Here’s an analysis of the Supreme Court of Texas case, Red Bluff, LLC v. Nicole Tarpley (No. 24-0005, delivered May 9, 2025). The text of the opinion can be downloaded by clicking here.
Case Background
Nicole Tarpley sued Red Bluff, LLC (her employer, a nonsubscriber to Texas workers’ compensation) for injuries suffered while working as a certified nursing assistant. A jury found in Tarpley’s favor, and the trial court awarded her $7.1 million on claims for negligence and premises liability.
Red Bluff’s lead counsel missed the standard 30-day window for post-judgment motions, claiming he didn’t actually see or read the email notice of judgment until March 14—well after the judgment was signed (Feb 4) and the clerk’s email was sent (Feb 8). He filed his notice of appeal and relevant post-judgment motions on March 14, along with a sworn statement that he wasn’t aware of the judgment until that day.
The trial court and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals both found that Red Bluff’s counsel had “actual knowledge” of the judgment on Feb 8—the day the clerk emailed the notice—and thus was not entitled to a deadline extension. Red Bluff appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
Core Legal Issue
Does an attorney have “actual knowledge” of a judgment merely because the court clerk emailed the notice—even if the attorney never actually read or saw that email? Or, does “actual knowledge” require subjective, real awareness?
At the time, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(3) required notice to be sent by first-class mail, not email. Rule 306a(4) allows for a post-judgment deadline extension if the party shows (1) they didn’t receive the required notice and (2) didn’t actually know about the judgment within 20 days of its signing.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Notice by Mail Requirement: The court found Red Bluff didn’t receive notice via first-class mail as required, satisfying the first prong for a deadline extension.
- Actual Knowledge Definition: The Court emphasized that “actual knowledge” means subjective awareness—one must “in fact be aware” of the information. Constructive knowledge (what one should have known if diligent) isn’t enough.
- No Actual Knowledge Until Email Read: Red Bluff’s counsel swore he didn’t see/read the clerk’s email until March 14. There was no evidence to the contrary. The Court found this credible and drew a sharp line between receiving an email and actually being aware of its contents.
- Prior Court Misreading: The Supreme Court criticized the lower courts (and others in Texas) for treating the mere receipt of an email as “actual knowledge,” which conflates constructive with actual knowledge.
- Rule Change Note: The opinion notes the rule has since changed so that notice by email (via the state’s e-filing system) now suffices, but that change didn’t apply here.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that Red Bluff satisfied both prongs of Rule 306a(4) and was entitled to a deadline extension for post-judgment motions. The case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of Red Bluff’s motions.
Key Takeaways
- Actual knowledge is subjective and requires real awareness—not just the availability of information.
- Courts must be careful not to conflate “notice” (constructive knowledge) with actual, subjective awareness.
- Procedural compliance matters: sending notice by email didn’t meet the rule’s mail requirement at the time.
- The opinion clarifies and corrects a common misreading of Texas post-judgment procedural rules, setting precedent for similar future disputes.
Girards Law Firm specializes in cases involving Severe Injury or Wrongful Death in Texas, Arkansas or Oklahoma.