in Re Camp La Junta 1928, LP, Blake Smith, Camp La Junta, Inc., CLJ Management Systems, L.L.C.
01-15-00551-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 6, 2015Background
- In 2012 the Doe family sued Camp La Junta and related entities alleging sexual abuse of minor Johnny Doe by a counselor and related torts (including defamation, negligent supervision, and cover-up). The counselor pleaded guilty in 2011.
- Defendants (the Camp) moved to appoint a guardian ad litem under Tex. R. Civ. P. 173, arguing the next-friends (Johnny’s parents) had interests adverse to the 17‑year‑old minor (primarily over litigation goals and a non‑monetary “poison pill” settlement demand).
- The trial court held a May 29, 2015 hearing, reviewed in‑camera mental‑health records and other materials, and denied Defendants’ amended motion to appoint a guardian ad litem.
- Defendants sought mandamus from the First Court of Appeals to compel appointment; Plaintiffs (the Doe family) opposed, arguing (inter alia) no adverse interest existed, the Camp lacked standing to seek mandamus, there was no irreparable harm to the Camp, and counsel’s unsworn hearing statements were admissible (waiver of oath objection).
- Related pretrial disputes: the Camp also moved to designate the parents as responsible third parties for alleged disclosure/identification of the minor; Plaintiffs moved to strike that designation and to exclude post‑hearing evidence submitted in camera.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by denying appointment of a guardian ad litem under Rule 173 | No adverse interest between Johnny and his parents; minor himself opposes an ad litem; treating providers testify parents did not coerce him | Parents’ actions and therapy records show a conflict of interests about whether to pursue public trial vs. putting matter behind him; potential conflict over non‑monetary settlement term | Trial court did not abuse discretion; substantial evidence supports denial because no present adverse interest and court reasonably weighed records and testimony |
| Whether mandamus is available (no adequate appellate remedy) | Mandamus not warranted because relator (Camp) must show it lacks adequate remedy and that error is clear; Camp has not shown its own irreparable injury | Camp contends denial creates irreparable consequences (related to minor’s asserted demands), requiring immediate appellate intervention | Mandamus improper: relator failed to show it (not Johnny) lacks adequate appellate remedy and did not meet heavy burden for extraordinary writ |
| Standing of Camp to pursue mandamus on behalf of minor | Camp lacks a justiciable, individualized interest; it seeks relief on behalf of Johnny though he opposes it | Camp asserts role to protect the process and identify potential conflicts requiring court intervention | Court accepts Plaintiffs’ argument: Camp lacks standing to seek mandamus for the minor because it has not shown a personal, redressable injury |
| Admissibility of counsel’s unsworn factual statements made at the hearing | Statements by Plaintiffs’ counsel rebutting Defendants’ evidence were admitted by the trial court without oath; opponent failed to object — waiver under Banda v. Garcia | Camp argued unsworn attorney assertions are not evidence unless under oath | Held admissible for the hearing record because the Camp failed to object to oath requirement; waiver doctrine applies |
| Validity of designating parents as responsible third parties for alleged identification/disclosure | Plaintiffs: parents did not commit legally cognizable wrongful acts that caused defamation damages; evidence does not show defamatory publication or requisite fault | Camp: parents disclosed the minor’s identity and therefore caused or contributed to any identification/injury, so they should be designated | Trial court (in the pretrial record) faced competing fact issues; plaintiffs moved to strike — court required sufficient pleadings/evidence and Plaintiffs contested the designation; designation disputes involve fact questions not appropriate for mandamus review |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus requires showing trial court clearly abused discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
- Brady v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 795 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1990) (mandamus may not be used to resolve disputed factual issues)
- Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. 1989) (mandamus is extraordinary and reserved for manifest and urgent necessity)
- Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1997) (failure to object at hearing can waive oath requirement for attorney factual statements)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (appellate courts should not embroil themselves in routine pretrial rulings; mandamus is extraordinary)
- In re KC Greenhouse Patio Apartments, L.P., 445 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (trial courts have broad discretion under Rule 173 to appoint guardian ad litem; potential conflict can justify appointment but standard is discretionary)