in Re: Sierra Club ( 2012 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
'
' No. 08-12-00236-CV
IN RE: SIERRA CLUB,
' AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Relator. ' IN MANDAMUS
'
OPINION
Sierra Club has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the court compel the
Honorable Martin B. Muncy, Presiding Judge of the 109th District Court of Andrews County,
Texas, to withdraw a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Sierra Club from seeking
injunctive relief to prohibit shipments of low-level radioactive waste to a disposal facility in
Andrews County. We deny relief.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
In August of 2004, Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) applied to the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a license to authorize construction of a
facility to commercially dispose of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) in Andrews County.1
The facility at the center of the controversy in this case is referred to as the LLRW “compact”
facility. Sierra Club requested a contested case hearing before the TCEQ on this license
application. In 2009, the TCEQ denied Sierra Club’s request for a hearing and granted WCS’s
application. Sierra Club sought judicial review of that decision.
1
The background facts are essentially undisputed. The factual summary in the opinion is based on the Relator’s
petition and appendix as well as the response filed by the Real Party in Interest, Andrews County. The Court has not
received responses from the other real parties in interest, Andrews County Chamber of Commerce, Andrews
Industrial Foundation, or WCS.
In May 2009, citizens in Andrews County voted to issue $75 million in bonds related to
the development and construction of the LLRW disposal facilities. Andrews County utilized the
bond funds to purchase land and assets associated with the disposal facilities which it has leased
to WCS. The lease agreement is dated December 8, 2010. The LLRW compact facility began
accepting LLRW in April 2012. One month later, on May 14, 2012, the 98th District Court in
Travis County determined that TCEQ had erred by denying Sierra Club’s hearing request
regarding WCS’s application for RAW License No. R04100, reversed TCEQ’s decision issued
on January 20, 2009, and remanded the matter to TCEQ to allow Sierra Club to participate in a
contested case hearing.2 TCEQ and WCS have appealed that decision to the Third Court of
Appeals in Austin and superceded the trial court’s judgment. The appeal is pending as of the
date of this opinion. See The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Waste Control
Specialists LLC v. Sierra Club, No. 03-12-00335-CV. On May 24, 2012, Sierra Club filed a new
suit against TCEQ in Travis County to challenge the Commission’s April 25, 2012 decision
authorizing WCS to begin accepting waste under License R04100.3 The petition alleges that
WCS has not complied with all requirements of the license because groundwater has been found
in the facility’s buffer zone. Sierra Club requests, among other things, that the Travis County
district court suspend the Commission’s decision authorizing WCS to accept LLRW for disposal
until after a contested case hearing is held in accordance with the judgment of the 98th District
Court. TCEQ and WCS filed pleas to the jurisdiction and those pleas were denied. TCEQ and
WCS have appealed to the Third Court of Appeals. See Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality and Waste Control Specialists v. Sierra Club, 03-12-00625-CV. All proceedings in the
2
Several suits were consolidated in Sierra Club v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Waste Control
Specialists, LLC, cause number D-1-GN-09-000894 and heard by the 98th District Court.
3
See Sierra Club v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, cause number D-1-GN-12-001586.
-2-
trial court in that case are stayed pending resolution of the accelerated appeal. See
TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8), (b)(West Supp. 2012).
On June 25, 2012, Andrews County filed suit against Sierra Club in cause number 18,881
in the 109th District Court of Andrews County alleging that it has tortiously interfered with the
lease agreement between Andrews County and WCS. The petition alleges that Sierra Club has
filed other suits in Travis County based on the 98th District Court’s judgment and has threatened
to seek injunctive relief prohibiting the shipment of waste to the disposal facility. On June 27,
2012, the 109th District Court granted Andrews County’s request for a TRO prohibiting Sierra
Club from seeking such injunctive relief and set a hearing on Andrews County’s request for a
temporary injunction for July 10, 2012. On July 9, 2012, the 109th District Court extended the
restraining order until July 23, 2012 and re-set the hearing for July 24, 2012. Sierra Club filed a
petition for writ of mandamus against the 109th District Court and on July 13, 2012, we stayed
enforcement of the TRO pending resolution of this mandamus proceeding.
MOOTNESS
Sierra Club raises three issues in this original proceeding: (1) the TRO is void because it
failed to include a reasonable explanation of the immediate and irreparable injury; (2) mandatory
venue exists in Travis County, and therefore, the trial court erred by issuing the TRO; and (3) the
TRO interferes with jurisdiction of a Travis County district court and the Third Court of
Appeals.4 Andrews County responds that all three issues are moot because the TRO expired on
July 23, 2012. Issues One and Three are clearly limited to the TRO. Issue Two, however,
concerns the applicability of mandatory venue provisions and Sierra Club has not strictly limited
4
The mandamus record does not reflect whether Sierra Club has filed an original proceeding in the Third Court of
Appeals to challenge the claimed interference with that court’s jurisdiction. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. §
22.221(a) (West 2004)(authorizing court of appeals to issue a writ of mandamus and all other writs necessary to
enforce the jurisdiction of the court).
-3-
that issue to the propriety of the TRO. The following discussion about mootness applies to
Issues One and Three, and to Issue Two but only to the extent it is related to the TRO. Sierra
Club’s more general arguments about the mandatory venue provisions raised in Issue Two are
not moot and will be addressed separately.
A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S. Ct. 1181,
1183, 71 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1982); In the Matter of S.J.C., 304 S.W.3d 563, 567 (Tex.App.--El Paso
2010, no pet.). Ordinarily, the expiration of an order granting injunctive or protective relief
renders the issue moot. Hermann Hospital v. Thu Nga Thi Tran, 730 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex.App.--
Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). Sierra Club argues that the TRO did not expire on July 23,
2012 because we granted its motion to stay. Our order expressly stayed “enforcement” of the
TRO but we did not suspend the expiration of the order. Indeed we question whether an
appellate court can stay the expiration of a TRO which will expire by its terms or operation of
law on a date certain. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 680; but see In re Cornyn, 27 S.W.3d 327, 331 n.11
(Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, orig. proceeding)(stating that TRO had not expired because
court of appeals stayed the order with the intention of staying the expiration date; the court went
on to hold that the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine
applied). If we reviewed the merits of the issues related to the TRO and found in favor of Sierra
Club, it would be unnecessary to dissolve the TRO because it has already expired. In other
words, our decision could not have a practical legal effect upon the controversy related to the
granting of the TRO. This is the classic definition of mootness. See Beltran v. Beltran, 324
S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2010, no pet.)(“A case is rendered moot when: (1) it
appears that a party seeks to obtain a judgment upon some controversy, when in reality none
-4-
exists; or (2) a party seeks a judgment upon some matter which cannot have a practical legal
effect upon a then existing controversy.”). Conversely, if we reviewed the merits of these same
issues, ruled against Sierra Club, and lifted the stay, the TRO could not go back into effect
because it expired on July 23, 2012 and it cannot be extended by the trial court. Again, our
decision would have no effect on the TRO. We conclude that Issues One and Three, and Issue
Two insofar as it is related to the TRO, are moot because the TRO has expired.
There are two exceptions which will allow an appellate court to address issues that are
otherwise moot: (1) capable of repetition yet evading review; and (2) collateral consequences.
In re S.J.C., 304 S.W.3d at 568, citing General Land Office of the State of Texas v. OXY U.S.A.,
Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex. 1990). “Capable of repetition yet evading review” is a rare
exception to the mootness doctrine. Texas A&M University-Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d
289, 290 (Tex. 2011); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex.2001). It is limited to
situations where: (1) the challenged act is of such short duration that the complaining party
cannot obtain review before the issue becomes moot; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation
that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. Yarbrough, 347
S.W.3d at 290. The “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception is further limited
because it has only been used to challenge unconstitutional acts performed by the government.
OXY U.S.A., 789 S.W.2d at 571; Trulock v. City of Duncanville, 277 S.W.3d 920, 924
(Tex.App.--Dallas 2009, no pet.).
It is undisputed that Sierra Club was unable to obtain review of the TRO prior to its
expiration. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 680 (limiting TRO to fourteen days and one extension of fourteen
days). The record does not support a finding that there is a reasonable expectation Sierra Club
would be subjected to the issuance of another TRO prior to the trial court conducting a hearing
-5-
on Andrews County’s request for a temporary injunction. Andrews County has already obtained
one extension of the TRO and Rule 680 provides that a TRO can be extended only once unless
subsequent extensions are unopposed. TEX.R.CIV.P. 680. Sierra Club is not challenging an
unconstitutional act on the part of the government. For these reasons, we conclude that the
capable of repetition yet evading review exception is inapplicable.
The “collateral consequences” exception has been applied when prejudicial events have
occurred “whose effects continued to stigmatize helpless or hated individuals long after the
unconstitutional judgment had ceased to operate.” In re Salgado, 53 S.W.3d 752, 757
(Tex.App.--El Paso 2001, orig. proceeding), quoting OXY U.S.A., 789 S.W.2d at 571. There are
no allegations which would bring this case within the collateral consequences exception.
Having determined that the issues related to the TRO are moot and no exception to the
mootness doctrine applies under the facts of this case, we overrule Issues One and Three and that
portion of Issue Two related to the issuance of the TRO. This outcome does not operate to leave
Sierra Club without recourse. Both parties acknowledge that Andrews County will move
forward with a hearing on its request for a temporary injunction which, whether granted or
denied, is subject to interlocutory appeal. TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4).
MANDATORY VENUE PROVISION
In Issue Two, Sierra Club argues that mandatory venue exists in Travis County.
Mandamus generally issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of
discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate
remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992)(orig. proceeding). When a
trial court fails to grant a motion to transfer venue pursuant to mandatory venue statutes,
mandamus is an available remedy and the relator is not required to show the lack of an
-6-
adequate remedy by appeal. TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 15.0642 (West 2002); In
re Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 270, 271 (Tex. 2008). The only issue
presented in such a case is the legal question whether the trial court properly interpreted the
mandatory venue provision. In re Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., 271 S.W.3d at 271.
Sierra Club does not allege in its mandamus petition that it filed a motion to transfer
venue or that the trial court has ruled on it and there is no evidence in the mandamus record that
the trial court has ruled on such a motion. Andrews County asserts in its response that Sierra
Club did not filed a motion to transfer until after it filed the mandamus petition and the trial court
has not had a hearing or ruled on the motion. We conclude that mandamus relief is not available
to Sierra Club because it has not obtained a ruling from the trial court on its motion to transfer
venue. We overrule Issue Two. Because Sierra Club has failed to establish its entitlement to
mandamus relief, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and lift the stay order.
November 28, 2012 _______________________________________________
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.
-7-