NO. 07-07 -012 1-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JU LY5, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E Z UR IC H AM ER IC AN IN SU RA NC E C OM PAN Y , AS SU BR OGEE OF H UN TER I ND US TRIES , I NC . AN D JOH NN IE H ILL, RE LATOR

_________

_________

_________

______ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Rel ator , Z ur ic h Amer ic an In surance, as su bro gee of H unter Indu str ies , I nc. and Johnn ie Hi ll , pet it ion thi s c our t t o i ss ue a w ri t of

m andamus di re cti ng the Hon orabl e C har les Rams ay , J udg e for the 428 Dis tr ict Cour t, to v acat e his order

of December

15, 2006. F or th the reason s s tated , w e deny rela tor ’s peti ti on. Re la t o r c o m p la in s t h a t J u d ge Ra m s a y’s o rd e r gr a n t in g re li e f t o E li za b e t h G u t ie rr e z, re al par ty i n i nterest , is void be caus e i t w as re ndered w it hout the t ri al cour t hav ing jurisdiction, eithe r becau se 1) the order grant ing relief w as issued af

ter the summ ary judgme nt in the und erly ing suit had beco me f inal; or 2 ) th e trial jud ge o f t he 4 28 Distri ct

th Cou rtdi d nothav e j ur is dicti on to iss ue an order in a cas e before the 274 Dis tr ic t C our t. th2 Bac kg ro und Rel ator su ed Gu ti er re zand Mi g uel Gomezi n the under ly ing proceed ing s for damag es ar is ing from an automobi le acc ide nt. In re lat or ’s or ig ina l peti ti on, rela tor so ug ht re cov er y of damag es from Gutier re zfor negl ig ent entr ust ment; addi ti onal ly , rela tor pray ed for pre- jud g ment and pos t-

jud g ment i nterest , c our t c ost s, re asona ble att or ney fees and for oth er relief

to w hich th ey w ere en titled. Th e case w as assigned to the 274 Distri ct Court th o f H a ys C o u n ty w ith Jud ge W illiam Henry presidin g. On Dece mb er 5, 20 05, a default judgme nt w as en tered a ga in s tG o m e z . Th e suit against Go me zw as severed f rom th is cas e on Aug u st 8, 2006. Al so on Aug ust8 , J udg e H enr y heard rela tor ’s M oti on for th Summary

Ju dg ment ag ain st Guti er re z , w hic h req uest ed j udg ment equ al to t he damag es pai d by rela tor to the v icti m of the ac ci dent, pre- jud gm e n t interest , and pos t- jud g ment int erest , butdi d notreq uestreli ef of co urt c ost s o r attor ney fees. J u d g e H enr

y g ra nted re lat or ’s su mmary

j udg ment and si g ned an or d e r to t h at effect on Aug ust8, 2006. The order di d notco ntai n a M other H ubbard c lau se. Fol low ing the tria l cour t’ s e ntr y of summar

y j udg ment, Guti er re zfil ed a moti on for new tr ial thatwa s d e n ie d b y J udg e H enr y on N ov ember

21 . Bel iev ing thather ti me for st fili ng noti ce of appeal w as ru nni ng out, Gut ier re zfil ed a sec ond moti on ent it led , “ Mo ti on for Rehe aring, fo r New

Tri al, to Va cate Or M odif y Prior Orders, and to W ithdra w /Strike Dee med A d m issions .” G uti er re zhad a hear ing on t hat mot ion before Judg e R amsay of th e 42 8 Dist ric t Co u rtof Ha ys Co u n ty on De ce m b e r 15 , 2 0 0 6 . Af te r th e he a rin g, Ju d ge th Rams ay g ra nted Guti er re z ’s moti on and v acat ed J udg e Henr y ’s Aug ust8 order

g ra nti ng th3

summar y j udg ment i n fav or

of re lat or . Rel ator re q uest s t his co urt t o order Ju dg e R amsay to v acat e hi s o rd er

of Dec ember

15th and to proceed no fur ther i n thi s c ase. Fi nal ity of Aug ust8 Order

th Fi rs t, re lat or

co ntends thatthe Aug ust8 order di spos ed of all cl aims and w as a final th orde r. Since Gutie rrezf iled a mo tion for n ew trial wi thin thirty days of the Au gust 8 order,

th re lat or contends that the tri al cour t had plenar

y jur is dicti on under ru le 329b( e) of the Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re to v acat e the j udg ment for thi rty day s after the moti on for new tr ial w as ov er ru led , ei ther

by operati on of l aw

or by w ri tten o rd er . T EX . R. C IV . P. 32 9b(e ). R ela to r c on te nd s J ud g e R am s ay ’ s o rde r w as i s s ue d aft er

t he e x pi rat i on o f s uc h ti me per iod . In de ter mini ng final ity , w e are to er r on the s ide of preser v ing appeal s b y

ens ur ing that the r ig ht t o appeal is not los t by ov er ly tec hni cal appl ic ati on of t he law . See Le hmann v . H ar-C on C or p., 39 S. W .3d 1 91, 2 0 5 ( Tex . 200 1) . A j udg ment i ss ued w it hout a conventio nal trial o n the m erits is fina l fo r purpose s of app eal if , and only if , eithe r it actu ally dis poses of all cl a im s a n d par ti es then before t he c our t, re g ardle ss of it s l ang uag e, or state s w ith u n m is t a k able clarity thatit is a f inal judgme nt as to all claims and all parties. Id. at 19 2- 93. A c lai m is not w aiv ed me rely bec ause iti s n ot present ed i n a mot ion for summar y j udg ment. See Mc Nal ly v . G uev ara, 52 S.W .3d 195, 196 (Tex . 2001). Als o, on a p p e a l , w e d o n o tp re s u me t hat the moti o n fo r s u mm a r

y j u d g me n ta d d re s s e s a l l o f a mov ant’ s c lai ms. See Sw . Inv s. Di v ersi fied, Inc . v . Est ate o f Mi esz kuc , 171 S.W .3d 4 61, 467 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [14 Dist.] 2005 , no pe t.). th4

In t his ca se, the order g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg m e n t in f a vor of rela tor does not cont ain a Mothe r Hubb ard cl ause , nor does it dispo se of court costs or atto rney fees. Therefore, w it hout cl ear i ndi cat ion thatrela tor

w as w aiv ing its cl aim of attor ney fees, see Dal las F ire F ig hters A ss ’n v . Bo oth R esearch Group, Inc ., 1 5 6 S.W .3d 1 88, 1 98 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 2005, pet. deni ed) ( par ty w aiv ed at tor ney

fees by l etter pr ior to entr y of sum ma ry

judgmen t), and w ithou t a clear indicat ion of the trial court’s inten tion to disp ose of all issues, w e con clude thatthe issue s of atto rn e y f e e s a nd co urt costs rem ain unresol v ed. H ence, the order of Aug ust8 i s n ot a final j udg ment.

th Di s t ri c tCo u rtA u t h o ri t y In an y co unty i n w hic h the re are tw o or more dis tr ic t cour

ts, in cas e of ab senc e, an y of t he dis tr ict jud g es mayhol d c our t for another . See T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 24 .30 3(c) (V er non 200 4 ). Se e al so T EX . C ON ST . ar t. V, § 11; T EX . R. C IV . P. 330( e) . Any of the district judges w ithi n a c o u n t y may hear an d de term ine an y part or question of

any case or proceed ing pendi ng i n any of the c our

ts, and any

othe r of t h e d istri ct jud g es may compl ete t he hear ing and re nder j udg ment in the cas e or proceed ing . T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 24.303( c) ( Ver non 200 4) . Any of the d is tr ic t jud ges m ay hear and deter mine mo tions for new tria ls a n d m a y e n ter judgme nt or issue ord ers on th em in the cou rt in w hic h the cas e or proceed ing is pendi ng w it hout transfer ri ng the cas e or proceed ing . See id. The di str ict j udg e i n w hose cour t t he matt er

i s pendi ng m ay

proce ed to hear, compl ete, a n d d e te rmine t hat matter or al l or any par t of any othe r matter

and re nder

a fina l jud g ment. Id.5

I n t h is ca s e , b o t h t ri a l c o u rtd is t ri c tju d ge s h a ve ju ri s d ic t io n in Ha ys Co u n t y. Therefore, bo th t ri al cour t di str ict j udg es had c oncur re nt jur is dicti on to hear anypar t of the proce edin g. See Pinna cle Gas Treat ing, Inc. v . Read , 160 S.W .3d 564 , 566 (Tex. 2005 ). No fo r m a l o rd e r i s n e c e s s a ry t o gra n tju ri s d ic t io n t o Ju d ge Ra m s a y. Se e id . Si n c e we hav e c oncl uded t hat t he order si g ned byJudg e Henr y on Aug ust8, 2006 w as not a final judgme nt, a ll i ssues have notb een d ispose d of byJudge Henry; therefore, th e 27 4 district th c o u rtm a in t a in s it s ju ri s d ic t io n . Li k e wis e , si n c e t h e d is t ri c tc o u rt s o f H a ys Co u n t y h a ve conc ur re nt j ur is dicti on, t he 428 di str ic t c our t al so has jur is dicti on ov er the pending su it . th Con cl usi on For the foreg oin g reason s, w e deny rela tor ’s peti ti on for mandamus.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice