Opinion
NO. 14-18-00118-CV
06-05-2018
SAN JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY, Appellant v. THOMAS E. ROSS AND BETH F. ROSS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2017-58385
ORDER
This is an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order denying a plea to the jurisdiction filed by appellant San Jacinto River Authority. This cause number consists of three sets of plaintiffs: the initial plaintiffs, Thomas and Beth Ross and two other sets of plaintiffs who filed a motion to consolidate their cases into the Ross case (the "Consolidated Plaintiffs"). In this appeal, the Consolidated Plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Lift Stay for the Limited Purpose of Severing Consolidated Cases into a Separate Case." Because any further proceedings in the trial court are stayed pursuant to the provisions of section 51.014(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the Consolidated Plaintiffs are requesting that this court lift the automatic stay for the limited purpose of permitting the trial court to sever the cases into separate cases.
The San Jacinto River Authority contests the lifting of the stay on two grounds. First, the San Jacinto River Authority contends that its plea to the jurisdiction filed as to the Ross plaintiffs applies to the Consolidated Plaintiffs and that the Consolidated Plaintiffs are parties to this appeal. We disagree. The Authority's Plea to the Jurisdiction was filed before any consolidation and applies only to the Ross plaintiffs. The Consolidated Plaintiffs are not parties to this interlocutory appeal.
Second, the Authority argues that this court should not lift the stay to allow the Consolidated Plaintiffs to request a severance when they requested the consolidation. We agree with this point.
Generally, while an appeal from an interlocutory order is pending, the trial court retains jurisdiction of the case and, unless prohibited by statute, may make such further orders as are necessary so long as it does not make an order that (1) is inconsistent with any appellate court temporary order; or (2) interferes with or impairs the jurisdiction of the appellate court or the effectiveness of any relief sought or that may be granted on appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 29.5. One such limiting statute is section 51.014(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which stays "all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of the appeal" while an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction filed by a governmental unit is pending. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(b) (West Supp. 2017). "[T]he stay set forth in section 51.014 is statutory and allows no room for discretion." Swanson v. Town of Shady Shores, Nos. 02-15-00351-CV & 02- 15-00356-CV, 2016 WL 4395779, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 18, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (quoting Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay, P.C. v. Bellush, 61 S.W.3d 437, 439 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.)). Therefore, a trial court cannot take any action on its own in a proceeding in which an interlocutory appeal has been taken from the denial of a jurisdictional plea filed by a governmental unit. See City of Sealy v. Town Park Ctr., No. 01-17-00127-CV, 2017 WL 3634025 at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 24, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). Under those circumstances, while trial court proceedings are automatically stayed pursuant to section 51.014(b), a party to the underlying proceeding has the general right to seek and obtain permission from the court of appeals to lift the stay and permit the trial court to proceed for a limited purpose. State v. Signal Drilling, LLC, 07-17-00412-CV, 2018 WL 343497, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 5, 2018, order); Bishop v. City of Austin, No. 03-16-00580-CV, 2016 WL 5349384 at *1, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13920 at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin Sept. 20, 2016, order).
We deny the relief requested. Because the Consolidated Plaintiffs requested consolidation in the trial court, we will not lift the stay to permit the trial court to consider a severance.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Jamison.