Opinion
NO. 09-17-00231-CV
06-29-2017
On Appeal from the 136th District Court Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. D-200 ,185
ORDER
The appellees, Tammy Reeves, Austin Reeves, Judith Reeves and Jimmy W. Jones, filed a motion to modify or clarify this Court's June 22, 2017, order staying further proceedings in the trial court. The appellants, Kirbyville Consolidated Independent School District, Thomas A. Wallis, Georgia Sayers, Chad George, Joey Davis, Clint Smith, Amy Fountain, Marcia Morgan, D'Wanna Rasnick and Dustin Rutherford, filed a response and the appellees provided additional information at the request of the Court.
By operation of statute, the perfection of an accelerated appeal from an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction stays all proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2016). Appellees suggest that the statute permits further trial court proceedings "when the appeal involves temporary injunctive relief." However, this appeal involves a plea to the jurisdiction, not injunctive relief. See generally id. § 51.014(a) (4), (8).
Without citation to authority, and notwithstanding the unambiguous language of the applicable statute, appellees suggest that this Court could order the trial court to proceed with a temporary injunction hearing. See generally id. § 51.014(b). In the alternative, appellees ask that we extend the existing temporary restraining order as an exercise of our power to preserve the parties' rights during the appeal. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 29.3. On June 16, 2017, the trial court extended its June 6, 2017 temporary restraining order until June 30, 2017, and Rule 680 does not permit additional extensions that are opposed. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 680.
To support their argument that relief from the statutory stay is appropriate in this case, appellees argue that "[a] temporary restraining order is several times removed from a Rule 202 petition, is not a suit and, at most, is in aid of, and incident to, an anticipated suit. It is not a pleading to which immunity can attach." The case appellees cite does not support appellees' conclusion. See Combs v. Tex. Civil Rights Project, 410 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. denied). The appellate court in Combs decided that, "When discovery from a governmental entity is sought under rule 202, the petition must also set forth specific facts demonstrating that, at least potentially, the petitioner has been injured by actions that would amount to a claim which would not be barred by sovereign immunity." Id. at 536. Appellees acknowledged in their response for additional information that their pleadings do not set forth facts demonstrating that at least potentially they have a claim against the school district or any of the government officials that are parties in the underlying proceeding.
The appellees' motion to modify the stay order is denied.
ORDER ENTERED June 29, 2017.
PER CURIAM Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.