Cesar De Los Reyes v. Norma Leticia Maris J&K Truck Sales, LLC And Jose Fernandez, 02-21-00022-CV

Background

De Los Reyes bought a Freightliner tractor from Norma Leticia Maris; he received a copy of the title but not the original. J&K Truck Sales, LLC (Fernandez) had sold the tractor to Maris and allegedly withheld the original title.
De Los Reyes sued Maris (defaulted) and J&K/Fernandez alleging fraudulent lien, tortious interference, conspiracy, and related claims; Maris never answered and default judgment against her stands unchallenged.
De Los Reyes moved for summary judgment against J&K/Fernandez; the trial court granted a limited portion ordering delivery of the title, which J&K complied with.
Months later the court conducted a bench trial via Zoom; after testimony and an off-the-record bench conference the court sua sponte declared a mistrial.
The day after the mistrial the court withdrew its earlier interlocutory summary-judgment order and signed an order denying De Los Reyes’s motion; J&K/Fernandez then moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, and the case was resolved.
De Los Reyes appealed raising six issues: alleged judicial bias based on trial rulings, abuse of discretion in declaring a mistrial, failure to recuse sua sponte, improper withdrawal of the summary-judgment order, and errors in granting defendants’ summary-judgment motions and in not rendering judgment for him on the bench-trial record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Trial-court bias from evidentiary rulings	Rulings during the bench trial cumulatively show bias and deprived a fair trial	Rulings were ordinary trial rulings; no deep-seated favoritism; appellant failed to preserve error	Overruled — no preserved or record-established bias; rulings alone rarely show disqualifying bias
2. Abuse of discretion in granting mistrial	Mistrial was extreme and unjustified; court could have disregarded any inadmissible evidence	Court cited Zoom problems and inability to reliably hear evidence; mistrial within discretion	Overruled — mistrial not an abuse given technological/evidentiary impairment; appellant didn’t meet burden to show abuse
3. Court should have sua sponte recused	Court’s conduct after mistrial required sua sponte recusal under Rule 18b	No recusal motion was filed; claim unpreserved	Overruled — recusal claim waived for failure to move to recuse in trial court
4. Improper withdrawal of interlocutory summary-judgment order	Withdrawing the prior order (that compelled title delivery) was improper and prejudicial	Trial court may withdraw interlocutory orders while it retains plenary jurisdiction so long as parties aren’t denied a fair chance to try reinjected issues	Overruled — withdrawal permissible; no showing plaintiff was deprived of opportunity or prejudiced (title already delivered)
5. Error in granting defendants’ summary judgment	Defendants’ summary judgment was inconsistent with bench-trial record and evidence; referenced response papers	Defendants relied on bench-trial record and moved correctly; plaintiff’s brief fails to identify specific errors or supportive law	Overruled / Waived — appellant’s briefing inadequate under appellate rules; court declines rebriefing
6. Court should render judgment for plaintiff based on bench-trial record	Ask appellate court to use bench-trial and Zoom record to render judgment in his favor	Such relief is inappropriate; appellant provides no developed argument or authority; briefing deficient	Overruled / Waived — deficient briefing; appellant abandoned substantive advocacy

Key Cases Cited

Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (presumption of judicial impartiality; rulings alone generally do not prove bias)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings almost never justify disqualification absent deep-seated favoritism or antagonism)
Haynes v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 598 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020) (expressions of annoyance or impatience ordinarily do not establish judicial bias)
Gaal v. State, 332 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (cannot infer improper motive without record support)
Bi-Ed, Ltd. v. Ramsey, 935 S.W.2d 122 (Tex. 1996) (trial court may withdraw interlocutory orders while retaining plenary jurisdiction)
Elder Constr., Inc. v. City of Colleyville, 839 S.W.2d 91 (Tex. 1992) (limits on withdrawing interlocutory rulings: cannot reinject issues and deny a trial on them)
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (appellate waiver for inadequate briefing)
Horton v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. 2019) (courts should allow rebriefing for harmless defects but have discretion)