State v. Signal Drilling, LLC, Jaten Oil Company, and Riparia, LC

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-17-00412-CV
________________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS, TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
AND GEORGE P. BUSH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS TEXAS LAND COMMISSIONER, APPELLANTS
V.
SIGNAL DRILLING, LLC, JATEN OIL COMPANY, AND RIPARIA, L.C., APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 84th District Court
Hutchinson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 41,971; Honorable William D. “Bill” Smith, Presiding
December 20, 2017
ORDER
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
This case involves an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order denying a plea
to the jurisdiction filed by Appellants, the State of Texas, Texas General Land Office, and
George P. Bush, in his official capacity as the Texas Land Commissioner, in an action
filed by Signal Drilling, LLC, as plaintiff, Jaten Oil Company, as an involuntary plaintiff,
and Riparia, LC, as an intervenor. Ponderosa TX Operating, LLC, a party to the
proceeding below, but not a party to this interlocutory appeal, has filed its Motion for
Preservation of Property, as an intervenor in this appeal. Ponderosa is requesting that
this court “set a hearing for the approval of expenses,” or, in the alternative, “authorize
the Trial Court to enter such temporary orders as maybe [sic] necessary in order to
maintain and preserve the primary assets of this case.” We deny the relief requested.
Prior to Appellants perfecting this appeal, the trial court entered an order
authorizing Ponderosa to operate three oil and gas leases which are the subject of the
underlying litigation. Those leases are designated as the State AA, State AB, and State
AC leases. Pursuant to that order, Ponderosa was authorized to pay a portion of the
revenue from those leases (characterized as the disputed working interest) into a
Disputed Funds Account. The Honorable Kent Ries, a court-appointed Master, was then
authorized to review bills for approval and payment in accordance with the trial court’s
order.
Generally, while an appeal from an interlocutory order is pending, the trial court
retains jurisdiction of the case and, unless prohibited by statute, may make such further
orders as are necessary so long as it does not make an order that (1) is inconsistent with
any appellate court temporary order or (2) interferes with or impairs the jurisdiction of the
appellate court or the effectiveness of any relief sought or that may be granted on appeal.
TEX. R. APP. P. 29.5. One such limiting statute is section 51.014(b) of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code which provides that an interlocutory appeal of an order
denying a plea to the jurisdiction filed by a governmental unit stays commencement of a
trial and also stays “all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of the
appeal.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(b) (West Supp. 2017). “[T]he stay
2
set forth in section 51.014 is statutory and allows no room for discretion.” Swanson v.
Town of Shady Shores, Nos. 02-15-00351-CV & 02-15-00356-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS
9064, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 18, 2016, orig. proceeding) (quoting Sheinfeld,
Maley & Kay, P.C. v. Bellush, 61 S.W.3d 437 439 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no
pet.).
While this court may have authority to issue temporary orders necessary to
preserve the rights of the parties pending a final disposition of this appeal; TEX. R. APP.
P. 29.3, and it may have the authority to refer any enforcement proceedings to the trial
court with instructions to hear evidence and grant appropriate relief, or make findings and
recommendations and report them to this court; TEX. R. APP. P. 29.4, Ponderosa TX
Operating, LLC has failed to either request that relief or provide an adequate basis for
granting such relief. See Maples v. Muscletech, Inc., 74 S.W.3d 429, 431 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2002, no pet.). Accordingly, Ponderosa’s Motion for Preservation of Property is
denied.
It is so ORDERED.
Per Curiam
3