in Re Sunset Nursing Home, Inc.
01-15-00530-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 26, 2015Background
- Underlying dispute: commercial lease/guaranty claim filed by Sunset Nursing Home against Rebecca Ann, Inc., Donald Grether, and Paul Heinig relating to two nursing facilities after lease expiration. Trial set on an expedited/special setting (August 10, 2015).
- Docket Control Order (DCO) set a deadline (June 12, 2014) for amended pleadings; discovery deadlines likewise set and largely expired before January 2015.
- On January 27 and April 21, 2015, Sunset filed amended pleadings adding five new parties and many new causes of action less than three months before trial and more than seven months after the DCO amendment deadline.
- Defendants (Real Parties) moved to strike the late amended pleadings and sought discovery protections; the trial court granted a consolidated order (May 5, 2015) striking the amended pleadings and limited certain discovery (including in camera review and attorneys‑eyes‑only handling of proprietary policies/procedures and MDS documents).
- Relator sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals; Real Parties responded arguing the petition and mandamus record were procedurally defective and that the trial court properly exercised discretion on pleading amendments, joinder, and discovery limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of mandamus petition and record | Sunset contends mandamus is proper and presented record; seeks immediate relief from trial-court orders | Real Parties argue Sunset failed to comply with Texas R. App. P. 52 (no certification that facts are supported, insufficiently authenticated record, omitted transcript statement) | Court should deny mandamus where petition/record fail Rule 52 requirements (trial court presumptively had supporting evidence); procedural defects justify denial |
| Timeliness and surprise of amended pleadings (Rule 63 / scheduling order) | Sunset argues intervening continuance and Rule 91a activity permitted or justified amendment shortly before trial | Real Parties contend the DCO deadline passed, the amendments added 38 causes of action and 5 parties, causing unfair surprise and prejudice and would require reopening discovery | Trial court did not abuse discretion striking untimely, prejudicial amended pleadings filed well after scheduling deadline and close to trial |
| Proper joinder/labeling of new parties (Rule 38 / permissive joinder) and effect of Rule 91a | Sunset says labeling is immaterial and Rule 91a response actions allow amendment; joinder should be permitted | Real Parties emphasize procedural defects (mislabeling, failure to use proper mechanism, prejudice, and that Rule 91a does not override court control of joinder) | Court may deny joinder/amendment where procedural rules and scheduling concerns justify refusal; Rule 91a does not give an absolute right to add parties at the eleventh hour |
| Discovery limits, in camera review, and access to proprietary materials | Sunset argues court improperly restricted access to MDS documents, appraisals, policies and discharge books and prevented useful review/copies | Real Parties contend trial court properly used in camera review, limited dissemination (attorneys eyes only) to protect proprietary material, many discovery complaints are moot or lacked a final order | Trial court acted within discretion to limit discovery, perform in camera review, and impose protective handling; mandamus relief not warranted absent showing discovery denial vitiates case or leaves no appellate remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaumont Bank N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (mandamus standards and appellate review of trial court discretion)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for mandamus and limits on appellate substitution of judgment for trial court fact findings)
- In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus principles regarding discretion)
- In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (trial-court docket management and mandamus review)
- Hardin v. Hardin, 597 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. 1980) (trial court authority to control pleading amendments)
- Hakemy Bros., Ltd. v. State Bank & Trust Co., 189 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied) (late amendments and surprise/prejudice analysis under Rule 63)
- Rodriguez v. Cuellar, 143 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (striking amended pleading that would reshape case and cause prejudice)