Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00080-CV
04-11-2018
IN RE EMMA PEREZ TREVINO, CARLOS SANCHEZ, MARCI CALTABIANO-PONCE, VALLEY MORNING STAR, THE MCALLEN MONITOR, AND AIM MEDIA TEXAS, LLC
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case," but when "denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relators Emma Perez Trevino, Carlos Sanchez, Marci Caltabiano-Ponce, Valley Morning Star, The McAllen Monitor, and Aim Media Texas, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on February 7, 2018. This matter arises from proceedings relating to the award of damages and costs to the moving party on remand following a consolidated interlocutory appeal in matters arising under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). See Trevino v. Cantu, No. 13-16-00109-CV, 2017 WL 1056404, at *1-5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 2, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); see generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 27.001-.011 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
Relators contend that under the TCPA, the trial court only has power to rule on motions for a period of thirty days after a hearing on the motion, and that post-judgment motions for new trial or motions to reconsider do not extend the trial court's power beyond thirty days. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.005(a) (stating that the court must rule on a motion to dismiss "not later than the 30th day following the date of the hearing on the motion"); id. § 27.009 (governing the award of costs and fees to the prevailing party when the court orders dismissal under the TCPA). Relators further argue that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion for reconsideration under the TCPA "without evidence of any Craddock element and no payment of the statutorily-required fee." See Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. 1939) (requiring a new trial if the defendant shows (1) that the default was neither intentional nor the result of conscious indifference, (2) a meritorious defense, and (3) that a new trial would cause neither delay nor undue prejudice). Through this original proceeding, relators seek to compel the trial court to (1) vacate its November 7, 2017, December 13, 2017, and December 20, 2017 orders as void; (2) reinstate its October 3, 2017 order awarding the Monitor its reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and (3) enter an additional order awarding the Monitor its fees, costs, and expenses for the September 19, 2017 and November 21, 2017 hearings and this original proceeding. This Court requested and received a response to the petition from the real party in interest, Mark Cantu, and received a reply in support of the petition from relators. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
Mandamus relief is also proper when the trial court issues a void order. See In re Nationwide Ins. Co., 494 S.W.3d at 712; In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Accordingly, mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court issues an order after its plenary power has expired because the order is void. See In re Daredia, 317 S.W.3d 247, 250 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 66, 68-69 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re CAS Cos., 422 S.W.3d 871, 874 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, orig. proceeding). These rules also apply when a trial court erroneously reinstates a case after its plenary power has expired. See Estate of Howley v. Haberman, 878 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Davila, 510 S.W.3d 455, 457 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case, see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b), and we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice Delivered and filed the 11th day of April, 2018.