Defense Filings in Cause No. 2025-95850

Last updated: August 26, 2026

The Parties

Defendants Rendon Legal, PLLC and Laci Rendon are represented by Kerr Wilson, P.C. in Cause No. 2025-95850 in the 189th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

The case is styled Willis, Scott Allen v. Rendon Legal, PLLC and Laci Rendon. It alleges fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and filing a fraudulent court record under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 12.002.

The Original Answer (February 2, 2026)

On February 2, 2026, Richard G. Wilson filed Defendants' Original Answer asserting the following affirmative defenses:

• Plaintiff lacks standing because he was not a client of Rendon.
• Rendon owe no duties to the Plaintiff.
• Rendon are protected by attorney immunity.
• Rendon are protected by the judicial proceedings privilege.
• Plaintiff's alleged damages were caused by a third party.
• Plaintiff is wholly responsible for his alleged damages.

Source: Harris County District Clerk, Envelope No. 110729061, filed February 2, 2026.

The Motion to Dismiss (February 3, 2026)

On February 3, 2026, Richard G. Wilson filed a Motion to Dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing that all claims should be dismissed as a matter of law. The motion made two primary arguments:

Attorney Immunity

The motion argued that under Cantey Hanger, L.L.P. v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015), a lawyer is immune from suit by third parties if the lawyer's action was within the scope of representing a client and was not foreign to the duties of an attorney. The motion argued that filing a Certificate of Last Known Address is attorney work within the scope of client representation.

The motion cited Bethel v. Quilling, 595 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. 2020) and Landry's, Inc. v. Animal Legal Def. Fund, 631 S.W.3d 40 (Tex. 2021) for the proposition that even criminal conduct is not categorically excepted from attorney immunity.

Judicial Proceedings Privilege

The motion argued that the Certificate of Last Known Address is a filing made in the course of a judicial proceeding and is therefore protected by absolute privilege, citing Wilkinson v. USAA Fed. Savs. Bank Trust Servs. and McCrary v. Hightower, 513 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2016).

Attorney's Fee Demand

The motion requested $3,225 in attorney's fees under Rule 91a.7, supported by an Unsworn Declaration of Richard G. Wilson stating he spent 9.4 hours reviewing filings and drafting the answer and motion at $250 per hour, with an anticipated 3.5 additional hours for argument.

Source: Harris County District Clerk, Envelope No. 110785155, filed February 3, 2026.

Plaintiff's Response (February 9, 2026)

Plaintiff Scott Allen Willis filed a pro se response arguing:

• Attorney immunity does not protect conduct that is "foreign to the duties of an attorney" under Cantey Hanger. Filing a document the attorney knows to be false is foreign to any legitimate legal duty.
• The 103-day timeline between successful personal service and the false certificate proves knowing fraud, not a mistake. [see note below]
• The judicial proceedings privilege does not protect fraud upon the court. The Certificate of Last Known Address is a certified representation of fact, not argument or advocacy.
• Claims under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 12.002 (fraudulent court records) are not subject to the same immunity analysis.

Source: Harris County District Clerk, Envelope No. 111015890, filed February 9, 2026.

The response says 103 days and dates personal service to April 7, 2024. The process server’s sworn Affidavit of Service, filed April 15, 2024, records service on April 6, 2024 at 6:15 p.m. — the arrest followed that evening and booking was recorded the next day. The gap is therefore 104 days, which is the figure used elsewhere on this site. The bullets above are reproduced as filed.

A fifth item in that response referred to a criminal complaint. It is not reproduced here: the District Attorney has declined to pursue charges, and no charge has been filed against any person in connection with this matter.

Court’s Ruling: Motion to Dismiss Granted

On March 19, 2026, the 189th District Court signed an order granting the Rule 91a motion. The order dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims against both Defendants with prejudice, held Plaintiff responsible for Defendants’ court costs, and awarded Defendants $1,500.00 in attorney’s fees under Rule 91a.7. The order states: “This is a final judgment.”

Source: Harris County District Clerk, Case No. 202595850, Order signed March 19, 2026 at 9:19 AM.

The Scheduling Order Did Not Survive the Ruling

On February 19, 2026 the court had issued a Scheduling and Docket Control Order setting the case on the two-week trial docket beginning February 2, 2027, with pleading, discovery, mediation and dispositive-motion deadlines through January 1, 2027. That order predates the dismissal by a month and was superseded by it. No trial took place and none is set.

Source: Harris County District Clerk, Case No. 202595850, Docket Control Order dated February 19, 2026.

Motion for New Trial and Finality

Plaintiff filed a Motion for New Trial on April 13, 2026, arguing under Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. 2020) that a Rule 91a dismissal is reviewed de novo and that the pleadings had to be construed in his favor, and filed a contemporaneous request for an oral hearing. No written order determining the motion was signed. Under Rule 329b(c) the motion was overruled by operation of law on June 2, 2026, and the court’s plenary power expired thirty days later.

Because the motion for new trial was timely, the deadline to perfect an appeal ran on June 17, 2026, extendable by fifteen days on motion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. No notice of appeal appears among the records reviewed for this page. The claims in this suit were never tried, and the court made no finding that any allegation in them was either true or false — a Rule 91a motion is decided on the pleadings alone, without evidence.

Source: Harris County District Clerk, Case No. 202595850, Envelope No. 113570468, filed April 13, 2026.

What the Docket Shows

The complete docket for Cause No. 2025-95850 is publicly available through the Harris County District Clerk at hcdistrictclerk.com. All filings referenced on this page are public court records.