Opinion
No. 14-10-01023-CV
Opinion filed November 4, 2010.
Original Proceeding Writ of Prohibition.
Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, FROST, and BROWN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 21, 2010, relator Salomon Juan Hernandez filed a petition for writ of prohibition in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the judge of the 248th District Court, Montgomery County to refrain from interfering with enforcement of this court's final judgment.
Background
After relator's attorney failed to appear at relator's arraignment on a public intoxication charge, relator filed suit against his attorney, Joseph J. LaBella, and his firm, LaBella Dennis Associates, the real parties in interest, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty. A jury found that the real parties breached a fiduciary duty owed to relator and awarded damages of $500,000. Following the jury verdict, the parties agreed to settle their dispute. A dispute arose concerning the settlement agreement, and was tried to the court. After a bench trial on the disputed settlement agreement, the trial court entered a final judgment finding (1) the settlement agreement was enforceable, (2) the issue of damages was a question of law to be determined by the court, and (3) the real parties were to forfeit their $1,000 fee as damages for breach of fiduciary duty. Relator appealed the judgment to this court.
This court held the agreement was enforceable and relator did not breach the agreement. We further determined that the real parties were required to pay relator the original $100,000 settlement amount, and remanded to the trial court "to determine [relator]'s entitlement to prejudgment interest and the calculation of the amount of prejudgment interest to be awarded, if any." Hernandez v. LaBella, No. 14-08-00327-CV; 2010 WL 431253 at *4-5 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] February 9, 2010, no pet.) (memo. op.). Pursuant to this court's mandate, the trial court entered final judgment on August 30, 2010, in which it ordered that relator recover $100,000 plus interest from the real parties.
On October 1, 2010, the real parties filed a bill of review seeking to set aside the trial court's August 30, 2010 judgment. On October 15, 2010, relator filed an objection to the Honorable P.K. Reiter, who was sitting as a visiting judge in the 248th District Court in Montgomery County. On October 21, 2010, relator filed this petition for writ of prohibition asking this court to "restrain the 248th District Court from interfering with the collection of the judgment ordered by this Court."
Analysis
A writ of prohibition operates like an injunction issued by a superior court to control, limit, or prevent action in a court of inferior jurisdiction. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989). The purpose of the writ is to enable a superior court to protect and enforce its jurisdiction and judgments. Id. The writ is typically used to protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit an unlawful interference with the enforcement of a superior court's orders and judgments. Id. at 683. When an appellate court considers the merits of an action and renders a judgment of affirmance or reversal, it has a judgment which under the appropriate circumstances can be protected by writ of prohibition. Id..
A bill of review, however, is an independent equitable action brought by a party to a former action seeking to set aside a judgment no longer appealable or subject to motion for new trial. State v. 1985 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, 778 S.W.2d 463, 464 (Tex. 1989). The bill of review filed by the real parties is not a judgment that can be protected by writ of prohibition.
This court's original jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the original jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge in the court of appeals' district, and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals' jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). In this case, relator is seeking a writ of prohibition against a district court judge in Montgomery County, which is outside this court's district. Further, because the bill of review is an independent action not subject to this court's jurisdiction, relator has not sought relief necessary to enforce this court's jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of prohibition is dismissed.