in Re Madeleine Connor ( 2018 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00772-CV
In re Madeleine Connor
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Madeleine Connor has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of
the trial court’s order severing her claims against certain defendants after those claims were
dismissed pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.
Mandamus relief may be appropriate if a trial court improperly severs claims into a
separate case.2 See, e.g., In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611, 614-15 (Tex. 2011) (when severance into eight
separate suits was improper, State lacked adequate remedy by appeal because of “enormous
waste of judicial and public resources”); In re City of Austin Police Dep’t, No. 03-98-00661-CV,
1999 WL 11224, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 14, 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (not
designated for publication) (Texas courts have a policy against “piecemeal trials,” and mandamus
relief “is appropriate when the trial court improperly severs a single cause of action”). However,
1
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001-.011.
2
See In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. 2011) (severance is proper if controversy
involves multiple causes of action, severed claim could be independently asserted, and severed claim
is not so interwoven with remaining claim that they involve same facts and issues).
Connor’s claims against the real parties in interest have been dismissed and thus can no longer be
considered interwoven with her remaining claims. Further, Connor has explained that she wishes
to challenge the dismissal of her claims against the real parties in interest, and the severance order
rendered those dismissals final and appealable. See, e.g., Martinez v. Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc.,
875 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Tex. 1994). Thus, Connor has an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re
Rogers, No. 09-11-00644-CV, 2012 WL 112553, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 12, 2012, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) (“As to the severed cause, appeal is available and will be an adequate
remedy.”); In re Fantroy, No. 10-09-00008-CV, 2009 WL 91712, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Waco
Jan. 9, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“because he has an adequate remedy by appeal of the
judgment and severance order, Fantroy’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied”); In re Clayton,
No. 09-05-00412-CV, 2006 WL 1045175, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 20, 2006, orig.
proceeding (mem. op.) (once severance signed, interlocutory orders were appealable). We deny the
petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
__________________________________________
Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
Filed: December 13, 2018
2