05-21-00549-CV
Tex. App.Aug 10, 2021Background
- Jay S. Cooper is a court-designated vexatious litigant required to obtain the local administrative judge’s (LAJ) permission before filing new litigation; Teresa Ward Cooper is not so designated.
- Mr. and Mrs. Cooper submitted a joint original petition (with >100 pages of exhibits) asserting claims arising from an eviction against Collin County and various county officials.
- The trial court clerk did not file the petition but referred it to the local administrative district judge (LADJ) under the vexatious-litigant statute to determine whether it should be accepted for filing.
- The LADJ, without a hearing, found the proposed litigation lacked merit, appeared filed for harassment/delay, determined some exhibits violated Rule 59, denied Mr. Cooper permission to file, struck the petition, and ordered Mrs. Cooper to replead.
- The Coopers sought mandamus relief asking the Court of Appeals to vacate the LADJ’s order and direct filing; the court limited review to Mr. Cooper because the joint petition was indivisible and he alone required permission to file.
- The Court of Appeals denied mandamus, concluding the LADJ did not clearly abuse her discretion in denying Mr. Cooper permission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LADJ lacked authority to act because Cooper did not request permission and Rule 60 allows intervention | Cooper: Rule 60 allows intervention; LADJ exceeded authority because Cooper did not seek permission | County/LADJ: As a vexatious litigant Cooper could not file without LADJ permission; clerk properly referred the petition for LADJ determination | LADJ had authority; clerk properly invoked LADJ jurisdiction and referral was appropriate |
| Whether LADJ abused discretion/denied due process by ruling without a hearing | Cooper: Ruling without hearing deprived him of opportunity to develop a record to justify filing | LADJ: Statute explicitly permits determination with or without a hearing; review of the pleading can suffice | No abuse; statute allows ruling without hearing and a record is not required |
| Whether denial violated First/14th Amendment petition rights or equal protection | Cooper: Denial infringes right to petition and equal protection by singling him out as vexatious | LADJ: Order does not categorically bar litigation; no constitutional right to file frivolous suits | No constitutional violation: order only denies permission to file that particular petition and does not categorically bar access |
| Whether relief should be directed for both relators | Coopers: Ask court to order filing of both petitions | Court/LADJ: The original petition was joint/indivisible and Mr. Cooper alone required permission; relief limited accordingly | Court limited review and relief to Mr. Cooper; did not order filing for both relators |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard: relator must show clear abuse of discretion)
- Henderson Edwards Wilson, L.L.P. v. Toledo, 244 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (a person may intervene only if he could have brought the action in his own name)
- Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990) (intervention doctrine and limits on intervention)
- In re Potts, 399 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (whether denial of permission to file was abuse may depend on reviewing the pleading sought to be filed)
- In re Potts, 357 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (denial of permission to file an action does not necessarily violate due process where it does not categorically bar litigation)