Opinion
04-24-00399-CV
09-20-2024
IN RE UATP MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Adventure Park and UA 1604, LLC d/b/a Urban Air, Relators
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020CI17722, styled Eric Crooks and Maryann Crooks, Individually and as Next Friends of V.C., a Minor v. UATP Management, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Adventure Park; UA 1604, LLC d/b/a Urban Air; Fun Spot Manufacturing, LLC; and ABEO North America, Inc., pending in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On June 26, 2024, this court entered a stay of all proceedings in the underlying matter, pending final disposition of relators' petition for writ of mandamus.
On August 1, 2024, this court partially lifted the stay in the underlying matter so that matters unrelated to the discovery rulings at issue in this proceeding may move forward. However, this court was clear that "[t]he discovery orders at issue in this proceeding remain stayed pending further order of this court."
On September 4, 2024, real parties in interest filed a motion to enter and sign the granting of plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses-the rulings at issue in this proceeding. Real parties in interest did not seek a lift of this court's stay prior to filing its motion. Accordingly, the filing of that motion violated our stay order and is void. See Oryx Cap. Int'l, Inc. v. Sage Apartments, L.L.C., 167 S.W.3d 432, 438 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) ("By filing its notice of non-suit and asking the trial court to sign the order of dismissal, Sage violated our stay order."); In re Helena Chem. Co., 286 S.W.3d 492, 498 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2009, orig. proceeding) ("Parties to the suit at the time the stay is imposed are notified of the stay; any actions subsequently made by such parties in the trial court are rightfully considered violations of the stay and are void as a matter of law."); In re Bates, 429 S.W.3d 47, 53 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding) (same).
On September 16, 2024, respondent violated this court's stay by conducting a hearing on that motion, granting that motion, and signing the requested order. Accordingly, that order is void. See Oryx Cap. Int'l, Inc., 167 S.W.3d at 438 ("The trial court's order dismissing Oryx from the case was entered in direct violation of our order and is therefore void.").
However, we temporarily lift the stay for the limited purpose of allowing respondent to ministerially sign a written order reflecting respondent's ruling from the bench on November 27, 2023. This order shall not be construed as permitting respondent to conduct any other proceedings relating to the discovery rulings at issue in this original proceeding. Any supplementation of the mandamus record must be done in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7.
It is so ORDERED.