of a gross negligence claim because the certificate does not identify any “alleged reckless disregard of Cardona’s rights”; of a breach of contract claim because the certificate “does not mention the existence, let alone [the expert’s] review of, any contract”; of a fraud claim because the expert “does not explain or even intimate that any of [the acts described in the certificate] form the basis of a fraud claim”; or of claims for deceptive trade practices or insurance code violations because the expert “does not specif

2015There, we held that a certificate of merit does not “need to recite the applicable standard of care and how it was allegedly violated in order to provide an adequate factual basis for the identification of professional errors.” Id.

2006See, e.g., Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.3d 193 , 211 n. 45 (Tex.2002) (essential *423 elements of fraud claim include representation that is false).