Case ID: sw3d_511/html/0256-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Caroline BUSWELL, Appellant v. THE GWSPI COMPANY, LLC, as Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust, NA, Trustee of the Jeffrey P. Blanchard 2013 Family Trust, Appellee
    No. 04-15-00398-CV
    Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.
    July 6, 2015
    Dissenting Order of Justice Martinez July 10, 2015
    
      Andrew George Jubinsky, Dallas, TX, Lance V. Clack, Figari & Davenport, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Appellant.
    John Mostyn, The Mostyn Law Firm, Caroline Maida, Mostyn Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Appellee.
    Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice, Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice, dissenting with opinion to follow,Patricia 0. Alvarez, Justice.
   Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Appellant’s Emergency Motion to Stay is GRANTED. See Tex.R.App. P. 29.3; Capital Int’l, Inc. v. Sage Apartments, L.L.C., 167 S.W.3d 432, 437 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.). All further proceedings, including discovery, at the trial court level are STAYED pending resolution of this appeal or further order of this court.

Dissent to order granting appellant’s EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY

Dissenting Opinion by:

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

I dissent to the panel’s granting of appellant’s Emergency Motion to Stay, which stayed all further proceedings, including discovery, at the trial court level. An interlocutory appeal is available only in limited circumstances. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2015). Section 51.014 provides that an interlocutory appeal may be brought after the denial of a special appearance, but the statute does not provide a stay of anything but the trial pending resolution of the appeal. See id. § 51.014(a)(7), (b). Appellant relies on Oryx Capital Int’l, Inc. v. Sage Apartments, L.L.C., 167 S.W.3d 432, 437 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.), in an attempt to work around subsection 51.014(b), but that reliance is misplaced because Oryx contained circumstances not present in the case before us. Therefore, I do not believe circumstances exist that would support this court imposing a stay beyond that expressly authorized by subsection 51.014(b).