A sign outside a store in Baltimore, Maryland, requests customers wear protective masks upon entering in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

Houston litigation funder Virage Master won a $6.04 million judgment against trial lawyer B. Gregg Price after Price's defense lawyer received conflicting information about court hearings at a time when COVID-19 stay-home orders were coming out. Now, the suit is raising questions about how government orders related to court operations, issued as governors asked people to shelter in place, affected litigation.

Series 1—Virage Master had sued Price in 2019, alleging he failed to pay a $3.25 million loan in 2015. The final summary judgment that 215th District Judge Elaine Palmer signed on April 2 ordered Price, individually and through his firm, to pay Virage $6.04 million in unpaid principal and interest, and $16,295 in attorney fees.

But Price, of Sulphur Springs, alleged in a motion for new trial and reconsideration that his attorney, Alan Gerger, did not receive timely notice that a hearing on the summary judgment motion scheduled for April 2 would be by submission. On June 11, Palmer denied that motion.

"The bottom line is we respectfully disagree with the trial court's ruling and will pursue an appeal," said Dallas lawyer John Eichman, who joined Gerger on Price's legal team after Palmer granted summary judgment.

The dispute began right before the spread of the coronavirus led to stay-at-home orders. On March 12, Virage filed the motion for summary judgment, and Palmer set an oral hearing for April 2. Price's response was due March 26, but Gerger wrote in an affidavit that he stopped working on it after he learned of several government orders, including one on March 16 from the Harris County civil courts that canceled nonessential in-person hearings.

"I concluded that the hearing had been canceled," wrote Gerger, of The Gerger Law Firm.

Gerger wrote that he expected Virage to seek a new hearing and that he would be notified, but he said he received no notice. On April 1, Gerger wrote, he called a court clerk and learned that the motion would be heard by submission the next day, and he quickly filed an opposition, but Palmer struck that pleading because it was not timely filed.

Eichman said Price takes the position that Gerger should have been notified that the summary judgment motion would be heard by submission.

"Because he wasn't, that consideration and granting of the summary judgment was not appropriate," Eichman said.

Ashish Mahendru, of Mahendru PC in Houston, who represents Virage, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Read More:

Litigation Funder Sues Texas Plaintiffs Lawyer for $5.7M Over Alleged Failure to Repay