-
O’NEILL, Justice, concurring.
Although I generally agree with the majority opinion, I do not agree that the order issued by the 11th District Court retaining appellant’s ease on the docket was “improper.” The 11th District Court’s DWOP Notice, sent to over 150 plaintiffs in the case, stated that, although a settlement, verdict, or decision dispositive of the case had been made, a final order had not been signed disposing of the case on the 11th District Court's docket. As a result, the court notified the parties their cases would be dismissed if no final order was submitted. Appellant filed a motion to retain, questioning the propriety of the consolidation order signed by the 151st District Court. Although we do not specifically know why the 11th District Court retained the case, there could be a number of reasons, such as allowing the court to (1) review the consolidation order, (2) obtain a copy of the consolidation order for its file, and/or (3) determine the status of the proceedings in the 151st District Court. There is nothing to indicate the 11th District Court retained appellant’s case for other than administrative purposes; it did not attempt to adjudicate appellant’s claims or improperly exercise jurisdiction over them. To the contrary, the 11th District Court signed a final judgment incorporating the 151st District Court’s consolidation order and disposing of all claims except those of appellant, over which the court specifically acknowledged it had no jurisdiction. Because I do not believe the 11th District Court acted “improperly” in retaining the case, I respectfully concur.
Document Info
Docket Number: 14-97-00598-CV
Citation Numbers: 976 S.W.2d 363, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 5834, 1998 WL 687322
Judges: Anderson, Edelman, O'Neill
Filed Date: 9/10/1998
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/14/2024