Linda Jensen Brys v. Calvin Cobb

Opinion issued April 30, 2026




                                        In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                           First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                               NO. 01-24-00726-CV
                             ———————————
                       LINDA JENSEN BRYS, Appellant

                                          v.

                            CALVIN COBB, Appellee


                      On Appeal from 270th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                            Cause No. 2023-45693


                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This appeal arises from an order declaring a foreign judgment void for lack of

jurisdiction. Appellant, Linda Brys,1 brought a claim against Calvin Cobb, a Texas

citizen, in California asserting that he stole intimate photographs of her from her


1
      Brys was referred to as Jane Doe in the California proceeding.
California home and later posted the photographs on Twitter. The California court

entered a default judgment against Cobb, and Brys brought a domestication action

in Texas. The Texas trial court granted Cobb’s motion for new trial and declared the

California judgment void.

      Brys appeals, arguing the trial court’s judgment was erroneous on the merits.

Our review of the record shows a more fundamental problem, namely that Cobb filed

his motion for new trial over a year after the trial court’s plenary power expired.

Because the trial court was without jurisdiction to issue the complained-of orders,

we vacate those orders and dismiss the appeal, leaving Brys’s judgment intact and

domesticated.

                                    Background

      While Cobb was visiting Brys in California, he behaved under the influence

of alcohol in a way that led Brys to lock herself in her bedroom. Brys’s friend called

the police, and Cobb continued to yell loudly and attempted to break down Brys’s

bedroom door. While Brys was speaking to the police on the phone, Cobb entered

Brys’s bedroom and removed intimate personal belongings, including her nude

photographs, without her permission. After Cobb left Brys’s home and went to a

hotel, he texted Brys showing her what he had taken. He threatened to post Brys’s

nude photographs on social media platforms, including Twitter, the same platform




                                          2
Brys used to market her business and provide “live” market calls for the energy

sector.

      About ten days later, while back in Texas, Cobb posted multiple derogatory

statements about Brys and her nude photographs on Twitter without her consent.

Multiple individuals liked, retweeted, and commented on Cobb’s posts, increasing

the dissemination of Brys’s nude photographs. These events compromised Brys’s

various business activities through Twitter, and the posts have ruined Brys’s career

and reputation in the finance industry.

      Brys sued Cobb in California, alleging that Cobb violated California’s civil

revenge porn law2 by posting illegally obtained intimate photographs to Twitter.

Because Cobb evaded service of process, the California court allowed substituted

service via email. After service by email and multiple emails between Cobb and

Brys’s attorney, the parties mediated the case without success. Nonetheless, Cobb

did not answer or make an appearance, and the California court entered a default

judgment for $1,000,540.00 plus interest (the “California judgment”).

      Because Cobb is a Texas resident, Brys brought an action to domesticate the

California judgment in Texas. Over a year later, Cobb moved for a new trial,

challenging domestication. The trial court granted a new trial. Because it was unclear

to Brys whether the trial court’s grant of a new trial was the denial of full faith and

2
      See CAL. CIV. CODE § 1708.85.

                                          3
credit, Brys filed domestication documents a second time to remedy any potential

procedural issues. Cobb responded by requesting the trial court to declare the

California judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court signed a

second order declaring the California judgment void. Brys appealed.

             Domestication and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

      Whether a trial court has jurisdiction to render a decision is a question of law

subject to de novo review. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Tr., 354 S.W.3d

384, 388 (Tex. 2011); Int’l Armament Corp. v. Stocker & Lancaster LLP, 565

S.W.3d 823, 826 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.).

      “[T]he United States Constitution requires that full faith and credit be given

in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other

state.” Reading & Bates Constr. Co. v. Baker Energy Res. Corp., 976 S.W.2d 702,

712 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 1.

“A valid judgment from one state is to be enforced in other states regardless of the

laws or public policy of other states.” Reading & Bates Constr., 976 S.W.2d at 712.

In Texas, the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), codified in

the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, governs the domestication and

enforcement of foreign judgments. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 35.003–

.008. Thus, when a judgment from another state is filed in Texas in compliance with




                                          4
the UEFJA, it becomes enforceable as a Texas judgment. Reading & Bates Constr.,

976 S.W.2d at 712.

      Under the UEFJA, the party seeking the enforcement of a foreign judgment

has the initial burden to present a final and valid judgment on its face. Mindis Metals,

Inc. v. Oilfield Motor & Control, Inc., 132 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). A judgment creditor’s proper filing of an

authenticated copy of the foreign judgment presents a prima facie case for

enforcement. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 35.003; Tammy Tran Attorneys at

Law, LLP v. Spark Funding, LLC, 634 S.W.3d 311, 314 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2021, pet. denied). The judgment debtor then bears the burden “to prove by

clear and convincing evidence that the foreign judgment should not be given full

faith and credit.” Tammy Tran Attorneys at Law, 634 S.W.3d at 314. The judgment

debtor may challenge the judgment using the same procedures and under the same

timelines applicable to a Texas judgment. Int’l Armament Corp., 565 S.W.3d at 826;

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 35.003(c).

      Under the UEFJA, the judgment creditor’s filing consists of both the

plaintiff’s original petition and a final judgment. Walnut Equip. Leasing Co., Inc. v.

Wu, 920 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex. 1996). Brys’s filing complied with the UEFJA, and

thus the California judgment became enforceable as a Texas judgment on the date it

was filed, July 21, 2023. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 35.003(b), (c); see Wu,

                                           5
920 S.W.2d at 286. Because the California judgment filed in Texas became a final,

domesticated Texas judgment on July 21, 2023, absent a timely filed motion for new

trial contesting its domestication, the trial court’s plenary power expired thirty days

later. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(1), 329b(d).

      Cobb’s motion for new trial, filed over a year later, and his motion to clarify

and declare the California judgment void, filed 14 months later, were untimely. See

TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a), (f); Wu, 920 S.W.2d at 286; see also Moncrief v. Harvey,

805 S.W.2d 20, 23 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991 no writ) (holding judgment debtor may

contest recognition of foreign judgment “by filing a motion to contest it . . . thirty

days after the filing of the judgment”). Consequently, the trial court’s plenary power

expired thirty days after the filing of the foreign judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

306a(1), 329b(d). “Judicial action taken after the trial court’s plenary power has

expired is void.” Martin v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 176 S.W.3d

390, 393 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Because the trial court had

lost its plenary power, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Cobb’s motions.

See id. at 392; Malone v. Emmert Indus. Corp., 858 S.W.2d 547, 548 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied) (after trial court’s plenary power expired, it

had no jurisdiction when it signed order vacating foreign judgment). Thus, the trial

court’s orders granting Cobb’s motion for new trial and Cobb’s motion to clarify and

declare void the California judgment are a nullity and have no effect. See Moore

                                          6
Landrey, L.L.P. v. Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C., 126 S.W.3d 536, 543 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); Wu, 920 S.W.2d at 286. This leaves intact as the

final judgment in this case the California judgment as an enforceable Texas

judgment. See State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995);

Reading & Bates Constr., 976 S.W.2d at 712.

      “[A]ppellate courts do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals

from void orders or judgments; rather, they have jurisdiction only to determine that

the order or judgment underlying the appeal is void and make appropriate orders

based on that determination.” Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Coronado, 372

S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012). Although a party affected by void orders need not

appeal to set such void orders aside, because Brys appealed, we are authorized to

declare void the trial court’s August 26, 2024 order granting Cobb’s motion for new

trial and the trial court’s November 11, 2024 order granting Cobb’s motion to clarify

and declare the California judgment void. See Moore Landrey, L.L.P., 126 S.W.3d

at 543. Accordingly, we declare void the trial court’s post-plenary-power orders of

August 26, 2024 and November 11, 2024 and dismiss the appeal.

                                    Conclusion

      We conclude that the trial court did not have plenary power when it issued the

challenged orders. Thus, the trial court’s orders granting Cobb’s motion for new trial

and motion to clarify and void the California judgment are void. We vacate the trial

                                          7
court’s orders and dismiss the appeal, leaving in place the domesticated California

judgment.3




                                             Clint Morgan
                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan.




3
      Cf. O’Heeron v. Nutty Brown Enters., L.P., No. 01-24-00867-CV, 2025 WL
      1829780, at *3 & n.11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2025, no pet.)
      (mem. op.) (county court’s judgment was void because plenary power over case
      had already expired in justice court when appeal to county court was filed).

                                         8