In Re PINNERGY, LTD v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued August 8, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-23-00022-CV
———————————
IN RE PINNERGY LTD., LADONTA SWEATT, AND UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, Relators
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 13, 2023, relators, Pinnergy Ltd. and LaDonta Sweatt, filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s December 27, 2022
order denying the motion to dismiss the underlying cause pursuant to the doctrine of
forum non conveniens filed by Pinnergy, Sweatt, and relator, Union Pacific Railroad
Company. 1 Pinnergy and Sweatt’s mandamus petition asserted that the trial court’s
denial of the motion to dismiss amounted to an abuse of discretion and they had no
adequate remedy on appeal. Pinnergy and Sweatt therefore requested that this Court
“grant th[e] writ and require the trial court to dismiss the case.”
In connection with their mandamus petition, Pinnergy and Sweatt filed an
“Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings of Trial Court.” In their emergency
motion, Pinnergy and Sweatt requested a stay of the underlying trial court
proceedings pending resolution of their petition for writ of mandamus. On January
17, 2023, the Court granted the motion and stayed the underlying trial court
proceedings.
On January 30, 2023, Union Pacific filed its “Joinder in Petition for Writ of
Mandamus,” in which Union Pacific “join[ed] the [p]etition for [w]rit of
[m]andamus filed by” Pinnergy and Sweatt, challenging the trial court’s December
27, 2022 order.2 In its joinder, Union Pacific also asserted that the trial court abused
its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, and that it
1
The underlying case is Thomas Richards and Hunter Sinyard v. Pinnergy Ltd.,
LaDonta Sweatt, and Union Pacific Railroad Co., Cause No. 2022-45392, in the
80th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jeralynn Manor
presiding.
2
Pursuant to its “Joinder in Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” in which Union Pacific
requested issuance of a writ of mandamus related to the trial court’s December 27,
2022 order, Union Pacific is also a relator in this original proceeding. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.2 (“The party seeking the relief is the relator.”).
2
lacked an adequate remedy on appeal. Union Pacific therefore requested that this
Court “issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to (1) grant the motion to
dismiss for forum non conveniens[] and (2) dismiss the case as to all parties.”
Background
The underlying litigation was filed in Harris County by real party in interest,
Thomas Richards, against Pinnergy, Sweatt, and Union Pacific. Richards alleged
causes of action for negligence against relators in connection with a collision
between an 18-wheeler tanker-trailer and a Union Pacific locomotive. According to
his suit, on or around November 22, 2021, Richards was working in the course and
scope of his employment as an engineer for Union Pacific when the locomotive
Richards was working on collided with a tanker-trailer in Red River Parish,
Louisiana.
The suit further alleged that the tanker-trailer was owned by Pinnergy and
operated by Sweatt. Richards asserted that Sweatt negligently stopped the
tanker-trailer on a railroad crossing, into the path of the locomotive, causing a
collision and injuring Richards.
On September 20, 2022, real party in interest, Hunter Sinyard, filed a petition
in intervention to Richards’ original petition. In his petition in intervention, Sinyard
alleged that he was working as a conductor on the Union Pacific locomotive at the
time of the collision with the tanker-trailer, and that he also sustained injuries in the
3
collision. Sinyard alleged causes of action for negligence against Pinnergy, Sweatt,
and Union Pacific.
As noted above, the collision at issue in the underlying litigation, which was
filed in Harris County, occurred in Red River Parish, Louisiana. According to
Richards’ original petition, he is a resident of Louisiana. Richards further alleged
that Union Pacific was authorized to do business, and had an agent for service of
process, in Texas, and that Pinnergy “was formed in Texas and [was] authorized to
do business in Texas.” Finally, Richards alleged that Sweatt was “an individual and
resident of Marshall, Texas.” In his petition in intervention, Sinyard stated that he
was a resident of Arkansas.
On September 12, 2022, Pinnergy and Sweatt filed a motion to dismiss the
underlying litigation for forum non conveniens. On October 12, 2022, Union Pacific
joined in Pinnergy and Sweatt’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Also
on October 12, 2022, Pinnergy, Sweatt, and Union Pacific filed a Notice of
Submission, setting their motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens on the trial
court’s October 24, 2022 submission docket.
Richards and Sinyard failed to file a response to the motions prior to the
submission date and the trial court entered an order granting the motions to dismiss
on October 25, 2022. However, on October 31, 2022, Richards filed a motion to
reconsider, asserting that he was not provided the statutorily required twenty-one
4
days’ notice prior to submission of the motions to dismiss.
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 71.051(d) (“The court may rule on a
motion filed under this section only after a hearing with notice to all parties not less
than 21 days before the date specified for the hearing. . . . The moving party shall
have the responsibility to request and obtain a hearing on such motion . . . .”). On
November 26, 2022, the trial court granted Richards’ motion to reconsider and
withdrew its order granting the motion to dismiss. The trial court further stated that
Richards could file a response to the motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens
“in advance of the hearing or submission to be scheduled with at least [twenty-one]
days[’] notice.”
The mandamus record reflects that on December 21, 2022, Richards filed a
response to the motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens. On December 23,
2022, Pinnergy and Sweatt filed a “Motion for Leave to File Sur Reply.” According
to Pinnergy and Sweatt’s mandamus petition, the trial court did not consider their
motion for leave. Pinnergy and Sweatt asserted that the “trial court then summarily
denied [their] motion to dismiss, without providing the requested oral argument and
without providing any written reasons.” The mandamus record provided to this
Court does not contain evidence that Pinnergy, Sweatt, or Union Pacific requested
an oral argument or served any notice of an oral argument subsequent to the trial
court withdrawing its October 25, 2022 order. Similarly, the mandamus record does
5
not contain evidence that they requested a submission date or served any notice of
submission for their motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens after the
withdrawal of the October 25, 2022 order. Despite that, the record reflects that, on
December 27, 2022, the trial court entered an order denying the motions to dismiss.
Burden to Obtain Mandamus Relief
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in limited
circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992).
Mandamus relief is only appropriate where the relators establish that the trial court
has abused its discretion or violated a legal duty, and they have no adequate remedy
by appeal. See id. Further, “it is important to note that as the parties seeking relief,
[the] [r]elators bear the burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record to
establish their right to relief.” See In re Barnes, 655 S.W.3d 658, 668 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2022, orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7.
Our review of the mandamus petitions and the mandamus record provided to
this Court reflect that Pinnergy, Sweatt, and Union Pacific have failed to establish
that they are entitled to the mandamus relief requested in their petitions. See In re
Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 430, 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, orig.
proceeding) (“It is relators’ responsibility to provide the court with a record
supporting their petition for writ of mandamus. Because relators have not provided
this court with a sufficient record showing they are entitled to relief, they have not
6
established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus.”).
Accordingly, we lift the stay imposed by our January 17, 2023 order and deny the
petitions for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motion
is dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
7