in Re Cas Companies, LP Incorrectly Named Clean Air Solutions of Houston, LLC and Bill Bowlin, Individually, 422 S.W.3d 871

Service Supply of Victoria sued CAS Companies (Clean Air Solutions/Bowlin) for breach of contract, sworn account, and guaranty; relators counterclaimed for breach and fees. After a bench trial, the court initially signed two differing final judgments in September 2013 (one for Service, one for relators), then signed an amended final judgment on September 13, 2013 stating it superseded prior judgments.
On September 23, 2013 the trial judge sent a signed, dated letter to counsel stating he was "herewith vacating" the prior final judgments and ordering the parties to mediate attorney’s fees; the letter was later filed by counsel with the district clerk.
Mediation occurred December 6, 2013 and was unsuccessful. On December 9, 2013 Service moved for entry of judgment and the trial court signed a new final judgment in Service’s favor.
Relators filed a mandamus petition arguing the December 9 judgment was void because the court’s plenary power over the September 13 judgment expired October 13, 2013 and the September 23 letter did not extend plenary power.
The court examined whether the September 23 letter constituted a formal order (considering factors like content, signature, filing, and intent) and whether it extended plenary jurisdiction; the Court denied mandamus, holding the letter substantially complied with requirements and preserved plenary power.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s Sept. 23 letter was a valid order that extended plenary power	Sept. 23 letter was not a formal order; filing after plenary period was irrelevant; trial court’s plenary power expired Oct. 13	The letter was a court order (dated, signed, filed, definite) vacating prior judgments and ordering mediation, thereby extending plenary power	The letter substantially complied with requisites of a formal order; it vacated prior judgments and preserved plenary power
Whether the Dec. 9, 2013 final judgment was void for being entered after plenary power expired	Dec. 9 judgment is void because plenary power had expired on Oct. 13 absent a valid order extending it	Because the Sept. 23 letter was a valid order, plenary power remained and the Dec. 9 judgment was valid	Dec. 9 judgment was valid; mandamus denied

In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. 1998) (mandamus proper for orders beyond trial court jurisdiction)
In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2000) (mandamus available to correct void orders)
Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2000) (trial court retains plenary power for at least thirty days)
In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. 2008) (order after plenary power expires is void; mandamus appropriate)
In re Newby, 266 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008) (letter may constitute an order if it substantially complies with formal requisites)
Schaeffer Homes, Inc. v. Esterak, 792 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1990) (letter can be an order when it meets formal-entry requisites)
Goff v. Tuchscherer, 627 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. 1982) (letters to counsel are generally not orders unless they meet formal criteria)