Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride

Constitutional Issues

Landlord's duty to repair under the Texas Property Code.Tenant's remedies for landlord's failure to repair.

Rule Statements

A landlord's duty to repair under Texas Property Code § 92.056(a) requires a diligent effort to repair or remedy a condition on the premises that materially affects the physical health and safety of an ordinary tenant, provided the tenant has given the required notice.

To prevail on a claim for breach of the duty to repair, a tenant must demonstrate that the landlord failed to make a diligent effort to repair a condition that materially affected their health and safety after receiving proper notice.

Q: What is Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride about?

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride is a case decided by Texas Court of Appeals on January 14, 2026.

Q: What court decided Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride?

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals, which is part of the TX state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride decided?

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride was decided on January 14, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride?

The citation for Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and what does it concern?

The case is Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC, et al. It concerns a dispute where former employees, Eunice Villanueva and Isabel Alcantara, alleged they were not paid for all hours worked and were terminated in retaliation for asserting their rights under the Texas Payday Law. The defendants included Structural Repair, LLC, and several individuals: Frederick Marshall, Francis Check, Bradley Bertelsen, Michael Ellington, and Jarrod McBride.

Q: Who were the parties involved in the Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC case?

The parties were the plaintiffs, Eunice Villanueva and Isabel Alcantara, who were former employees, and the defendants, Structural Repair, LLC, along with individuals Frederick Marshall, Francis Check, Bradley Bertelsen, Michael Ellington, and Jarrod McBride. The plaintiffs brought claims for unpaid wages and retaliation.

Q: Which court decided the Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC case?

The case was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals (texapp). This court reviewed a decision from a lower trial court regarding claims of unpaid wages and retaliation.

Q: What specific law was at the center of the dispute in Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC?

The Texas Payday Law was the central law in this dispute. The plaintiffs, Eunice Villanueva and Isabel Alcantara, alleged that Structural Repair, LLC violated this law by failing to pay them for all hours worked and by retaliating against them for asserting their rights under the law.

Q: What were the main claims made by the plaintiffs in this case?

The plaintiffs, Eunice Villanueva and Isabel Alcantara, made two primary claims: first, that they were not paid for all the hours they worked, constituting a violation of the Texas Payday Law; and second, that they were terminated from their employment in retaliation for asserting their rights to be paid correctly.

Q: What was the outcome of the case at the appellate court level?

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants, Structural Repair, LLC, and the individual defendants. This means the appellate court agreed with the lower court's decision that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence to win their case.

Q: Is Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride published?

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride. Key holdings: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for unpaid wages under the Texas Payday Law, as they did not demonstrate the specific amount of unpaid wages owed or provide a clear accounting of hours worked.; The court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish a causal link between their protected activity (demanding unpaid wages) and their termination, as the employer presented legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the dismissals.; The appellate court found that the trial court did not err in excluding certain evidence offered by the plaintiffs, as it was either irrelevant or not properly authenticated.; The court determined that the jury's findings were supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence, and that the trial court's judgment was consistent with those findings.; The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, finding that the instructions accurately reflected the law and were not misleading..

Q: Why is Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride important?

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride has an impact score of 15/100, indicating narrow legal impact. This decision reinforces the high burden of proof required for employees to succeed in wage and hour claims and retaliation suits under Texas law. It highlights the importance of meticulous record-keeping by both employers and employees, and the need for plaintiffs to present specific, concrete evidence to support their allegations, particularly regarding causation in retaliation cases.

Q: What precedent does Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride set?

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for unpaid wages under the Texas Payday Law, as they did not demonstrate the specific amount of unpaid wages owed or provide a clear accounting of hours worked. (2) The court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish a causal link between their protected activity (demanding unpaid wages) and their termination, as the employer presented legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the dismissals. (3) The appellate court found that the trial court did not err in excluding certain evidence offered by the plaintiffs, as it was either irrelevant or not properly authenticated. (4) The court determined that the jury's findings were supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence, and that the trial court's judgment was consistent with those findings. (5) The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, finding that the instructions accurately reflected the law and were not misleading.

Q: What are the key holdings in Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride?

1. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for unpaid wages under the Texas Payday Law, as they did not demonstrate the specific amount of unpaid wages owed or provide a clear accounting of hours worked. 2. The court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish a causal link between their protected activity (demanding unpaid wages) and their termination, as the employer presented legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the dismissals. 3. The appellate court found that the trial court did not err in excluding certain evidence offered by the plaintiffs, as it was either irrelevant or not properly authenticated. 4. The court determined that the jury's findings were supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence, and that the trial court's judgment was consistent with those findings. 5. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, finding that the instructions accurately reflected the law and were not misleading.

Q: What cases are related to Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride?

Precedent cases cited or related to Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride: Fort Worth Transp. Corp. v. Garcia, 436 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. denied); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1998); Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 61.051 et seq..

Q: What was the appellate court's main reason for affirming the trial court's decision?

The appellate court found that the plaintiffs, Eunice Villanueva and Isabel Alcantara, failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims for both unpaid wages and retaliation. Without adequate proof, their claims could not succeed.

Q: What standard of review did the appellate court apply to the evidence presented by the plaintiffs?

The appellate court reviewed the evidence to determine if it was legally sufficient to support the jury's findings. They examined whether the plaintiffs provided enough evidence that a reasonable jury could find in their favor on the claims of unpaid wages and retaliation.

Q: Did the court find evidence of unpaid wages under the Texas Payday Law?

No, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish their claims for unpaid wages. This implies that the evidence offered did not adequately prove that they worked uncompensated hours as required by the Texas Payday Law.

Q: What kind of evidence is typically needed to prove unpaid wages under the Texas Payday Law?

To prove unpaid wages, employees generally need to present evidence detailing the hours worked and the wages owed, often through time sheets, work logs, or credible testimony. The court's decision suggests the plaintiffs' evidence in this case did not meet this threshold for sufficiency.

Q: Did the court find evidence of retaliation under the Texas Payday Law?

No, the appellate court also concluded that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to support their retaliation claims. This means they failed to prove that their termination was a direct result of them asserting their rights under the Texas Payday Law.

Q: What are the elements of a retaliation claim under the Texas Payday Law?

A retaliation claim under the Texas Payday Law typically requires proving that the employee engaged in a protected activity (like complaining about wages), that adverse employment action was taken against them (like termination), and that there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. The plaintiffs here failed to establish this link with sufficient evidence.

Q: What does 'sufficient evidence' mean in the context of this appellate court's ruling?

'Sufficient evidence' means evidence that a reasonable and prudent juror could believe, leading to a finding in favor of the party with the burden of proof. The appellate court determined that the evidence presented by Villanueva and Alcantara did not reach this level for their wage and retaliation claims.

Q: Did the court consider the individual defendants liable for unpaid wages or retaliation?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of all defendants, including the individual defendants like Frederick Marshall and others. This implies that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to hold either the company or the individuals liable for the alleged wage violations or retaliation.

Q: What is the significance of the Texas Payday Law in employment disputes?

The Texas Payday Law is crucial for ensuring employees are paid promptly and for all hours worked, and it prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who assert their wage rights. This case highlights the importance of employees being able to present sufficient evidence to prove violations of this law.

Q: How does Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride affect me?

This decision reinforces the high burden of proof required for employees to succeed in wage and hour claims and retaliation suits under Texas law. It highlights the importance of meticulous record-keeping by both employers and employees, and the need for plaintiffs to present specific, concrete evidence to support their allegations, particularly regarding causation in retaliation cases. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: How might this ruling affect other employees of Structural Repair, LLC or similar companies?

This ruling suggests that employees seeking to recover unpaid wages or prove retaliation under the Texas Payday Law must be prepared with strong, specific evidence. It may encourage employees to meticulously document their work hours and any employer actions that could be perceived as retaliatory.

Q: What should employees do if they believe they are not being paid correctly or are facing retaliation?

Employees should meticulously document all hours worked, pay stubs, and any communications with their employer regarding wages or complaints. Gathering this evidence is crucial, as demonstrated by the outcome in Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC, where insufficient evidence led to the claims being dismissed.

Q: What are the implications for Structural Repair, LLC following this decision?

For Structural Repair, LLC, the decision means they successfully defended against the claims of unpaid wages and retaliation at the appellate level. This outcome validates their position in this specific legal dispute, but they must still comply with all provisions of the Texas Payday Law for current and future employees.

Q: What is the practical takeaway for employers regarding wage and hour laws in Texas?

Employers in Texas must ensure accurate record-keeping of employee hours and wages, and establish clear policies against retaliation. This case underscores the need for employers to be able to demonstrate compliance and to handle employee wage disputes carefully to avoid litigation.

Q: Does this case set a new legal precedent for wage and hour disputes in Texas?

This case likely reinforces existing legal standards for proving wage and hour claims and retaliation under the Texas Payday Law, rather than setting a new precedent. It emphasizes the long-standing requirement for plaintiffs to present sufficient evidence to support their allegations.

Q: How does the Texas Payday Law compare to federal wage and hour laws like the FLSA?

While both the Texas Payday Law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) aim to protect employees' wages, they can have different specific requirements and remedies. The Texas Payday Law often focuses on prompt payment and provides specific penalties, while the FLSA sets minimum wage and overtime standards.

Q: What was the docket number in Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride?

The docket number for Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride is 04-24-00797-CV. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What is the procedural history of Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC?

The case originated in a trial court where Eunice Villanueva and Isabel Alcantara sued Structural Repair, LLC and others. After a judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, which reviewed the trial court's decision for legal sufficiency of the evidence.

Q: What does it mean for the trial court's judgment to be 'affirmed'?

When an appellate court 'affirms' a trial court's judgment, it means the appellate court agrees with the lower court's decision and upholds it. In this case, the Texas Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence to win their claims.

Q: Could the plaintiffs have appealed the appellate court's decision further?

Potentially, the plaintiffs could seek further review from a higher court, such as the Texas Supreme Court, but this typically requires demonstrating that the case involves a significant legal question or that the appellate court made a significant error. Such petitions are often discretionary.

Q: What role did the jury play in the original trial court proceedings?

While the summary doesn't explicitly state a jury was involved, appellate courts often review jury findings for sufficiency of evidence. If a jury did hear the case, their verdict would have been in favor of the defendants, and the appellate court reviewed whether that verdict was supported by adequate evidence.