From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Patriot Oil Gas

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Sep 17, 2007
No. 05-07-00889-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 17, 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-07-00889-CV

Opinion issued September 17, 2007.

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 06-02603-E.

Before Justices MORRIS, RICHTER, and MAZZANT.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


In this original proceeding, relators complain that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendants' motion for sanctions. The facts are known to the parties so we do not recite them here in detail. Further, because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion and order pursuant to rules 47.4 and 52.8(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P.47.4; 52.8(d).

On July 13, 2007, relators filed their Petition for Writ of Mandamus complaining about the trial court's sanction order that resulted from a discovery dispute. We stayed the trial court's order because two of the sanctions included in the order were facially suspect of being outside the boundary of permissible discovery sanctions. We asked for a response from the real parties in interest, which was filed with us on August 10, 2007. Relators replied to that response immediately thereafter. We have reviewed carefully the parties' briefing and the record they provided to us. See American Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. 2006).

We conclude the following: (1) to the extent relators challenge the trial court's decision to strike certain portions of the deposition of Mr. J.C. Allen and to award $5,000 to the real parties in interest, relators have not shown that the trial court abused its discretion; (2) relators have not specifically challenged the trial court's decision requiring Daryl K. Washington, Esquire to pay $500 to the Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism (which is one of the sanctions we initially perceived as suspect) and, therefore, relators have not shown any entitlement to relief from that sanction; and (3) relators' complaint that the trial court's decision to prohibit Daryl K. Washington from conducting or attending depositions except upon certain conditions (which is the other sanction we initially perceived as suspect) is limited to claiming that the sanction imposed is not cognizable under rule 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and does not challenge the trial court's inherent authority to impose such a sanction, and, therefore, relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief requested in their petition.

We vacate our order staying the trial court's order dated June 20, 2007. We deny relators' Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


Summaries of

In re Patriot Oil Gas

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Sep 17, 2007
No. 05-07-00889-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 17, 2007)
Case details for

In re Patriot Oil Gas

Case Details

Full title:IN RE PATRIOT OIL GAS, LLC d/b/a THE PATRIOT ENERGY GROUP, PATRIOT…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Sep 17, 2007

Citations

No. 05-07-00889-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 17, 2007)