In Re 1097 Water Sports, Inc. v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-24-00194-CV
__________________
IN RE 1097 WATER SPORTS, INC.
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23-05-07371-CV
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, 1097 Water Sports, Inc. argues that the
trial court abused its discretion by failing to state the reasons it granted the plaintiff’s
motion for new trial after previously signing a final, take-nothing judgment based
on 1097 Water Sports’ motion for summary judgment.
The references to cases that 1097 Water Sports relies on in its petition are
inapt. In those cases, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that extraordinary relief
was necessary to protect the rights of the respective relators in those cases because
in each case, the trial court set aside the jury’s verdict by granting a motion for new
1
trial without an explanation despite Article 1, section 15 of the Constitution’s
guarantee of the right to a trial by jury on all issues of fact. 1
The judgment that the trial court set aside when awarding the new trial at issue
here is based on a ruling granting a motion for summary judgment—a proceeding
that, under our rules of procedure, is a motion presented to the court and not to a
jury. 2 For that reason, the trial court’s decision to set aside the judgment it rendered
on the defendant’s motion doesn’t implicate the defendant’s right to a trial by jury.
Additionally, it’s clear that when the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, it relied on the fact the plaintiff had failed to file a timely
response. The trial court then chose to set aside its take-nothing judgment, after the
plaintiff filed a motion for new trial asserting that his failure to file a timely response
to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment resulted from either his
inadvertence or mistake. Under the circumstances, the relator has not shown that an
abuse of discretion occurred.
1See In re Davenport, 522 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tex. 2017) (original proceeding);
In re Bent, 487 S.W.3d 170, 175 (Tex. 2016) (original proceeding); In re
Whataburger Rests. LP, 429 S.W.3d 597, 598 (Tex. 2014) (original proceeding); In
re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746, 756-57 (Tex. 2013) (original
proceeding); In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685, 687-88 (Tex. 2012)
(original proceeding); In re Cook, 356 S.W.3d 493, 495 (Tex. 2011) (original
proceeding); In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Tex.
2009) (original proceeding).
2Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c).
2
For all these reasons, the relator’s petition for relief is denied. 3
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on June 12, 2024
Opinion Delivered June 13, 2024
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
3