in Re University of the Incarnate Word
469 S.W.3d 255
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs Valerie and Robert Redus sued the University of the Incarnate Word (UIW) and a campus officer for wrongful death and related tort claims arising from their son’s 2013 shooting.
- UIW answered, removed to federal court three days later, and the federal court remanded the case to state court on November 25, 2014.
- UIW filed a plea to the jurisdiction in state court asserting governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act; the plea was denied on March 2, 2015, and UIW filed a §51.014(a)(8) interlocutory appeal the next day.
- While that interlocutory appeal was pending, plaintiffs moved to compel discovery; the trial court granted the motion and signed a discovery-compelling order on May 1, 2015.
- UIW petitioned this court for writ of mandamus arguing the trial court’s discovery order violated the automatic stay triggered by its interlocutory appeal; the Fourth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate the discovery order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UIW timely filed plea to jurisdiction under §51.014(c) so automatic stay applies | UIW’s plea was filed >180 days after its original answer, so stay shouldn’t apply | Removal to federal court suspended state deadlines; excluding the removal period, UIW filed within 180 days and obtained a hearing within the period | Held for UIW: removal tolls state deadlines; plea was timely when removal period is excluded, so automatic stay applies |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by entering discovery order after interlocutory appeal perfected | Discovery should proceed despite appeal | Entry of discovery order after perfection violated statutory automatic stay of all trial-court proceedings | Held for UIW: trial court abused discretion by entering order in violation of automatic stay |
| Whether UIW has an adequate appellate remedy for the stay violation | Plaintiffs: UIW can appeal the discovery order | UIW: loss of statutory automatic stay is not remedied by appeal once violated | Held for UIW: no adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1985) (mandamus proper to correct clear abuse when no adequate remedy exists)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (trial court’s failure to correctly analyze or apply law can constitute abuse of discretion reviewable by mandamus)
- In re Tex. Educ. Agency, 441 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014) (statutory automatic stay under §51.014 prohibits further trial-court proceedings)
- Brogdon v. Ruddell, 717 S.W.2d 675 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1986) (state-court deadlines are generally suspended during removal)
- Quaestor Investments, Inc. v. State of Chiapas, 997 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1999) (remand is complete and state-court jurisdiction revests when federal court mails certified remand order)
- In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 192 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (loss of statutory stay cannot be remedied by later appeal; mandamus appropriate)