In Re Spring Creek Ranch Community Association, Inc v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted and Memorandum
Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed April 30, 2024.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-23-00283-CV
IN RE SPRING CREEK RANCH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
55th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2019-74251
MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION
Despite a remarkably wordy opinion, the majority never substantively
engages with the controlling statute in reaching its conclusion that the trial court
abused its discretion.
Although relator’s mandamus record did include its Rule 194 disclosures,
the majority fails to discuss whether relator met its statutory obligations. See Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.004(d) (“A defendant may not 1 designate a
person as a responsible third party with respect to a claimant’s cause of action after
the applicable limitations period on the cause of action has expired with respect to
the responsible third party if the defendant has failed to comply with its
obligations, if any, to timely disclose that the person may be designated as a
responsible third party under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.”) (emphasis
added); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(2) (subsection (1) requires disclosure of “the
name, address, and telephone number of any person who may be designated as a
responsible third party”); see generally In re Mobile Mini, Inc., 596 S.W.3d 781,
784–85 (Tex. 2020).
At issue in the trial court was whether relator’s disclosure of responsible
third parties in its amended disclosure more than two years into the lawsuit was
timely. The majority ignores this.
The majority opinion is a recitation of established generic caselaw about
responsible third parties. Absent is a discussion of how the trial court abused its
discretion to justify this court’s grant of mandamus relief.
Relator requested oral argument. It is clear to me that argument would have
benefitted the panel in understanding the petition. Unfortunately the majority
refuses to allow oral argument.
The appropriate ruling from this court in the absence of an abuse of
discretion is to deny the petition. I would grant oral argument, and unless that
changed my mind that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, I would deny the
petition.
1
Code Construction Act, Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.016(5) (“‘May not’ imposes a
prohibition and is synonymous with ‘shall not.’”).
2
I dissent to refusing oral argument, and I dissent to granting the petition.
/s/ Charles A. Spain
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain (Spain,
J., dissenting).
3