Trickett v. A G Edwards & Sons

* District Judge of the Central District of Illinois, sitting
by designation.
** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-10144
_____________________
JOHN TRICKETT,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
A. G. EDWARDS & SONS INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
A. G. EDWARDS & SONS INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CV-2912-M
_________________________________________________________________
January 11, 2002
Before JOLLY and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and MILLS,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:**
We have reviewed the record and studied the briefs in this
case, and we find no reversible error. Although we think that the
district court erred in setting aside the jury’s determination that
Trickett ratified A.G. Edwards’ conduct, this error makes no
difference in the ultimate judgment. The jury determined that

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Trickett’s claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(“DTPA”), TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.46, formed an independent
basis for the award of damages and attorneys’ fees. Because
ratification does not provide a defense to a DTPA claim, the
failure of Trickett’s negligence and fiduciary breach claims based
on the jury’s finding of ratification does not affect the amount of
the final award and consequently does not require a reversal of the
district court’s judgment.
We also conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to Trickett, supports the jury’s finding that A.G.
Edwards did not provide Trickett with a level of expertise
consistent with Lanier Lafitte’s representations. The district
court therefore correctly held that the jury’s finding of a DTPA
violation is adequately supported in the record.
Finally, we find no principle of Texas law that precludes the
damage award in this case, which essentially provided a remedy to
make Trickett whole. Thus, under the circumstances of this case,
the district court did not err in allowing the jury to base its
award on the value of the shares that Trickett was forced to sell
to pay the cost of exercising the options, measured at the time of
the trial. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --