in Re DSTJ, L.L.P., Successor to DSTJ Corporation and Milestone Operating, Inc.
14-16-00645-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 8, 2016Background
- Dispute over ownership and rights to certain Jefferson County mineral leases; M & M assigned 21 leases to DSTJ and alleged DSTJ defaulted by not paying override royalties.
- M & M sued for declaratory relief and obtained partial summary judgment in 2009 declaring the assignment terminated and awarding interpleaded royalties; final judgment in 2011 incorporated that summary judgment and jury verdicts against DSTJ.
- Beaumont Court of Appeals reversed the partial summary judgment, holding a fact issue existed whether DSTJ ratified the assignment (thus avoiding the statute of frauds), and issued a general remand in 2012.
- On remand the trial court (May 20, 2014) denied relators’ motion to enforce the mandate as a general remand and limited the remand trial to the single issue of ratification; M & M obtained discovery tied to ratification, including a deposition of ExxonMobil’s corporate representative.
- Relators sought mandamus asking this court to compel the trial court to vacate the May 20, 2014 order (and treat the remand as general) and to quash the ExxonMobil deposition; the Court conditionally granted mandamus in part (vacating the May 20, 2014 order) and denied relief as to quashing the deposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand — general vs. limited | Beaumont only addressed ratification, so remand should be limited to ratification | Mandate language is not limited; trial court could try only ratification under Rule 174(b) convenience/severance | Remand was general; trial court abused discretion by limiting remand to ratification |
| Whether relators waived challenge by delay (laches) | Delay does not bar mandamus because subsequent trial activity (depositions) show timely challenge | Relators waited >2 years to seek mandamus, so laches bars relief | Laches did not bar relief given circumstances; mandamus appropriate |
| Adequacy of appellate remedy | Appeal inadequate because retrial limited to ratification would violate mandate and cause wasted time/multiple retrials | Could appeal final judgment after limited retrial | Mandamus necessary — appeal inadequate to protect substantive right to full retrial per mandate |
| Deposition of ExxonMobil rep — privilege/quash request | Deposition should be quashed as outside proper scope given alleged limited remand | Deposition was authorized by trial court discovery order on ratification issues | Mandamus denied as to the July 19, 2016 order; not disturbed (denial without addressing merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Simulis, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 392 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (remand without special instructions reopens case in entirety)
- Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1986) (appellate limitation of remand must be clearly apparent)
- In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (mandamus standards: abuse of discretion and inadequate appellate remedy)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (factors for considering adequacy of appellate remedy and mandamus utility)
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (definition of abuse of discretion)