A Texas court recently ruled on a personal injury case involving Michael Berman and Brooke Rogan. The court's decision affects how claims of assault and emotional distress are handled in similar situations. This case highlights the complexities surrounding consent and personal boundaries in social settings.
Michael Berman filed a lawsuit against Brooke Rogan after an incident at the Velvet Lounge in Fredericksburg, Texas, in January 2024. Berman claimed that Rogan kissed him without consent and engaged in inappropriate physical contact. After several months of litigation, Rogan requested a no-evidence summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Berman appealed the decision, raising several issues regarding the summary judgment and the award of attorney's fees.
The case originated when Berman and Rogan met at the Velvet Lounge. Berman alleged that Rogan kissed him without consent, grabbed his belt, and placed her hand down his pants. Following the incident, he sought medical attention for anxiety and emotional distress. In July 2024, he filed a lawsuit against Rogan for assault by offensive contact and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Rogan responded to the lawsuit with a general denial and later filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing that Berman had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims. The trial court granted Rogan's motion, stating that there was no evidence to support Berman's claims. Rogan was subsequently awarded attorney's fees, which Berman contested.
The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed the case and issued its opinion on October 7, 2026. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment on Berman's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress but reversed the summary judgment on the assault claim. The court also overturned the award of attorney's fees to Rogan.
The court ruled, "We conclude Berman produced more than a scintilla of evidence on each challenged element of assault by offensive contact."
The judges involved in the ruling were Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, and Justice Adrian A. Spears II. The court's decision emphasized that Berman's affidavit provided sufficient evidence to raise a factual issue regarding the assault claim. The court noted that the offensive contact itself is the wrong, and proof of physical injury is not necessary for an assault claim.
In contrast, the court upheld the trial court's dismissal of Berman's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court found that Berman's emotional distress was tied directly to the same conduct that supported his assault claim, which meant he had an alternative legal remedy.
The court also addressed the issue of attorney's fees awarded to Rogan. The court found that the trial court had abused its discretion in awarding fees under Rule 13, stating that losing a no-evidence summary judgment does not automatically equate to a groundless claim. The court noted that the trial court did not provide the necessary findings to support the award of attorney's fees.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving similar claims of assault and emotional distress. It clarifies that plaintiffs can still pursue claims for assault even if they do not demonstrate physical injury. Additionally, the ruling sets a precedent regarding the awarding of attorney's fees in cases where a no-evidence summary judgment is granted.
Moving forward, the case will return to the trial court for further proceedings regarding Berman's assault claim. The court's decision leaves open the possibility for Berman to present additional evidence and arguments in support of his claim.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or related cases. However, the ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of consent and personal boundaries in social interactions.