in Re: Amy E. Davis, 05-15-00888-CV

Plaintiff Ann Caldwell Rupe (as trustee) sued several defendants (including Ritchie and Rupe Investment Corp.) in a minority shareholder action tried to a jury in 2007; final judgment entered in 2008 and the case has been on appeal since.
While litigation was pending, the trial court (Judge Carlos Cortez) entered a sanctions order against Relator Amy E. Davis on May 22, 2008, imposing a $15,000 monetary sanction and 10 hours of extra ethics training.
Relator appealed the sanctions order; the appellate court affirmed (with a notable dissent). The parties later agreed they no longer believed Davis acted with intent to deceive.
On May 12, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Vacate the Sanctions Order and withdrew the Third Motion for Sanctions with prejudice.
Because the underlying case remains on appeal (and the trial court lacks plenary power), the trial court has been unable to rule on the Joint Motion to Vacate; the relator seeks a mandamus directing the trial court to consider and rule on that motion (or alternatively asks this Court to grant the motion).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Relator has a justiciable interest in the trial court's consideration of the Joint Motion to Vacate	Rupe: The parties jointly moved to vacate; vacatur benefits the parties and addresses alleged misconduct	Davis: She has a direct interest because the sanctions affect her and she seeks relief	Court may find relator has a justiciable interest supporting mandamus relief
Whether relator lacked a reasonable opportunity to demand the trial court act given lack of plenary power	Rupe: Parties sought vacatur but did not oppose mandamus; joint motion shows mutual intent	Davis: Because the court has been without plenary power throughout the appeals, she had no opportunity to demand action	Court recognizes lack of plenary power can excuse pre-mandamus demand; mandamus relief appropriate to compel ruling

Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1991) (mandamus available to relator with a justiciable interest and explains demand/refusal requirement)
Kenseth v. Dallas County, 126 S.W.3d 584 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (actions by a trial court taken without plenary power are void)
Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323 (Tex. 1984) (mandamus available to relator with a justiciable interest)
Ex parte Johns, 807 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (distinguishing civil and criminal contempt and available penalties)
Ex parte Knable, 818 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (court must afford notice and opportunity to be heard before punishing contempt)