Opinion
14-24-00915-CV
12-19-2024
IN RE WILMA REYNOLDS AND CARL GORDON, Relators
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-83411
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Spain and Poissant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
On December 2, 2024, relators Wilma Reynolds and Carl Gordon filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex.R.App.P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the Honorable Colleen Gaido, presiding judge of the 337th District Court, sitting by referral in place of the Honorable Robert Schaffer, presiding judge of the 152nd District Court, to vacate: (1) an August 27, 2024 "Order Compelling Discovery Responses From Plaintiff Wilma Reynolds' Attorney Carl Gordon"; (2) an August 30, 2024 "Order of Civil Contempt and Committing Carl W. Gordon to Harris County Jail, Suspending Commitment and Resetting Hearing"; and (3) a September 9, 2024 "Order Appointing Receiver and Master." Further, relators seek this court to compel Judge Gaido to vacate any orders enforcing those orders. In addition, on December 5, 2024 relators filed a supplemental petition for writ of mandamus seeking the same relief.
We grant relators' petition for writ of mandamus as it relates to the August 30, 2024 "Order of Civil Contempt and Committing Carl W. Gordon to Harris County Jail, Suspending Commitment and Resetting Hearing," and order Judge Gaido to vacate the contempt order. We deny the remaining relief that relators have requested.
Standard of Review
Contempt orders not involving confinement may be reviewed by writ of mandamus. In re Mittelsted, 661 S.W.3d 639, 647 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, orig. proceeding); see In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam on reh'g); see also In re Look, No. 01-02-00959-CV, 2003 WL 876650, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 5, 2003, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (concluding that contempt order providing for suspension of commitment was reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus). To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator generally must demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. Mittelsted, 661 S.W.3d at 647. A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. Id. In an original proceeding challenging a contempt order, the relator has the burden to show that the order is void. Id.; see In re Aslam, 348 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2011, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Coppock, 277 S.W.3d 417, 418 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding)); Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 332 S.W.3d 653, 663 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.). Because a contempt order is not reviewable by direct appeal, there is no adequate remedy by appeal, and the second prong of mandamus review is satisfied. Parham Family Ltd. P'ship v. Morgan, 434 S.W.3d 774, 789 n.15 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.); see also In re Mittelsted, 661 S.W.3d at 647-48.
Civil Contempt
"A judgment of civil contempt exerts the judicial authority of the court to persuade the contemnor to obey some order of the court where such obedience will benefit an opposing litigant." Id. at 648. When civil contempt is imposed, the order "must spell out exactly what duties and obligations are imposed and what the contemnor can do to purge the contempt." Id. Constructive contempt, as opposed to direct contempt, involves conduct by the relator that occurs outside the presence of the trial court. In re R.E.D., 278 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding). Such conduct includes the relator's failure to comply with a court order. Id.
Here, the August 30, 2024 "Order of Civil Contempt and Committing Carl W. Gordon to Harris County Jail, Suspending Commitment and Resetting Hearing," holds relator Gordon in contempt for failing to comply with a May 10, 2024 "Order Compelling Discovery Responses from Plaintiff Wilma Reynolds and Attorney Carl Gordon" and an August 27, 2024 "Order Compelling Discovery Responses from Plaintiff Wilma Reynolds' Attorney Carl Gordon." Thus, the trial court held relator Gordon in constructive civil contempt.
Due process requires that a constructive contemnor must have full notice of any charges against him and a reasonable opportunity to rebut those charges. R.E.D., 278 S.W.3d at 856. Specifically, due process requires that the alleged contemnor be personally served with a show-cause order or that it be established that he had knowledge of the content of such order. Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987). In sum, due process of law demands "lull and complete notification of the subject matter, and the show-cause order or other means of notification must state when, how, and by what means the defendant has been guilty of the alleged contempt." Id. "[I]n situations of contempt committed outside the presence of the court, the contempt judgment must be based on a valid show-cause order or equivalent legal process that contains full and unambiguous notification of the accusation of contempt." Id. Absent such notification, the contempt judgment is a nullity. Id.
The record shows the trial court did not sign a show-cause order prior to holding relator Gordon in civil contempt in the August 30, 2024 civil contempt order. Further, there was not "full and unambiguous notification of the accusation of contempt" satisfying due process. See id. Here, Judge Schaffer signed a May 10, 2024 "Order Compelling Discovery Responses from Plaintiff Wilma Reynolds and Attorney Carl Gordon." In a May 31, 2024 "Motion for Contempt," real parties in interest Quantlab Trading Partners, US, LP; Quantlab Incentive Partners I, LLC; and Quantlab Financial, LLC, sought to hold relator Gordon in criminal and civil contempt for his "refusal to obey" the May 10 order. Judge Gaido exchanged benches with Judge Schaffer through an August 12, 2024 second amended referral order. Judge Gaido held a hearing on the May 31, 2024 contempt motion on August 26, 2024. Subsequently, Judge Gaido signed a new August 27, 2024 "Order Compelling Discovery Responses From Plaintiff Wilma Reynolds' Attorney Carl Gordon." Judge Gaido then issued the August 30, 2024 civil contempt order at issue in the mandamus proceeding. The May 10 compel order and related May 31, 2024 motion for contempt did not put relator Gordon on notice about the contempt allegations in the August 30, 2024 contempt order at issue in this petition, because the May 10 compel order and related May 31, 2024 contempt motion differ from the August 30, 2024 contempt order. Further, the August 27, 2024 compel order did not put relator on notice about the contempt allegations in the August 30, 2024 contempt order, because there was no show cause order or other notification of the contempt allegations satisfying due process.
We hold relator Gordon has demonstrated that the August 30, 2024 civil contempt order is void, therefore, Gordon lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. See Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d at 643; Mittelsted, 661 S.W.3d at 647-48. We grant the requested relief in part and order Judge Gaido to vacate the August 30, 2024 "Order of Civil Contempt and Committing Carl W. Gordon to Harris County Jail, Suspending Commitment and Resetting Hearing." We are confident that Judge Gaido will do so and we will not order the clerk of this court to issue the writ unless Judge Gaido fails to comply. We deny the remaining relief requested by relators. In addition, we lift this court's December 3, 2024 stay order.