in Re Robert Walker and Water Removal and Drying of Houston, L.L.C., 14-15-00434-CV

Jury returned verdict for defendants on counterclaims on June 27, 2013; defendants moved for attorney’s fees and entry of judgment.
Serpe, Jones, Andrews, Callender & Bell PLLC intervened on August 21, 2013 seeking attorney’s fees.
Trial court signed a document titled “Final Judgment” on January 22, 2014 stating “This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims,” but crossed out the attorney’s fee award and did not name the intervenor.
Price filed a late notice of appeal; this court dismissed the appeal as untimely.
Price moved to vacate the January 22, 2014 judgment on December 23, 2014 arguing it was not final because it did not mention the intervenor or fees; the trial court issued an order vacating the judgment on January 16, 2015 and later entered a docket control order setting a new trial date.
Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court asking to compel the trial court to set aside its January 16, 2015 vacatur order (and the subsequent docket control order) as void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Jan. 22, 2014 judgment was final	Price: Not final because it does not expressly name intervenor Serpe Jones or rule on its fee claim	Relators: The explicit phrase "finally disposes of all parties and all claims" makes the judgment final	Judgment is final; language is clear and unequivocal that it disposed of all parties and claims
Whether the trial court had power to vacate the judgment on Jan. 16, 2015	Price: Trial court could vacate because judgment not final	Relators: Court’s plenary power expired 30 days after signing; vacatur was beyond jurisdiction	Vacatur was issued after plenary power expired and is void
Whether mandamus relief is appropriate for a post-plenary void order	Price: Relators delayed in seeking mandamus (laches)	Relators: Void orders warrant mandamus and laches does not bar relief for void acts	Mandamus is appropriate; laches does not bar relief where order is void
Effect on subsequent docket control order setting new trial date	Price: Proceed to set case for new trial after vacatur	Relators: Docket order based on void vacatur is itself void	The docket control order is void and must be set aside

Moritz v. Preiss, 121 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. 2003) (judgment disposing of every issue is final even if it omits a party)
Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (order is final if it actually disposes of every claim and party or clearly and unequivocally states finality)
Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2000) (plenary power of trial court expires thirty days after signing judgment)
In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2000) (orders issued after plenary power expires are void and mandamus is appropriate)
In re Bates, 429 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (vacatur entered after plenary power expired is void)
In re Chester, 309 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (laches does not bar mandamus relief to correct a void order)
In re Choice! Energy, L.P., 325 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (same)