The Texas Court of Appeals has upheld a default judgment against PLV Waugh LLC, which operates as Pizza Birra Vino, and its owner, Albert Ortiz. This ruling, issued on November 3, 2026, affects the restaurant and its owner after they failed to respond to a lawsuit filed by Titan Asset Purchasing, LLC. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of proper legal service and the consequences of not responding to legal actions.

The case, identified as docket number 07-26-00205-CV, arose when Titan Asset Purchasing filed a lawsuit against PLV for breach of contract and against Ortiz for breach of guaranty. The dispute began in 2024, leading to a series of legal maneuvers that culminated in the default judgment. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for service of process and the conditions under which a default judgment can be upheld.

In 2024, Titan Asset Purchasing initiated legal action against PLV Waugh LLC and Ortiz, who is the sole owner of the business. The lawsuit stemmed from allegations of breach of contract. Titan attempted to serve Ortiz and PLV through their registered agent, Anchor Restaurants LLC, at an address in Houston. However, the process server faced difficulties in delivering the legal documents, leading to multiple attempts between March and May 2025. During this period, Ortiz filed for bankruptcy relief, complicating the service process further.

After failing to serve the defendants directly, Titan sought to serve PLV through the Texas Secretary of State, claiming that reasonable diligence had been exercised in attempting to locate the registered agent. The Secretary of State subsequently forwarded the legal documents to Ortiz, who was personally served in September 2025. Despite these efforts, neither PLV nor Ortiz responded to the lawsuit, prompting Titan to file for a default judgment, which was granted by the trial court.

The Texas Court of Appeals, led by Chief Justice Judy C. Parker, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court ruled that Titan Asset Purchasing had indeed demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to serve PLV through its registered agent. The court stated, "The process server affirmed that he attempted service at the registered agent’s address on four separate dates, at different times of day." This finding was crucial in upholding the default judgment.

In addition to affirming the default judgment, the court also addressed PLV and Ortiz's motion for a new trial. The appellants argued that their failure to respond was due to a misunderstanding regarding the validity of the lawsuit, believing it should have been filed in South Dakota. However, the court found that this argument did not meet the necessary legal standards to warrant a new trial. The court concluded, "Because PLV and Ortiz failed to meet the first prong of the Craddock test, we need not reach the remaining two prongs." This ruling reinforces the importance of timely responses to legal actions.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate parties involved. It serves as a reminder to businesses and individuals that failing to respond to legal proceedings can lead to significant consequences, including default judgments. The court's decision also underscores the importance of proper service of process and the legal obligations of defendants to engage with the judicial system.

Moving forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in Texas, particularly regarding the standards for service of process and the expectations for defendants to respond to lawsuits. Legal experts suggest that this case could set a precedent for future disputes involving default judgments and service issues.

As for next steps, PLV and Ortiz may consider their options for appealing the court's decision. However, the court's ruling appears to have firmly established the legal framework surrounding this case. There are no indications of related cases pending that would affect this ruling.