in Re Stephanie Rios
04-15-00557-CV
Tex. App.Sep 4, 2015Background
- Stephanie Rios filed applications for dependent administrator and heirship in the Estate of Artemio Rios, deceased.
- Maria Adriana Flores intervened claiming to be the decedent’s common-law wife and sought rights of inheritance.
- An Agreed Docket Control Order set discovery deadlines and a trial date, incorporating Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Real Party in Interest repeatedly sought continuances and depositions beyond deadlines, prompting Relator’s objections.
- The trial court granted continuances and opened discovery near the trial date, prompting Relator to seek mandamus relief.
- Relator argues the court abused discretion by granting continuances without good cause and by delaying discovery contrary to the docket control order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by granting a continuance without good cause | Rios argues Flores failed to show good cause. | Flores contends continuances were warranted due to deposition needs. | Abuse of discretion found |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by opening discovery outside the agreed deadlines | Rios contends deadlines controlled by the Agreed Docket Control Order were ignored. | Flores argues flexibility allowed to obtain needed depositions. | Abuse of discretion found |
| Whether Real Party exercised due diligence in discovery | Rios asserts Flores conducted no discovery for six months. | Flores asserts attempts were made shortly before trial. | Lack of due diligence shown |
| Whether the Agreed Docket Control Order governs discovery deadlines | Rios argues contract terms bind the parties to Texas Rules discovery deadlines. | Flores contends court may modify deadlines for justice. | Agreed order controls; open discovery improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1988) (trial court discretion in continuances depends on diligence in discovery)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (Mandamus requires abuse of discretion or violation of duty with no adequate remedy)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard for trial court rulings)
- Fritsch v. J.M. English Truck Line, Inc., 151 Tex. 168 (Tex. 1952) (diligence in discovery required for continuance)
- Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (contract interpretation governs Agreed Docket Control Orders)