State v. Jimmy Glen Riemer, Richard Coon, Jr., June Meetze Coon Trust, Hap Johnson Realty Co., LLC, and W.R. Edwards, Jr. D/B/A W.R. Edwards, Jr. Oil and Gas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-18-00002-CV
THE STATE OF TEXAS AND JERRY PATTERSON AS COMMISSIONER
OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS,
AND COMMISSIONER GEORGE P. BUSH, APPELLANTS
V.
JIMMY GLEN RIEMER, RICHARD COON, JR., JUNE MEETZE COON
TRUST, HAP JOHNSON REALTY CO., LLC, AND W.R. EDWARDS, JR.
D/B/A W.R. EDWARDS, JR. OIL AND GAS, ET AL., APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 84th District Court
Hutchinson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 30,441-B, Honorable Curt Brancheau, Presiding
February 15, 2019
ORDER
Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
In this interlocutory appeal, appellants the State of Texas, the General Land Office
of the State of Texas, George P. Bush, Commissioner, and former commissioner Jerry
Patterson (hereinafter collectively “GLO”) challenge the trial court’s order denying their
plea to the jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp.
2018) (permitting the interlocutory appeal of an order granting or denying a governmental
unit’s plea to the jurisdiction). The dispute in the underlying lawsuit primarily concerns
the boundary between the State-owned riverbed of the Canadian River in Hutchinson
County and the riparian surface and mineral interests of appellees Jimmy Glen Riemer,
et al. Because of the pendency of the interlocutory appeal all proceedings in the trial
court are stayed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(b) (interlocutory appeal
under subsection 51.014(a)(8) stays commencement of trial and “all other proceedings in
the trial court”).
Appellees have filed a motion asking us to modify the stay of proceedings in the
trial court so they may seek that court’s appointment of a receiver to manage the disputed
property and oppose the Texas Railroad Commission’s effort to plug abandoned oil and
gas wells on the property. The GLO responded in opposition to appellees’ motion,
pointing out the Railroad Commission is not a party to the underlying suit, and contending
resolution of the riverbed-ownership dispute has no bearing on the Railroad
Commission’s legal obligation to plug inactive or abandoned wells; appellees’ motion to
modify the stay is an improper collateral attack on a Railroad Commission order; and a
challenge of the Railroad Commission’s plugging operations must be pursued according
to rules and statutes governing plugging. In their reply to the GLO’s response, appellees
emphasize their request for appointment of a receiver to “operate the wells and thereby
remove them from the inactive status that triggered the intended plugging.” They deny
their motion is a collateral attack on a Railroad Commission order but even were that
correct, they continue, the trial court should have the opportunity to appoint a receiver to
operate the wells. Appellees further assert that by joining the Railroad Commission, if
2
necessary, all issues can be addressed jointly and it is in the best interest of the GLO and
appellees to avoid expending public funds for plugging the wells.
The statutory stay of section 51.014(c) arises automatically and is absolute.
Superior HealthPlan, Inc. v. Badawo, No. 03-18-00691-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10797
(Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 21, 2018, per curiam order). A trial court has no discretion to
ignore its effect. In re Texas Educ. Agency, 441 S.W.3d 747, 750 (Tex. App.—Austin
2014, orig. proceeding). Appellate Rule 29.3 grants an appellate court discretion to make
temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights until disposition of the appeal.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3; see also City of Sealy v. Town Park Ctr., No. 01-17-00127-CV,
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 8106, at *2 n.1, *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 24, 2017,
no pet.). And in one instance we exercised our discretion to modify the stay for the limited
purpose of allowing the continued operation of a temporary order of the trial court
authorizing a court-appointed master to review bills and submit them to the trial court for
final approval and payment. State v. Signal Drilling, LLC, No. 07-17-00412-CV, 2018
Tex. App. LEXIS 727 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 23, 2018, per curiam order); compare
Bishop v. City of Austin, No. 03-16-00580-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13920, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Austin Sep. 20, 2016, per curiam order) (modifying the stay on a joint motion for
the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to sign confidentiality orders) with Badawo,
2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10797 (refusing to modify the stay so that appellee could pursue
motions to sanction appellants and their counsel; dismiss their notice of appeal; and
compel discovery responses). The modification of the stay appellees seek here
dramatically exceeds that we authorized in Signal Drilling, where we merely lifted the stay
to permit continued compliance with a trial court order made prior to the interlocutory
3
appeal. Signal Drilling, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 727, at *2. Appellees seek to expand the
litigation in the trial court by pursuing appointment of a receiver, and by seeking relief that
would require joining the Railroad Commission as a party to oppose its proposed plugging
operations. Accordingly, in light of the facts and law discussed, we deny appellees’
motion to modify the stay.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
4