in Re Geomet Recycling LLC, Richard Goldberg, Kenneth Goldberg, Josh Applebaum, Alicia McKinney, Eloisa Medina, Lee Wakser, Spencer Lieman, Mikel Shecht, Laura Myers, Henry Jackson, and Kelly Couch
578 S.W.3d 82
| Tex. | 2019Background
- Geomet Recycling and affiliated individuals (relators) were sued by EMR for trade-secret misappropriation and related claims after former EMR employees formed Geomet; the trial court entered a TRO restricting use of EMR’s confidential information.
- Geomet filed a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA); the trial court denied the motion and Geomet filed an interlocutory appeal under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(12).
- Section 51.014(b) automatically stayed “all other proceedings in the trial court” pending resolution of that interlocutory appeal.
- EMR asked the court of appeals to lift the statutory stay “for the limited purpose” of allowing the trial court to hear EMR’s motion for temporary injunction and motion for contempt; the court of appeals granted that limited lift.
- Geomet petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for mandamus, arguing the court of appeals unlawfully authorized trial-court proceedings in violation of the statutory stay.
- The Supreme Court held the court of appeals exceeded its authority by lifting the statutory stay for trial-court proceedings and conditionally granted mandamus, directing the court of appeals to vacate its order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (EMR) | Defendant's Argument (Geomet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court of appeals may lift the §51.014(b) stay for limited trial-court proceedings | Court of appeals can lift stay for limited purposes to prevent harm and permit injunction/contempt hearings | §51.014(b) mandates a stay of "all other proceedings in the trial court" with no statutory exception | Court: No — statute contains no exception; lifting stay for trial-court proceedings violated §51.014(b) |
| Whether appellate procedural rules (Tex. R. App. P. 29.3/29.4) authorize such a lift | Rules empower appellate courts to make temporary orders or refer enforcement to trial court, enabling limited relief | Rules cannot override or authorize actions that conflict with statute; stay controls | Court: Rules cannot be used to contravene statute; Rule 29.3 permits preservation orders but not lifting the statutory stay to allow trial-court proceedings |
| Whether the court of appeals could rely on inherent/constitutional judicial power to avoid the statute’s effects | Legislature cannot render courts powerless to prevent irreparable harm; constitutional power permits protective measures | Statute provides alternative forum (court of appeals under Rule 29.3); no constitutional problem here | Court: No constitutional infirmity because Rule 29.3 allows appellate relief; constitutional argument not reached as alternative remedies exist |
| Adequate remedy and mandamus relief availability | N/A (issue reciprocal) | N/A | Court: Mandamus appropriate because court of appeals clearly abused discretion and relief by appeal would be inadequate; order should be vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (textualist statutory-interpretation guidance)
- Johnstone v. State, 22 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. 2000) (procedural rules cannot conflict with statute)
- Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. 1999) (court may not judicially add exceptions to statute)
- Waites v. Sondock, 561 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. 1977) (constitutional limits on statutes that would render courts powerless)
- In re Sheshtawy, 154 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. 2004) (contempt power as element of judicial authority)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus relief standard for legal error)
- In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1998) (mandamus standard: clear abuse and no adequate appellate remedy)
- Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2011) (trial-court action in violation of stay is voidable)