Facts
- Petitioners Trent Speckhals and Jorge Cora sought certiorari after the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment favoring respondents in a breach of contract dispute involving stock warrants for Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. [lines="32-36"].
- The trial court ruled that certain documents filed by the petitioners, opposing the summary judgment, were untimely per OCGA § 9-11-6 (e). [lines="44-46"].
- Petitioners contended that they were entitled to additional time to respond to the respondents’ cross-motion due to email service from an electronic filing service provider, opposing the trial court's interpretation of OCGA § 9-11-6 (e). [lines="94-106"].
- The Supreme Court of Georgia denied the certiorari petition but expressed concern about the trial court’s interpretation of the statute. [lines="14-16"].
- The trial court concluded that OCGA § 9-11-6 (e) did not apply to emails generated by electronic filing systems, leading to confusion about the application of the three-day response rule. [lines="100-113"].
Issues
- Did the trial court err in applying OCGA § 9-11-6 (e) to deny petitioners additional time for their response to the cross-motion for summary judgment? [lines="50-52"].
- Is the interpretation that OCGA § 9-11-6 (e) does not provide additional time for email notices sent from an electronic filing service provider valid? [lines="178-182"].
Holdings
- The trial court misinterpreted OCGA § 9-11-6 (e) by concluding it did not apply to emails sent by electronic filing service providers; the text indicates otherwise. [lines="138-145"].
- The Court of Appeals' ruling summarily affirming the trial court did not address the interpretation of OCGA § 9-11-6 (e) in detail, leaving the statutory issue unresolved for future cases. [lines="194-205"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 10, 2024.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-24-00587-CV
IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
133rd District Court
Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009-15297
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Thursday, August 15, 2024, relator R. Wayne Johnson filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator contends that the trial court acted without jurisdiction and issued a void order.
Relator has been declared a vexatious litigant and is the subject of three pre- filing orders, prohibiting him from filing, pro se, new litigation without seeking the permission of the appropriate local administrative judge. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 11.101, 11.102. The clerk of this court may not file an original proceeding or other matter presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order unless the litigant first obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge permitting the filing. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.103(a).
On August 16, 2024, the clerk of this court notified relator that his original proceeding was subject to dismissal without further notice, unless within 10 days relator filed a copy of the order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing of his petition. In response to the notice, relator did not provide a copy of the pre-filing order permitting his petition or otherwise adequately respond to our notice.
Accordingly, we dismiss the mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 11.1035(b); In re Johnson , No. 14-21-00314-CV, 2021 WL 2837189, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 8, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing vexatious litigant’s petition for writ of mandamus in absence of order from local administrative judge permitting filing of original proceeding); In re Johnson , No. 14-22-00332-CV, 2022 WL 3093195, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 4, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (same).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.