in Re Texas Collegiate Baseball League, Ltd. and Gerald W. Haddock
367 S.W.3d 462
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- TCBL and Haddock seek mandamus to overturn a trial court order denying their amended motion to abate portions of a case involving Wolf.
- Four linked actions involve Wolf representing Haddock in Crescent litigation and TCBL in Baseball litigation; status of Crescent and Baseball pending is unclear.
- The suit seeks enforcement of a May 2010 alleged settlement over attorney fees; Wolf disputes existence of an enforceable agreement.
- TCBL and Haddock asserted malpractice claims against Wolf arising from his representation in Crescent and Baseball.
- The trial court denied abatement in January 2012, prompting the mandamus petition.
- The court analyzes whether abating the fee and malpractice claims pending Crescent/Baseball would avoid prejudice and inefficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying abatement. | TCBL/Haddock contend abatement is required to prevent inconsistent positions and evolving mal-practice theories until underlying cases resolve. | Wolf argues severance or separate trials would suffice to avoid prejudice and inefficiency, not abatement. | Yes; trial court abused discretion and should abate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apex Towing Co. v. Tolin, 41 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2001) (tolling and policy support for staying related claims)
- Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990) (controlling considerations for severance to avoid prejudice)
- In re Ethyl Corp., 975 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. 1998) (avoid prejudice and promote justice in severance)
- In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard and misapplication of law)
- In re Sanders, 153 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. 2004) (deference to trial court on factual matters; de novo review of legal issues)
- Liberty Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. v. Akin, 927 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1996) (clear abuse of discretion standard and mandamus relief)
- In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. 2004) (adequacy of appellate remedy in mandamus context)
- In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (factors for adequacy of appellate remedy and interlocutory review)