Opinion
09-24-00059-CV
03-07-2024
SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. AND DANIEL BURGE JR., Appellants v. JAMES GILLESPIE, ET AL, Appellees
On Appeal from the 60th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B210554.
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On February 16, 2024, Appellants Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. and Daniel Burge Jr. filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions, to Hold Defendants in Contempt, and for Other Relief signed on January 31, 2024. Appellees, James Gillespie, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Stephanie Warren Gillespie, Deceased, Corey Gillespie, Laken Hood, and Janet Warren, filed an emergency motion to dismiss this accelerated appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellees argue the order is a discovery sanctions order for which an explicit statutory grant of an interlocutory appeal is lacking.
Appellants contend the accelerated appeal is authorized because the January 31, 2024 order makes a determination that "a plaintiff did or did not independently establish proper venue" subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.003(b)(1). The notice of appeal includes a statement that "Defendants will alternatively request mandamus relief to whatever extent that the Ninth Court's appellate jurisdiction does not extend to any part of this Court's order."
Generally, appellate courts have appellate jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and specific interlocutory orders permitted by statute. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447-48 (Tex. 2011). However, appellate courts disfavor disposing of appeals based upon harmless procedural defects. Id. at 453. Thus, when confronted with parallel mandamus and appeal proceedings we may "consolidate the two proceedings and render a decision disposing of both simultaneously." Id. Further, nothing in the procedures for interlocutory appeals and mandamus actions prevents the appellate court from treating an appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. Id. We may do so "when the appellant has expressly requested mandamus treatment of its appeal in an uncertain legal environment." Id.
In this case, Appellants have notified the Court that they intend to request mandamus relief to the extent the trial court's order cannot be assailed as a venue determination. "A relator may establish its right to mandamus relief in the context of a sanctions order for discovery abuse by showing that the trial court acted without reference to guiding rules or principles or in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, and that the trial court either completely vitiated or severely compromised that relator's ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial." In re Westin Homes of Texas, Ltd., 2022 WL 2069231, at * 4 (Tex. App.-Beaumont June 9, 2022) (orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
The trial court's order of January 31, 2024, is styled as an order of sanctions, but it expressly also states in part as follows:
10. The Court has considered the full range of sanctions available and hereby finds that the following sanctions are just and bear a direct relationship to Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., and its counsel's misconduct:
a. Certain facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of this action in accordance with the claims of Plaintiffs. Specifically, it is hereby found and ordered that it is conclusively established that Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. had, at all times material, a principal office (as that term is defined by TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.001(a)) in Jefferson County, Texas.
b. The Court further strikes all pleadings of Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. challenging venue in Jefferson County, Texas. This includes any denial of Plaintiffs' venue facts, Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.'s Motions to Transfer Venue, and all evidence submitted in connection therewith.
c. The Court further refuses to allow Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. to oppose Plaintiffs' claim that venue is proper in Jefferson County, Texas, and prohibits Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. from introducing matters pertaining to the venue challenge into evidence.
12. The Court is mindful that there is a hearing set for February 15, 2024, on Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue. Based on the findings and rulings herein, that hearing is struck and the Court sua sponte denies Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue. Specifically, the Court finds that Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. in not a natural person and has a principal office in Jefferson County, Texas. Venue is thus proper according to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002 (a)(3).
Whether the order is subject to interlocutory appeal, under section 15.003(b)(1) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code or is subject to mandamus review, under section 22.221 of the Government Code will be determined by this Court when the accelerated appeal is submitted on the merits. See CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 453. Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss without prejudice to the appellees who may include a challenge of our appellate or mandamus jurisdiction in the appellees' brief on the merits.