in Re: Texas Health Resources
05-16-01135-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Relator Texas Health Resources (THR) filed a plea to the jurisdiction in a Dallas County district court raising threshold jurisdictional defenses.
- The trial court took the plea under advisement on November 30, 2015, and it remained pending for nearly ten months.
- THR repeatedly requested a ruling: verbally, by filing a motion for ruling, by submitting supplemental briefing at the court's request, and by attempting to set the plea for hearing.
- The trial court twice rescheduled hearings, ultimately setting the plea to be heard the day before a special trial setting (October 17, 2016).
- THR sought a mandamus directing the trial court to rule on the plea to the jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals considered whether the delay and scheduling constituted refusal to rule warranting mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court’s prolonged failure to rule on a properly filed plea to the jurisdiction warrants mandamus | THR: The plea was properly filed, pending for a reasonable time (~10 months), and the court refused to rule despite requests | Trial court: (implied) delay due to scheduling; set hearing near trial date | Court: Delay was unreasonable; mandamus conditionally granted directing an order by a set date |
| Whether a ruling the day before trial satisfies the requirement to decide jurisdictional pleas "as soon as practicable" | THR: Ruling the day before trial is insufficient; jurisdictional pleas must be resolved well before trial | Trial court: scheduling the hearing the day before trial (no direct defense argued) | Court: Such timing is insufficient and unreasonable; must be decided before trial |
| Whether relator satisfied prerequisites for mandamus (motion filed, request for ruling, refusal to rule) | THR: Met all three prerequisites | Trial court: (no contest argued) | Court: THR met the prerequisites for mandamus relief |
| Whether the appellate court should issue an immediate writ or conditionally grant mandamus | THR: Requested writ directing immediate ruling | Court/Respondent: preferred anticipatory compliance | Court: Conditionally granted mandamus, directing the trial court to rule by a date and withholding issuance unless noncompliance occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (jurisdictional determinations should be made as soon as practicable)
- In re Amir-Sharif, 357 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (ruling on certain pretrial motions the day of trial is insufficient)
- In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (mandamus available when trial court fails to rule on pending motion)