in Re: Midland Funding LLC
527 S.W.3d 296
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Midland Funding sued pro se defendant Maria Romero on an unpaid credit-card account.
- The parties reached a settlement and Midland moved for continuance; the court set multiple hearings and ultimately a bench trial.
- Midland’s attorneys did not appear at the February 4, 2016 bench trial; the trial court began contempt proceedings against attorney Kristy Gabrielova.
- On February 5, 2016 Midland filed a motion to dismiss and a notice of nonsuit, which terminated the merits of the case.
- Despite the nonsuit, the trial court later scheduled status hearings and issued a show-cause order for Gabrielova; Midland sought mandamus to compel dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff had an absolute right to nonsuit under Tex. R. Civ. P. 162 | Midland: nonsuit was timely and thus terminated the case and its merits | Trial court: retained power to address contempt and had acted post-nonsuit (scheduling hearings, show-cause) | Court: Nonsuit extinguished the merits; plaintiff had an absolute right to nonsuit and the trial court must dismiss the case |
| Whether outstanding collateral matters (fees/sanctions/contempt) justified refusing immediate dismissal | Midland: no pending fee/sanction motions tolling dismissal; contempt power does not prevent dismissal | Trial court: asserted basis to continue proceedings (contempt, hearings) | Court: Rule 162 allows resolving collateral matters but no such pending matters required retention; contempt authority alone didn’t prevent dismissal |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by not entering dismissal | Midland: court’s post-nonsuit actions were arbitrary and exceeded authority | Trial court: acted within discretion to address conduct and collateral issues | Court: Abuse of discretion; ministerial duty to enter dismissal order |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate remedy | Midland: no adequate appellate remedy because nonsuit effect was immediate and merits moot | Trial court: could argue plenary power to address collateral matters | Court: Mandamus appropriate to compel dismissal; writ will issue if judge fails to comply |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McAllen Med. Ctr., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus standards)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus principles)
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (abuse of discretion definition)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (nonsuit immediately extinguishes merits)
- In re Greater Houston Orthopedic Specialists, Inc., 295 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2009) (plaintiff’s absolute right to nonsuit)
- Villafani v. Trejo, 251 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. 2008) (nonsuit principles)
- Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon ex rel. Schultz, 195 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2006) (trial court may delay signing dismissal to resolve collateral matters)
- In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1997) (trial court discretion to allow time to resolve costs/fees after nonsuit)
- Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. 2011) (nonsuit terminates case where defendant seeks no affirmative relief)