in Re Valero Refining-Texas, L.P.
01-15-00566-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 11, 2015Background
- This mandamus proceeding arises from a civil trial in Galveston County in which a jury returned a defense verdict for Valero; Judge Brent Griffin later granted a new trial and Judge Patricia Grady, his successor, denied Valero’s motion to reconsider in a one‑line order.
- Valero seeks mandamus relief to compel the trial court to vacate the new‑trial order and reinstate the jury verdict, arguing the successor judge must provide independent reasons for refusing to enter judgment on the verdict.
- Judge Grady’s April 16, 2015 order denying reconsideration contains no stated reasons; Valero contends Texas precedent requires the successor judge to state her own reasoning when she reaffirms a predecessor’s new‑trial order.
- Valero filed this petition after exhausting the trial record and hiring appellate counsel; the trial court motion asking Judge Grady to state reasons was filed September 11, 2015 and was anticipated to be heard the week of October 5, 2015.
- Valero asks this Court to abate the mandamus proceeding until October 31, 2015 to allow the trial judge to state reasons, and seeks leave to file a reply after Judge Grady rules; the real parties (the Foxes) do not oppose abatement per Valero’s certificate of conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff (Fox) Argument | Defendant (Valero) Argument | Held / Procedural Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may be directed to a successor judge for a predecessor’s order | The Foxes: mandamus cannot control a predecessor; Judge Grady’s order (denying reconsideration) is the operative denial and is the proper focus. | Valero: successor judge must provide independent reasons; both Griffin’s and Grady’s orders are at issue; successor must state reasons before appellate relief. | Pending — Relator requests abatement to allow successor judge to state reasons; outcome not decided in this motion. |
| Whether a successor judge who reaffirms a predecessor’s new‑trial order must state specific reasons for refusing to enter judgment on the jury verdict | Foxes: deference to predecessor and concerns of consistency/continuity justify short order; specificity not required here. | Valero: controlling Texas precedent requires the successor judge to provide her own, reasonably specific reasons; absence of reasons warrants mandamus directing the trial court to state them. | Pending — Valero seeks abatement so Judge Grady can supply reasons consistent with Supreme Court precedent. |
| Proper appellate standard for reviewing a new‑trial order lacking stated reasons (merits‑based factual review vs. abuse‑of‑discretion) | Foxes: appellate courts should defer to trial judge and jury; mandamus inappropriate if successor had valid reasons even if not stated. | Valero: appellate review should require an articulated rationale; where reasons are omitted, abatement and/or mandamus to compel reasons is appropriate. | Procedural dispute; court asked to abate to let trial judge supply reasons before appellate review. |
| Whether the record before the court is adequate for mandamus without the successor judge’s stated reasons | Foxes: Valero failed to preserve request for reasons in trial court and thus record is insufficient; mandamus should be denied. | Valero: it timely sought reasons and now seeks abatement to secure them; mandamus without abatement would be premature. | Pending — abatement requested to cure record deficiency by obtaining trial judge’s stated reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2008) (successor judge must reconsider predecessor’s new‑trial order before mandamus will issue; limits mandamus against former judge)
- In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 289 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. 2009) (when successor reaffirms original new‑trial order without reasons, mandamus may direct trial court to provide reasons for refusing to enter judgment)
- In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (trial court must provide clearly identified and reasonably specific reasons for setting aside a jury verdict and granting a new trial)
- In re Cook, 356 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. 2011) (reaffirmation of predecessor’s order that merely states predecessor’s ruling should remain unchanged is inadequate; successor must articulate reasons)
- In re Schmitz, 285 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. 2009) (mandamus must be directed to an existing officeholder; any judge sitting after issuance of a writ must comply)
- In re Toyota Motor Sales, 407 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2014) (discusses the required specificity and appellate review applicable to new‑trial orders and when cold‑record merits review may be appropriate)
- In re United Scaffolding, 377 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2012) (addresses sufficiency of a new‑trial order’s stated reasons and the discretion trial courts possess when granting new trials)