in Re Robert v. Buck and Queen Isabella Development Joint Venture

NUMBER 13-15-00434-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ROBERT V. BUCK AND
QUEEN ISABELLA DEVELOPMENT JOINT VENTURE
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relators Robert V. Buck and Queen Isabella Development Joint Venture filed a
petition for writ of mandamus on September 23, 2015 seeking to vacate the trial court’s
order severing claims in the underlying cause into separate trials.2 By emergency motion
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2The underlying case has a lengthy history which we need not recount herein. See Buck v. Palmer,
381 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2012); Buck v. Palmer, No. 13-09-00192-CV, 2013 WL 5428116, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi Sept. 26, 2013, pet. denied).
for immediate temporary relief, relators seek to stay the trial of this matter which is
currently set for Monday, September 28, 2015.
Ordinarily, mandamus relief lies when the trial court has abused its discretion and
a party has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124,
135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex.
1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so
arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it
clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. See In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P.,
164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). In determining whether appeal is
an adequate remedy, we consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of
mandamus review. In re BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 244 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex. 2008) (orig.
proceeding). Mandamus may be an appropriate avenue by which a party may seek
review of a trial court's order regarding severance. See, e.g., In re Reynolds, 369 S.W.3d
638, 646 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding); In re Liu, 290 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2009, orig. proceeding).
A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to sever or consolidate
causes. See Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677, 682 (Tex. 1956); see Guar. Fed. Sav.
Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. 1990). To establish that
severance is appropriate, a party must first show that: (1) the dispute involves multiple
causes of action; (2) the claims sought to be severed would be proper subjects of
independently filed lawsuits; and (3) the claims are not so interwoven with each other that
they involve the same facts and issues. In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. 2011)
(orig. proceeding). Severance should be granted “to avoid prejudice, do justice, and
increase convenience.” Id. at 613. And just because a claim may be severed does not
mean that it must be. Williams v. State, 406 S.W.3d 273, 280 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2013, pet. denied). A trial court has a duty to sever only if all of the facts and
circumstances unquestionably require separate trials to prevent manifest injustice, if there
are no facts or circumstances tending to support a contrary conclusion, and if the parties'
legal rights will not be prejudiced by severance. Id.; see In re Reynolds, 369 S.W.3d at
650.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
under the applicable standard of review, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself
entitled to the relief sought. See In re State, 355 S.W.3d at 614; Womack, 291 S.W.2d
at 682; Williams, 406 S.W.3d at 280; In re Reynolds, 369 S.W.3d at 650. Accordingly,
the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for immediate temporary relief
are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
24th day of September, 2015.